Below is a comprehensive and meticulously detailed discussion of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) as it relates to labor law and social legislation in the Philippines, with particular reference to the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code (notably Articles 219(c) and 26 under the old numbering system), as well as the Board’s jurisdiction, authority, and the nature of the reliefs it provides. While the Labor Code has undergone renumbering and amendments, the traditional references are often retained for academic and professional ease. What follows is a thorough exposition integrating both statutory foundations and administrative frameworks.
1. Statutory and Historical Framework
The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) is an agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), established under Executive Order No. 126 (Reorganization Act of the DOLE) and further supported by subsequent issuances. Its creation was part of the Philippine government’s thrust to streamline labor dispute settlement mechanisms—shifting away from purely adversarial, litigious processes towards more amicable, consensual, and party-driven resolutions.
(a) Relevant Labor Code Provisions
Article 26 (Original Numbering) and its cognates in the Labor Code’s Book V set out broad state policies on labor relations, encouraging modes of dispute settlement that avoid prolonged conflict. Although Article 26 itself may not specifically mention the NCMB, it is generally construed as part of the foundational policy statements in the Labor Code that guide the interpretation of all subsequent provisions pertaining to dispute resolution.
Article 219(c) (Original Numbering) defines terms within the field of labor relations. Under the old numbering system (pre-2015 re-enumeration), Article 219 provided definitions that apply throughout Book V of the Labor Code. Paragraph (c) of said Article included or covered “voluntary arbitration” and other terms relevant to consensual dispute resolution processes. While “conciliation” and “mediation” might not be explicitly defined in that exact paragraph, these definitions, as well as the overall statutory intent, buttress the conceptual framework from which the NCMB draws its mandate.
After the renumbering of the Labor Code by DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, and further amendments, the specific article references may have shifted. Nonetheless, the concepts remain anchored in the principles originally laid out, where the NCMB’s role fits squarely into the policy of promoting voluntary and amicable settlement of labor disputes.
(b) Creation and Empowerment Through Executive Issuances
While the Labor Code provides the policy backbone, it was Executive Order No. 126 (s. 1987) which formally created the NCMB. This EO vested in the NCMB the powers and functions of conciliation, mediation, and the administration of the voluntary arbitration program. Subsequent rules and regulations issued by the DOLE and the NCMB have further fleshed out its jurisdiction, procedures, and the modes of relief that parties may avail of.
2. Mandate and Functions of the NCMB
The NCMB is mandated to promote and maintain industrial peace by encouraging and facilitating the voluntary settlement of labor disputes. Unlike the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the NCMB does not exercise adjudicatory powers to issue binding judgments. Its emphasis is on:
Conciliation and Mediation: Bringing disputing parties together to arrive at mutually acceptable terms without resorting to litigation, strike, or lockout.
Preventive Mediation: Intervening at the earliest stage of a potential dispute (e.g., when a notice of strike or lockout has been filed or is impending) to prevent escalation. Preventive mediation aims to resolve issues before they mature into full-blown industrial actions.
Voluntary Arbitration Support: Providing administrative and technical support to the voluntary arbitration system, maintaining a roster of accredited voluntary arbitrators, and facilitating the arbitration process upon agreement of the parties.
Thus, the NCMB’s primary function is facilitative rather than coercive. It relies on the willing cooperation of the parties to reach an amicable solution. The Board’s conciliators and mediators engage in shuttle diplomacy, joint conferences, and help parties brainstorm creative solutions.
3. Jurisdiction of the NCMB
(a) Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The NCMB has jurisdiction over labor disputes that may lead to strikes, lockouts, or other forms of industrial action. This generally includes:
Collective Bargaining Deadlocks: Disputes arising from collective bargaining negotiations where parties cannot agree on certain economic or non-economic terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Unresolved Grievances: Labor issues that cannot be resolved at the plant-level grievance machinery stage and which the parties agree to refer to conciliation or mediation before resorting to more formal avenues.
Preventive Mediation Cases: Situations where a Notice of Strike (NOS) or Notice of Lockout (NOL) has been filed but, at the instance of either party or the NCMB conciliator, the dispute is converted into a preventive mediation case to avoid the statutory countdown to a strike or lockout.
(b) Persons and Entities Within Its Jurisdiction
The NCMB’s jurisdiction generally covers employers, employees, and legitimate labor organizations operating within the Philippines, particularly in the private sector. Public sector disputes may fall under separate mechanisms, though the Board may sometimes play a facilitative role depending on legislative and administrative rules.
(c) Distinction from NLRC and Voluntary Arbitrators
While the NLRC is an adjudicatory body with quasi-judicial powers to issue decisions, orders, and awards, the NCMB merely facilitates settlement. Should conciliation and mediation fail, and should the parties not elect voluntary arbitration, the matter may proceed before the NLRC or appropriate voluntary arbitrator in accordance with the Labor Code and the parties’ agreement.
4. Nature of Proceedings Before the NCMB
(a) Informal and Non-Adversarial Process
NCMB proceedings are not formal trials. There are no rigid procedural rules akin to courtroom litigation. Instead, the process is highly flexible, with the conciliator-mediator actively guiding the negotiations and encouraging open communication. These negotiations are generally confidential, and statements made in the course of conciliation and mediation are not admissible against either party in any subsequent proceeding. This confidentiality encourages candor and more genuine efforts at reaching a resolution.
(b) Voluntariness and Party Autonomy
A distinguishing hallmark of the NCMB process is its reliance on party autonomy. The settlement, if reached, is the parties’ own creation. This results in higher compliance rates since both sides generally feel more invested in an outcome they shaped. The NCMB facilitators cannot impose a solution; their role is to persuade, suggest, and offer possible frameworks for compromise.
5. Reliefs and Outcomes Facilitated by the NCMB
(a) Settlement Agreements
The primary “relief” that emerges from NCMB proceedings is the voluntary settlement agreement. Such an agreement may:
- Include improved employment terms, wage adjustments, benefit enhancements, or clarified interpretation of certain provisions in a CBA.
- Set up additional mechanisms for future dispute avoidance (e.g., more robust grievance machinery provisions, joint labor-management committees).
- Provide “win-win” solutions that, while not strictly required by law, reflect both parties’ willingness to give and take in order to maintain harmonious relations.
Once forged, these agreements are typically reduced to writing and signed by both parties. While the NCMB does not have coercive power to enforce these agreements in the same manner as a court, such agreements, as contracts, are binding on the parties. In case of non-compliance, the aggrieved party may seek enforcement through the appropriate labor arbitral or judicial forum.
(b) Conversion to Preventive Mediation
If a Notice of Strike or Lockout is filed, the NCMB can persuade the parties to convert the matter into a preventive mediation case. This “conversion” does not in itself grant a final relief, but it effectively halts the strike/lockout countdown and creates a controlled environment to discuss issues before industrial action can legally commence. A successful preventive mediation can result in a written agreement that forestalls the strike or lockout and reinstates industrial harmony.
(c) Referral to Voluntary Arbitration
If the parties are unable to arrive at a settlement but prefer not to resort to compulsory arbitration, the NCMB can assist by referring the dispute to a voluntary arbitrator. This is less a “relief” and more of a procedural pivot: it allows the parties to choose a neutral third party who will issue a binding decision. The NCMB supports this process through its database of accredited voluntary arbitrators and by providing logistical assistance.
6. Interaction with Other Institutions
With the NLRC: Should conciliation and mediation fail at the NCMB level, the dispute—depending on its nature—may proceed to the NLRC, where formal adjudication ensues. Parties often view NCMB conciliation as a necessary step before litigation, attempting to avoid costly and time-consuming legal battles.
With DOLE Offices: The NCMB works closely with regional DOLE offices, making sure that labor policies promoting voluntary dispute settlement are consistently implemented nationwide. They may coordinate to ensure that labor compliance and enforcement issues identified during conciliation are subsequently addressed.
With Other Tripartite Partners: The NCMB’s function aligns with the state policy of encouraging tripartism (government, labor, and management) in labor policy formulation and dispute prevention strategies. The Board may thus cooperate with various tripartite bodies to ensure stable labor-management relations.
7. Jurisprudence and Policy Developments
Philippine jurisprudence has consistently recognized the NCMB’s role as a non-adjudicatory body intended to foster voluntary settlements. The Supreme Court, in several cases, has underscored that exhausting conciliation and mediation at the NCMB level is consistent with the Labor Code’s preference for amicable settlement of disputes. Thus, attempts by disputants to circumvent NCMB processes prematurely are generally frowned upon.
Meanwhile, policy guidelines issued by the DOLE and the NCMB continuously refine the Board’s operation, emphasizing speedy resolution times, better training for conciliators-mediators, and encouraging more reliance on preventive mediation. Overall, these developments aim to reduce the incidence of protracted strikes or lockouts, enhance industrial peace, and support the stability needed for economic progress and workers’ welfare.
8. Conclusion
The National Conciliation and Mediation Board, while supported indirectly by general provisions like Articles 219(c) and 26 of the Labor Code and explicitly established through executive issuances, stands as the centerpiece of non-adversarial labor dispute resolution in the Philippines. Its non-coercive, party-driven methods distinguish it from other labor tribunals. The NCMB’s jurisdiction covers a broad array of labor disputes, allowing it to facilitate settlements that stabilize labor relations, ensure the continuity of business operations, and uphold the interests of workers and employers alike.
In essence, the NCMB epitomizes the state’s recognition that industrial peace is best fostered by encouraging dialogue, understanding, and compromise—fundamental tenets that the Labor Code, from its policy declarations to its implementing agencies, has steadfastly supported.