ILS Policy Brief October

Vol. 1 No. 5 2011

POLICY BRIEF
Translating research evidence and advancing new frameworks
to inform policy and practice

First Impressions:
The Single Entry Approach (SENA) in its First Year
This brief provides a rapid assessment of the Single Entry Approach in its initial months of implementation
as an innovation in addressing disputes at the workplace.

An assessment of the SENA may provide useful

What is the issue?
policy insights on how its affects the system of
In 2010, PresidentBenignoS. Aquino III issued the
dispute settlement, the institutions implementing
22-Point Labor and Employment Agenda,
it and the personnel utilized.
instructing the Department of Labor and
Employment to reform the labor arbitration and What are the existing policies on labor
adjudication system by streamlining the dispute settlement in the country that SENA
procedures, removing red tape and at the same is complementing?
time restore integrity and fairness. The Labor Dispute Settlement institutional
framework of the Philippines is governed by the
In response to this directive, the Single Entry
principles enshrined in Article XIII of the
Approach (SENA) was made operational through
Philippine Constitution, particularly on shared
Department Order No. 107, Series of 2010. It is a
responsibility between workers and employers,
meansto de-judicialize of labor dispute settlement
the preferential use of voluntary mode of settling
system through the alternative dispute resolution
disputes, the rights of labor to just share in the
(ADR) using the 30-day mandatory conciliation-
fruits of production and the right of enterprise to
mediation of all labor cases in DOLE and industry
reasonable returns of investments for expansion
based conciliation-mediation by the Industry
and growth.
Tripartite Council.

As the SENA marks its first year of The law encourages bipartite system, which
implementation, the question, “How does it fare means basically the employer-employees
as a means to lessen workplace disputes?” come themselves must deal with their problems in a
to the fore in policy discourse. manner that mutually suits them best.

In general, Books V and VI of the Labor Code

Why is a SENA assessment important?
SENA was introduced to improve the legalistic and
adversarial system of settling disputes in
firmswhich has been alluded to as the cause of
burgeoning number of labor cases filed against
the DOLE, NLRC and NCMB. It is hoped that
implementing the SENA in all labor dispute
hearing offices will effectively reduce the labor
cases that need to be heard in compulsory
covers the process of government intervention in
labor disputes settlement.When labor disputes
require intervention of government, the process
of labor dispute settlement system operates. In
general, DOLE has three tiers of resolution of
disputes:
 The first tier is the Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR).It encourages the
preferential use of voluntary modes of settling
Page | 1

arbitration and in courts.

disputes through conciliation-mediation,

The Single Entry Approach


collective bargaining, and labor-management
cooperation.
 The second is through Compulsory Arbitration
governed by Article 217 of the Labor Code;
the inspectorate machinery under Article
128(b), within the mandate of the DOLE
Regional Directors; the inter-intra union
disputes under Department Order 40-03 and
the representation issues under Article 256;
as well as that on voluntary arbitration under
Article 261.
 The third tier is through the prevention of
Strikes and Lockouts under Article 263 (g) on
Assumption of Jurisdiction.
What are the effects of SENA on Labor
Dispute Settlement mechanism?
In a study by the Institute for Labor Studies that
cursorily assesses the modes of dispute
settlement in the country, some key findings on
SENA were surfaced.1
 Numbers. After ten months of
implementation(October 2010-August 2011),
a total of 11,330 request for assistance
(RFAs) in labor conflicts were served.
At the regional level, there was a total of
6,849 cases settled at the settlement rate of
60%, benefitting 9,370 workers with a
monetary benefit of P120,602,650.36.
At the agency level, NCMB’s settlement rate is
at 87%; NWPC at 62%; POEA at 69% and
NLRC at 8%; with the total settlement rate of
35%. This would mean that the de-
judicialization approach thru SENA has
already reduced the incoming labor dispute
by 60% at the regional level, and 35% at the
agency level.
 On Speed. In general, dispute settlement
thru SENA has the speed of 17 days per case.
The study participants who were interviewed
revealed that SENA sped up settlement of
cases by about 200% and more. The shortest
settlement period recorded was 2 days.Simple
The Single Entry Approach
ILS Policy Brief October
Vol. 1 No. 5 2011
money claims are settled from 1-2 weeks,
with instances where parties easily agreed on
a settlement even without personal
appearance and detailswere explained only
through phone and other IT medium. More
difficult cases that cannot be settled after two
hearings were elevated at the regional office
for full exhaustion of conciliation mediation.
 On Cost.SENA has no cost to both parties
(workers and employers). Payment of claims
was made right afterthe agreement and
before the signing of quitclaims in front of the
SEADO/desk officer. Added to this is the
availability of SEAD to the location/residence
of the parties, further lowering the cost on
transportation on the part of the clients.
Cost on operations of the establishment with
a dispute being heard through SENA is
minimal because business there is little
mandays lost.
 On Effectivity.In SENA,where meetings are
held in a candid and informal manner, both
parties are given ample time to freely speak
of their sides on issues.Since the conferences
are with the end view of settling, any
agreement arrived through SENA has the
possibility of patching up strained
relationship, since the process is face-to-face,
transparent, open, with much consideration
for human compassion.
For monitoring purposes, the SEADO retains
record of the banks and the date of the
checks awarded arising from money claim
cases.
 On enforceability. DOLE officials interviewed
claimed that SENA lacks enforceability,
because D.O. 107 has no provision on
penalties. Settlement agreements cannot be
enforced to both parties. Payments of settled
amounts are mostly done in the DOLE office.
The study informants explained that the key
to enforcement is not the policy itself but the
persuasive approach and the creativity of the
Page | 2
SEADO involved to make the parties commit
payments. Since the SENA is a

voluntaryprocess, the skills of SEADO need to
be honed to make the program enforceable.
 Effects of SENA in NCMB’s dispute settlement
mechanism. Study respondents cited several
effects of SENA. First, there was a de-
clogging of NCMB cases as SENA helped to
avoid the conflicts to ripen into labor
disputes. Second, the pro-active approach in
settlement helps in limiting the disputes to be
handled by NCMB. However, if in case of
failure of settlement through SENA, there
becomes an added layer of conciliation-
mediation, which means, that the disputes
will again undergo the process when
endorsed to NCMB. All in all though, SENA
helps in maintaining harmony at workplaces,
and preservation of jobs/employment.
 Effects of SENA in NLRC dispute settlement
mechanism.The assessmentindicated that
SENA further delays the arbitration process at
NLRC. SENA is just a duplication of what the
Arbiter is doing during the mandatory
conference. One of the respondents explained
that the ratio of SENA settlement in her sala
is 1:10 (one settlement per 10 cases). She
explained that for cases within their
jurisdiction, the arbiter is more effective in
settling issues because of the authority and
respect accorded by both parties. The arbiters
are effective in explaining the pros and cons
of proceeding to compulsory arbitration.
What are considerations in examining the
Single Entry Approach (SENA) as a policy
toward attaining decent work?
The Decent Work Framework, which is the guiding
measure for analyzing policies and programs in the
current medium term, sets out four priority areas
called “pillars” that need to be considered
(employment, rights at work, social protection and
social dialogue pillars) must be equally applied to
the proposed policy.
The policy in SENA would have to be subjected to
the four-way test established in the framework,
which are:
 Will it help increase employment levels?
 Will it help expand access to employment
opportunities?
The Single Entry Approach
ILS Policy Brief October
Vol. 1 No. 5 2011
 Will it help improve the quality of
employment?
 Will it help promote mutual and/or
collective gains?
Such determinants are considered in the following
portions of this brief.
Will SENA help increase employment levels?
It is logical to assume that de-judicialization of
settlement of dispute through mandatory
conciliation mediation will make dispute resolution
fast, simple, transparent and effective. After 10
months of implementation, there is a significant
filtering of disputes by 60%. Faster resolution of
disputes means less disruption to the level of
employment at firm-level.
Ideally, maintaining harmony at the workplace
induces a steady level of productivity which is
needed by the employer in competing in the
world market. Success in business competition
would spell an increase of workforce needed by
the company which in turn positively affecting the
overall levels of employment.
Will it help expand access to employment
opportunities?
The new policy has the potential of attracting
more investments in the country. SENA approach
helps in maintaining a relatively peaceful
industrial climate.
A peaceful scenario at work is very much a plus
for businesses, especially in manufacturing
industries, since part of the country’s leading
export-led products belong to a chain of
production worldwide. The same is true in
services sector. Maintaining a peaceful climate in
our tourist destinations, hotels, restaurants and
resorts means better services and could attract
more tourist inflow, thereby expanding
employment opportunities at the countryside.
Will it help improve the quality of
employment?
From the perspective of workers welfare and
social protection the following pros- and con-
scenarios may be brought about by the policy.
Page | 3

 On individual incomes. SENA provides the
most economical and fastest way of resolving
conflicts. The speedier the conflicts will be the
less mandays will be lost in production line.
The lesser the tension at the workplace, the
greater the productivity at work. Logically,
the more productive workforce has become,
the high leverage of increasing their income
will be.
SENA likewise remove legal cost on part of
the employee in resolving their disputes.
Since it brings the venue of settlement at the
place where parties reside, it lessen their
transportation cost, and the time spent in the
attending conferences is minimized. Likewise,
fast resolution of disputes will lessen
employees tensions.
 On establishment cost and potential earnings.
Resolution of disputes through SENA may
reduce legal and representation costs on part
of the management. The immediate
resolution of disputes and patching up
strained relations results in lessening the
mandays lost in production line. A steady
average of productivity is necessary for them
to satisfy their clients’ needs. In doing
business today, the establishments cannot
afford work disturbance, because it would
mean lost of actual clients and also lost in
potential earnings.
Will it help promote mutual and/or
collective gains?
The SENA is a prime example of social dialogue
working toward the advantage of government,
workers and employers. The potential gains in the
approach can be toward preserving jobs among
workers, preventing business losses among firms,
and de-clogging the institutions in DOLE of labor
dispute cases left unheard.
Secretary Baldoz in her keynote message
pronounced a major breakthrough achieved by
the dispute settlement system through SENA, as
it includes fast and immediate resolution of
disputes, resuming productivity and strengthening
the country’s reputation as Asia’s haven for
industrial peace.2
The Single Entry Approach
ILS Policy Brief October
Vol. 1 No. 5 2011
What are the problems observed at the
regional offices after ten months of SENA
implementation?
While SENA program can make dispute resolution
speedier, there are also perceived problems in the
fast settlement of disputes:
 SENA may diminish the rightful benefits to be
received by the complainants. The single
entry desk officers (SEADO) do not use
computation in arrival to settlement. In a
negotiated settlement, the workers
negotiated from the position of weakness as
against to the position of employers strength.
An individual employee negotiating with the
employer is at the mercy of the latter
notwithstanding the presence of third party
(SEADO). There is a tendency of lopsidedness
in favor of employers on money claims issues.
 SENA may serve as another layer of dispute
resolution of cases. The conciliation and
mediation can still be availed of by the parties
under the traditional way of handling disputes
after exhausting all the possibilities SENA
process did not prosper, For cases submitted
for compulsory arbitration, SENA may cause
delay in the conduct of preliminary
conference.
 DOLE Regional Offices as implementers of the
program at the field and provincial offices find
themselves spreading too thinly on
implementing many programs at DOLE. The
DOLE Regional Offices lacks manpower to
operate and report all DOLE programs
cascaded at the region, including the conduct
of SENA.
What are the facilitating and hindering
factors identified by the implementers after
10 months of SENA experience?
The study conducted by the Institute noted some
facilitating and hindering factors in the conduct of
conciliation-mediation thru SENA.
Some factors that facilitates the settlement of
cases includes: a) setting the tone right and the
Page | 4
proper approach to both parties; b) friendly
SEADO; c) well-informed, skillful and
knowledgeable SEADO; d) SEADO’s commitment;
 ILS Policy Brief October
Vol. 1 No. 5 2011

e) continued training and upgrading of skills
among implementers; f) creativeness and
willingness to do extra miles in case settlement;
g) sense of fulfillment instead of seeking for
remuneration among SEADOs; and h) the
continuous monitoring and evaluation of the
SENA.
On the other hand, some of the factors that
hinder SENA performance includes: a) lack of
enforcement in the agreement; b) rigidity of 30-
day mandatory period; c) lack of SEADOs in all
dispute-hearing desks; d) non-appearance of
parties.
What can the prospects of a Single Entry
Approach in dispute settlement policy be?
The study suggests that to make the dispute
settlement system effective and enforceable,
SENA should be within a policy context where the
concentration of government interventionsareon
Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) approaches
and strategies on dispute prevention right where
they happen.
This ADR strategy should need strong advocacy
and institutionalization at the workplace, through
extensive labor education programs. Labor
education should be made available and
understandable to all workers, from their pre- to
post-employment situations. To make it more
effective, labor educationand labor policy
appreciation should be made mandatory to all
human resource practitioners. The programs
should be coupled with manpower and financial
resources on the side of government.
The study further suggested that the system
restructuring and policy reformulation to take into
consideration the Filipino values on resolving
differences. This includes transparency and
openness (paglilinaw); trust (pagtitiwala);
compassion (pagmamalasakit) ; and consensus
building (pagkakasundo).
Hence, Books V and VI of the Labor Code, the
DOLE programs and policies in Dispute
Settlement System, may be explored to
reconstructed in a manner
.
similar to the
figureshown below: 10 %
0.1% Assumption of
Jurisdiction
9.9% Compulsory
Arbitration

20%
Conciliation Mediation
(SENA Approach)
70% Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Strategies; Labor Education Programs: Firm's
Best Pr actices; Labor Management
Partnership, ITC, TIPC and LGU’s ADR
initiatives

1
ILS. Toward Attaining Harmony in the Workplace: An Assessment of Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the
Philippines Toward Policy Reformulation. 2011.
2
First SEnA Congress, DOLE. 2011. http://www.dole.gov.ph accessed 25 October 2011.

● ● ●
Policy Briefs aim to stimulate informed discourse on labor and employment issues. Each issue draws
on current research and new frameworks to inform public policy, service delivery and practice.

● ● ●
Page | 5

Institute for Labor Studies

Department of Labor and Employment
5F DOLE Bldg., Gen. Luna Wing, Intramuros Manila
www.ilsdole.gov.ph
02 527 34 56
The Single Entry Approach