Practice question
A covered seafarer’s claim falls within an applicable CBA. The grievance mechanism fails to settle it, and the dispute is within the CBA’s voluntary-arbitration framework. One party says DO 247-2025 makes every seafarer money claim exclusively triable by a Labor Arbiter. Which is correct?
- DO 247 abolishes every voluntary-arbitration clause
- A Labor Arbiter always displaces voluntary arbitration for seafarers
- The amount alone makes the CBA irrelevant
- The CBA-based voluntary-arbitration route must be respected; DO 247 concerns execution and does not make the asserted jurisdictional transfer
- The manning agency becomes the final arbitrator
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_10022_2010.html — RA 10022, section 7, amending RA 8042 section 10: overseas employment claims, ninety-day period and joint and several liability.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12021_2024.html — RA 12021, sections 54–55: seafarer grievance, CBA voluntary arbitration and non-CBA dispute routes.
- https://stcw.marina.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Signed-IRR-RA-NO.-12021_for_website-1.pdf — RA 12021 IRR, Rule XI sections 2 and 4: arbitration framework and DMW administrative jurisdiction excluding money claims.
- https://dole.gov.ph/news/dole-issues-new-rules-on-execution-of-seafarers-claims/ — Official DOLE January 15, 2025 release on issued DO 247-2025: execution rules do not modify NLRC and voluntary-arbitrator jurisdiction.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.