In a small town in Negros Oriental, employees formed a labor union.
Their employer (Hacienda) owned a sugarcane plantation and did not favor
employees associated to unions and refused to negotiate with the labor
union to discuss the collective bargaining agreement between the
hacienda and the laborers. The hacienda did not give work to 36
employees for more than a month, which led to the employees staging a
strike. Issues were temporarily settled when the hacienda and union
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Unfortunately, the MOA was
not followed and the hacienda even employed armed guards to ensure that
the employees could not enter the premises.
With the assistance
of Department of Labor and Employment, another MOA was reached. The
employees were supposed to be reinstated upon availability of work but
the hacienda reneged on its commitment once again. Hence, a case for
illegal dismissal was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). In the hacienda’s defense, it argued that the employees were
merely seasonal employers and not regular employees who could file a
case of illegal dismissal.
The NLRC ruled that the hacienda
illegally dismissed its employees who were deemed regular employees
since they performed the same task for several years. The Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision -
[W]hile the work of
(employees) was seasonal in nature, they were considered to be merely on
leave during the off-season and were therefore still employed by
(hacienda). Moreover, the workers enjoyed security of tenure. Any
infringement upon this right was deemed by the CA to be tantamount to
illegal dismissal.
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, holding
that the refusal of the hacienda to “make use of the services of their
employees, even when they were ready, able, and willing to perform their
usual duties whenever these were available, and hiring of other workers
to perform the tasks originally assigned to (them) amounted to illegal
dismissal of the latter.”
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for the
distinction between regular and seasonal employees -
[a]n
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration
of the season.
The Court clarified that in order to be classified
as a seasonal worker, and excluded from the classification of regular
employees, one must perform work or services that are seasonal in nature
and be employed only for the duration of one season.
On the other
hand, regular employees include seasonal employees who continuously and
repeatedly perform a particular nature of work as it is “sufficient
evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to
the business.” The employment is considered regular only with respect to
the activity and while such activity exists.
Citing De Leon v.
NLRC, “this Court has already settled that seasonal workers who are
called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during
off-season are not separated from service in said period, but merely
considered on leave until re-employed” (Hacienda Fatima v.
National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R.
No. 149440, 28 January 2003, J. Panganiban).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
Legality of work stoppage
In sympathy with the labor sector that staged a welga ng bayan to
protest the accelerating prices of oil, the officers of two labor unions
staged a work stoppage that lasted for several days. The companies of
these labor unions filed a petition with the Labor Arbiter to declare
the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with the following
requirements: (1) filing of notice of strike; (2) securing a strike
vote, and (3) submission of a report of the strike vote to the
Department of Labor and Employment.
The officers of the labor unions, on the other hand, countered that they did comply with the necessary requirements. And, they were prevented from going to work due to the difficulties of finding transportation to work and were concerned for their safety if in case violence erupted as a result of the welga. Also, the workers were prevented from reporting for work by being locked out of the office premises.
The Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal. Thus, the officers of the labor unions lost their employment status and were eventually terminated by their employers.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter and held that there was no strike due to the fact that there was no labor dispute between the employers and the employees. Thus, the employees were ordered to be reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights, and with full back wages from the date of their termination.
The Court of Appeals (CA) however reverted to the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that the employees failed to prove their compliance with the requirements of a legal strike. In fact, they never produced before the Labor Arbiter a copy
The Supreme Court (SC) sustained the ruling of the CA that an illegal strike did take place. Because the employees were not able to prove that they informed their employers of their intention to join the welga ng bayan, their work stoppage was not entitled to legal protection -
Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
Moreover, the SC ruled that union officers must bear the consequences of their actions when they knowingly participate in an illegal strike.
Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code clearly provides that “any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.” It reiterated that in Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the word “may” in Article 264 (a) was explained and implies that “[t]he law . . . grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.” Thus, the reinstatement or retention of the striker’s employment, despite his participation in an illegal strike, is a management prerogative the Court will not question (Biflex Phils. Labor Union v. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corp, G.R. No. 155679, 19 December 2006, J. Carpio-Morales).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
The officers of the labor unions, on the other hand, countered that they did comply with the necessary requirements. And, they were prevented from going to work due to the difficulties of finding transportation to work and were concerned for their safety if in case violence erupted as a result of the welga. Also, the workers were prevented from reporting for work by being locked out of the office premises.
The Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal. Thus, the officers of the labor unions lost their employment status and were eventually terminated by their employers.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter and held that there was no strike due to the fact that there was no labor dispute between the employers and the employees. Thus, the employees were ordered to be reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights, and with full back wages from the date of their termination.
The Court of Appeals (CA) however reverted to the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that the employees failed to prove their compliance with the requirements of a legal strike. In fact, they never produced before the Labor Arbiter a copy
The Supreme Court (SC) sustained the ruling of the CA that an illegal strike did take place. Because the employees were not able to prove that they informed their employers of their intention to join the welga ng bayan, their work stoppage was not entitled to legal protection -
Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
Moreover, the SC ruled that union officers must bear the consequences of their actions when they knowingly participate in an illegal strike.
Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code clearly provides that “any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.” It reiterated that in Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the word “may” in Article 264 (a) was explained and implies that “[t]he law . . . grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.” Thus, the reinstatement or retention of the striker’s employment, despite his participation in an illegal strike, is a management prerogative the Court will not question (Biflex Phils. Labor Union v. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corp, G.R. No. 155679, 19 December 2006, J. Carpio-Morales).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)