Women not legally married can avail of maternity benefits

Dear PAO,
My application for paternity leave was denied by my company for the reason that I am not yet legally married to the mother of my child. Does this mean that since we are not yet married, my girlfriend can also not avail of her maternity leave benefits?

Sincerely yours,
Yulo

Dear Yulo,
For your information, Article 14-A of Republic Act (RA) 8282 or the Social Security Law states:

SEC. 14-A. Maternity Leave Benefit. – A covered female employee who has paid at least three monthly maternity contributions in the twelve-month period preceding the semester of her childbirth, abortion or miscarriage and who is currently employed shall be paid a daily maternity benefit equivalent to one hundred percent (100 percent) of her present basic salary, allowances and other benefits or the cash equivalent of such benefits for sixty (60) days subject to the following conditions:

a) That the employee shall have notified her employer of her pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth which notice shall be transmitted to the SSS [Social Security System] in accordance with the rules and regulations it may provide;

b) That the payment shall be advanced by the employer in two equal installments within thirty (30) days from the filing of the maternity leave application;

c) That in case of caesarian delivery, the employee shall be paid the daily maternity benefit for seventy-eight (78) days;

d) That payment of daily maternity benefits shall be a bar to the recovery of sickness benefits provided by this Act for the same compensable period of sixty (60) days for the same childbirth, abortion or miscarriage;

e) That the maternity benefits provided under this Section shall be paid only for the first four deliveries after March 13, 1973;

f) That the SSS shall immediately reimburse the employer one hundred percent (100 percent) of the amount of maternity benefits advanced to the employee by the employer upon receipt of satisfactory proof of such payment and legality thereof; and,

g) That if an employee should give birth or suffer abortion or miscarriage without the required contributions having been remitted for her by her employer to the SSS, or without the latter having been previously notified by the employer of the time of the pregnancy, the employer shall pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the benefits, which said employee would otherwise have been entitled to, and the SSS shall in turn pay such amount to the employee concerned.

Unlike in RA 8187 or the Paternity Leave Act of 1996, none in the above-stated provision of law does it state that the mother giving birth to a child or the one who suffered a miscarriage is required to be lawfully married first, before she could avail of the maternity benefits. Hence, since there is no restriction or distinction, your girlfriend can rightfully avail of the said benefit provided she qualifies to all the other requirements of the law.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Negative economics of no-contractualization

One of the principal socio-economic issues that were raised during the 2016 electoral campaign was labor contractualization, i.e., the practice of employers’ signing workers to renewable contracts of less than six months’ duration instead of making them regular employees. Realizing that from the standpoint of competitiveness they had no choice but to match the other candidates’ commitment, all of the five presidential candidates promised to work for the ending of labor contractualization immediately upon election.

The issue of putting an end to contractualization brings to mind the old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” With regard to the contractualization issue, the saying should be changed to “The road to no-more-contractualization is paved with good intentions. Here the good intention is to provide all workers with the legally mandated benefits—chiefly coverage by SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG—that come with regular-employee status. No conscientious and fair-minded employer wants to deprive his employees of these and other legally mandated benefits.

For any contractualization-related government action to be widely acceptable and easily implementable, it is necessary to determine the reasons why some employers resort to contractualization. The reasons will determine whether the Department of Labor and Employment will experience much difficulty in enforcing a no-contractualization law. There are three reasons.

The first reason is, quite simply, an employer’s instinctive desire, in the absence of adverse government policy, to derive the maximum profit from his business operations. Additional costs reduce profit and SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG coverage for employees are additional costs. Why, the typical businessman asks himself, should I provide benefits for my workers if with the use of legal savvy, I can get away with not providing them with such benefits? The tactic for such legal evasion is of course the hiring of workers for periods shorter than the six-months threshold for compulsory regularization. “Endo,” the shorthand for end of contract, usually comes after five months’ employment.

The second reason for the resort of many employers to contractualization is pure-and-simple avoidance (not evasion) of the law. The choice for employers has been clear-cut. They can place their employees on regular status after six months in the establishment—and begin incurring the costs of the legally mandated benefits—or they can avoid incurring those costs through the before-six-months “endo” arrangement. Why incur all those additional costs when the nation’s labor laws leave you a way out?

The third reason for many employers’ resort to labor contractualization is the most important because of its virtually certain negative impact on the economy, especially on investment and employment.

The plain truth is that the great majority of contractualizing business establishments—mostly small and medium-scale entities, who, according to the government statisticians account for approximately 99 percent of all business establishments—simply cannot afford the financial trappings that go with regular-status employment. They can afford only the basic costs of operating a business, such as rent, wages, utilities and business fees; they cannot afford separation pay, paid leaves, bonuses and social welfare coverages (SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG) for their employees.

Putting an end to contractualization has been declared to be one of the legislation priorities in the House of Representatives; the Duterte administration should be able to obtain passage of a no-contractualization law. What would be the impact of such legislation and how are prospective investors likely to react to the enactment of a no-contractualization law?

Employees of most of the one percent of business establishments that are classified as big already enjoy the benefits due regular-status employees and those who do not yet enjoy such benefits will be given them once a no-contractualization law is passed. Because they are big—and therefore conspicuous—will have no choice but to comply. The SMEs have a choice: they can either decide to close shop (if their owners are unwilling to break, or are fearful of breaking, the law) or they can decide to defy the law (if their owners are not law-abiding and believe that they can get away with law-breaking).

The danger to the economy will come from the reaction of law-abiding would-be investors to a no-contractualization law. If paying the benefits required by such a law will mean that they will not be able to derive profits from their capital, they will not establish businesses. There are such people; they will not go into business if they will be able to make money only by breaking the law.

A halfway point, a win-win solution, to the negative economic impact of a no-contractualization law would be to replicate what was done by Congress to mitigate the harshness of the Minimum Wage Act, viz., make allowance for SMEs. In the same manner that business establishments with less than a certain number of employees are exempt from the operation of the Minimum Wage Act, so similarly situated business establishments can be made exempt from no-contractualization.

The probable negative impact of a no-contractualization law on investment and employment is one pitfall of legislation placing a ban on contractualization. The other is the usual bugaboo of regulating legislation in this country: enforcement. Not so long ago the head of the Department of Labor and Employment estimated that the agency was able to effectively monitor only around 11 percent of business establishments for compliance with the nation’s labor laws. Given the Labor Department’s present enforcement capability, I doubt very much if a no-contractualization law will be effectively enforced. It has been asked before, but I will ask the question again: what is the point of passing a law that will be widely violated?

If the proposed no-contractualization law is not tweaked so as to not discourage investment in SMEs, such a law should, in my view, not be passed at all. 

source:  Manila Standard Column of Rudy Romero

Placing employee on ‘floating status’ not unlawful per se

Dear PAO,
My sister works as a security guard. She was assigned to a private college in Manila. She was on that assignment for about 15 months already when the school asked her to return to her agency. It turned out that she was assessed to have a poor performance, for which reason the school asked for another guard to replace her.

My sister reported back to her agency but it has been three months now and she has been on floating status. She has not been given another assignment. Is this even valid considering that she is not receiving any salary? Please give us advice on this matter.
Dek

Dear Dek,
The term “floating status” suggests a situation where an employee is temporarily placed out of actual work. Although not particularly mentioned under our Labor Code, it is not per se unlawful or illegal. In fact, the code recognizes instances where an employer is allowed to place an employee on bona-fide suspension, but without severing their employer-employee relationship. As stated under Article 286, Id.:

“The bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized, in a long line of cases, the validity of placing employees, security guards in particular, on floating status. In one case, the High Court ruled:

“x x x While there is no specific provision in the Labor Code which governs the ‘floating status’ or temporary ‘off-detail’ of security guards employed by private security agencies, this situation was considered by this court in several cases as a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off. The concept has been defined as that period of time when security guards are in between assignments or when they are made to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. As pointed out by the CA, it takes place when the security agency’s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be placed on temporary ‘off-detail’ if there are no available posts under the agency’s existing contracts.

As the circumstance is generally outside the control of the security agency or the employer, the court has ruled that when a security guard is placed on a ‘floating status’” he or she does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law. x x x” (Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation vs. Serrano, G. R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014)

In the situation that you have presented, we cannot immediately conclude that your sister’s employer has committed wrong against her by simply placing her on floating status. First, if the contract between her agency and the school allowed the latter to seek a substitute or replacement, then her recall is in order and her employer is bound to place another guard in her post. Second, as mentioned by the court, those on floating status do not receive salary during the period. Finally, the employer may not be forced to deploy her if there is really no other available assignment.

It should be stressed, however, that the floating status must not go beyond the six (6)-month period allowed by law. If her employer fails to assign her after the expiration of the six (6)-month period, she will be deemed to have been constructively dismissed. Consequently, she will be entitled to receive separation pay pursuant to Section 6.5 of the Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net