Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Petitioners were direct-employees of Coca-cola from 1984-2000 they were
assigned as route helpers under the direct supervision of the Route Sales Supervisors.
Their duties were distributing the products to the stores and customers in their
assigned routes. After working for quite sometime they were transferred
successively to different Manpower agencies and to Interverse Manpower Agency
being the last agency. However upon inspection by DOLE, it held petitioners to be
regular employees of Coca-Cola and ordered herein respondents to pay several
underpayments to petitioners, upon learning of such herein petitioners were
terminated by Coca-Cola in various dates which prompted petitioners to file this
case.
Interverse on their part maintained that they were a legitimate and registered
Job Only Contractor and on Coca-Cola’s defense they argued that they did not
interfere with the manner and the methods of the complainant’s performance at
work as long as the desired results are achieved.
Labor Arbiter
Petitioners were employees of Coca-Cola who were seconded to Interverse and
that Coca-Cola could not compromise the employees constitutional right to security
of tenure by entering into a service agreement to a manpower supply contractors,
and to make petitioners sign employment contracts with them and convert their
employment status from regular to contractual.
NLRC
The several Manpower Agencies including Interverse simply played to feign the
status of an employer so that its alleged principal would be free from any liabilities
and responsibilities to its employees.
Court of Appeals
Petitioners were not the employees of Coca-Cola but of Interverse, since it was
interverse who exercised the power of selection and engagement over the petitioner
considering that the petitioners applied for their job and went through
pre-employment processes of Interverse to evidence such claim is that personal data
sheets and contracts of employment were filed with Interverse. And that Interverse
was the one who paid petitioners and respondent also paid Interverse for the
services rendered.
Issue:
Whether or not Labor-only contracting exists.
Held:
To determine whether an employment should be considered regular or
non-regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business of the employer.
Although the work to be performed is only for a specific project or seasonal where a
person thus engaged has been performing for more than 1 year, even if the
performance is not continuous or is merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as being sufficient to indicate the
necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer.
The repeated rehiring of petitioner workers and the continuing need for their
service clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular
conduct of the business or trade of respondent company. The court found that the
work of the respondent therein, constituting distribution and sale of Coca-Cola
Products was clearly indispensable to the principal business of petitioner Coca-Cola.
Lastly, Interverse did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of
tools, equipment, machineries and work premises; and petitioners its supposed
employees , performed work which was directly related to the principal business of
the respondent. Thus, in violation of Art. 106 of the Labor Code as well as section 5(I)
of the Rules Implementing Articles 106-109 of the Labor Code.
“the possession of substantial capital is only one element, labor-only contracting
exists when any of the two elements is present. Thus, even if the court would indulge
Coca-cola and admit that Interverse had more than sufficient capital or investment in
the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, still, it cannot be denied
that the petitioners were performing activities which were directly related to the
principal business of the employer.”
Soliman Securit Services Inc. and Teresita Soliman vs. Sarmiento et al.,
(G.R. No. 194649; August 10, 2016)
Doctrine: The justification for the failure to reassign should be the lack of service
agreements for a continuous period of six months aside from the other authorized
causes provided by the Labor Code.
Facts:
Respondents were hired security guards by herein petitioner and were assigned
to a certain pharmaceutical company working 7 days a week and for 12 hours
straight daily. Respondent claimed that they were underpaid and said that they were
not paid holiday pays, night shift differential and rest day premiums. When they
sought for the discussion of such money claims they were relieved from their posts.
Agency contended that said security guards were placed on a floating status.
Agency admitted that the respondents were relieved but said action was done
pursuant to the contract with the client that there be replacing of security guards on
duty every six months without repeat assignment. Subsequently there was a hearing
in the Labor Arbiter wherein the LA dismissed the complaint upon finding that there
was a memoranda that asked the respondents to report to the office for work
reassignment yet they did not appeared and thus it was held that it amounted to
abandonment.
NLRC
The said memoranda was just an afterthought devised after the case for illegal
dismissal was filed. It was not in the nature of return to work order, which may
effectively interrupt their return to work status. This was later on affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
Issue:
WoN there is a case of illegal dismissal.
Held:
The employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one area of
operation to another, provided, there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary,
benefits or other privileges, and transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad
faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. It
has long been settled that placing of the security guards in floating status does not
constitute dismissal so long as it is done in good faith. The court emphasized that
security guards cannot be placed under floating status indefinitely;thus; the court
has applied Art. 292 of the Labor Code by analogy to set the specific period of
temporary off detail to a maximum of six months. To the notice/memoranda given
by the agency, it is evident that the notices sent were mere ostensible offers for new
assignments. It was not intended to cover the illegality of the termination of the
respondents’ employment.
The court acknowledges however that had the reason for such failure to reassign
respondents been the lack of service agreements for a continuous period of six
months, petitioner agency could have exercised its right to terminate respondents for
an authorized cause upon compliance with the procedural requirement. Supreme
Court Applied section 9.3 of D.O. 14-01 in relation to section 6.5 of the same D.O.
“If after a period of 6 months, the security agency/employer cannot provide work
or give assignment to the reserved security guard, the latter can be dismissed from
services and shall be entitled to separation pay as described in subsection 6.5”
It bears stressing that the only time a prolonged floating status is considered an
authorized cause for dismissal is when the security agency experiences a surplus of
security guards brought about by lack of client. Thus, petition is denied.