Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 801 views

    Alu-Tucp v. NLRC Ryan Mendez

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Mendez
    The Court ruled that the petitioners were properly characterized as "project employees" of National Steel Corporation rather than "regular employees". As project employees, they were assigned to carry out specific projects under National Steel's Five Year Expansion Program, which were distinct from the company's regular business operations. While the petitioners claimed that they should be considered regular employees since they served over six years, the Court found that Article 280 of the Labor Code referring to one year of service for regularization applies only to casual employees, not project employees.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alu-Tucp v. NLRC Ryan Mendez

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Mendez
    801 views1 page
    The Court ruled that the petitioners were properly characterized as "project employees" of National Steel Corporation rather than "regular employees". As project employees, they were assigned to carry out specific projects under National Steel's Five Year Expansion Program, which were distinct from the company's regular business operations. While the petitioners claimed that they should be considered regular employees since they served over six years, the Court found that Article 280 of the Labor Code referring to one year of service for regularization applies only to casual employees, not project employees.

    Original Title

    Alu-tucp v. Nlrc Ryan Mendez

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court ruled that the petitioners were properly characterized as "project employees" of National Steel Corporation rather than "regular employees". As project employees, they were assigned to carry out specific projects under National Steel's Five Year Expansion Program, which were distinct from the company's regular business operations. While the petitioners claimed that they should be considered regular employees since they served over six years, the Court found that Article 280 of the Labor Code referring to one year of service for regularization applies only to casual employees, not project employees.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    801 views1 page

    Alu-Tucp v. NLRC Ryan Mendez

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Mendez
    The Court ruled that the petitioners were properly characterized as "project employees" of National Steel Corporation rather than "regular employees". As project employees, they were assigned to carry out specific projects under National Steel's Five Year Expansion Program, which were distinct from the company's regular business operations. While the petitioners claimed that they should be considered regular employees since they served over six years, the Court found that Article 280 of the Labor Code referring to one year of service for regularization applies only to casual employees, not project employees.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case citation Legal Issue Legal Facts Ruling of the Court

    ALU-TUCP vs. National Whether or not the This case is a Petition for Certiorari, which Yes, the petitioners were properly characterized as
    Labor Relations petitioners were properly assailed the Resolution of the National Labor “project employees”. A project employee is assigned to
    Commission and National characterized as “project Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring the carry out a specific project or undertaking wherein the
    Steel Corporation, 234 employees” rather than petitioners as project employees of private duration and scope of such is determined at the time the
    SCRA 678 “regular employees” of respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC). employee was engaged for that project. The project or
    National Steel Petitioners were employed by NSC in connection undertaking referred to above may or may not be
    Corporation. with its Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I within the regular business of the corporation but it
    & II) for varying lengths of time when they were must be identifiably separate and distinct from the
    separated from NSC's service thus they filed ordinary or regular business operations of the
    complaints for unfair labor practice, employer. The particular component projects embraced
    regularization and monetary benefits with the in the FAYEP I and II, wherein the petitioners were
    NLRC. After the hearing, the Labor Arbiter assigned, were distinguishable from the regular or
    declared the petitioners as “regular project ordinary business of NSC, there work was limited to
    employees” who shall continue their employment one or another of the specific component projects
    as such for as long as the project exists and who which made up the FAYEP I and II. There was nothing
    shall be entitled to the salary of a regular in the record to show that the petitioners were hired for,
    employee. Both parties appealed the decision, or in fact assigned to, other purposes such as for
    which was later affirmed with modifications by operating or maintaining the old, or previously installed
    the NLRC declaring that the petitioners were and commissioned, steel-making machinery and
    “project employees” and set aside the award to equipment, or for selling the finished steel products.
    the petitioners of the same benefits enjoyed by Moreover, the petitioners' claim that should be
    regular employees for lack of legal and factual qualified as regular employees because they have
    basis. The petitioners then invoke Article 280 of rendered more that six years of service to NSC lacks
    the Labor Code arguing that they are “regular” legal basis. The proviso in the second paragraph of
    employees because their jobs are necessary, Article 280 of the Labor Code which states that an
    desirable and work-related to NSC's main employee who has served for at least one year shall be
    business and also because they have rendered considered a regular employee relates to casual
    service for six years or more to NSC. employees and not to project employees.

    You might also like