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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Fulache Vs ABS CBN Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    - Petitioner Fulache, a driver/cameraman for ABS-CBN, filed a complaint claiming they should be recognized as a regular employee and receive benefits after working over a year. - ABS-CBN claimed Fulache and others were "talents" or independent contractors paid talent fees rather than salaries for their work on a case-by-case basis. - The labor arbiter ruled Fulache was a regular employee but did not address benefits eligibility. Subsequent appeals upheld regular employee status but not benefits. - The ruling determined Fulache and petitioners were entitled to coverage and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement as regular employees not excluded by its terms.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fulache Vs ABS CBN Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    43 views2 pages
    - Petitioner Fulache, a driver/cameraman for ABS-CBN, filed a complaint claiming they should be recognized as a regular employee and receive benefits after working over a year. - ABS-CBN claimed Fulache and others were "talents" or independent contractors paid talent fees rather than salaries for their work on a case-by-case basis. - The labor arbiter ruled Fulache was a regular employee but did not address benefits eligibility. Subsequent appeals upheld regular employee status but not benefits. - The ruling determined Fulache and petitioners were entitled to coverage and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement as regular employees not excluded by its terms.

    Original Title

    44.-Fulache-vs-ABS-CBN-Garcia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioner Fulache, a driver/cameraman for ABS-CBN, filed a complaint claiming they should be recognized as a regular employee and receive benefits after working over a year. - ABS-CBN claimed Fulache and others were "talents" or independent contractors paid talent fees rather than salaries for their work on a case-by-case basis. - The labor arbiter ruled Fulache was a regular employee but did not address benefits eligibility. Subsequent appeals upheld regular employee status but not benefits. - The ruling determined Fulache and petitioners were entitled to coverage and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement as regular employees not excluded by its terms.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Fulache Vs ABS CBN Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    - Petitioner Fulache, a driver/cameraman for ABS-CBN, filed a complaint claiming they should be recognized as a regular employee and receive benefits after working over a year. - ABS-CBN claimed Fulache and others were "talents" or independent contractors paid talent fees rather than salaries for their work on a case-by-case basis. - The labor arbiter ruled Fulache was a regular employee but did not address benefits eligibility. Subsequent appeals upheld regular employee status but not benefits. - The ruling determined Fulache and petitioners were entitled to coverage and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement as regular employees not excluded by its terms.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Fulache vs ABS – CBN

    Facts:

    The ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union executed a collective bargaining unit. Petitioner Fulache,
    a driver/cameraman working for ABS CBN was made aware of the CBA but learned that they were
    excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular employees.

    They then filed a complaint for regularization, unfair labor practice claiming that they had already
    rendered more than a year of service in the company and therefore should have been recognized as
    regular employees as well as enjoy the benefits that come with such a class of employee.

    ABS CBN claims that they are not regular employees, but are “talents” and are considered as
    independent contractors who offer their services to the companies. It contracts them on a case to
    case basis considering them as persons who possess the necessary talent, skill and expertise
    necessary to meet the requirement of its programs and prodctions. Instead of salaries, they are paid a
    pre-arranged consideration called a “talent fee”. Lastly, they also claimed that the production of
    programs per se is not necessary or desirable in its business because it could generate profits by
    selling airtime to block-timers or through advertising.

    The labor arbiter ruled that they were regular employees, but was silent on whether they were
    entitled to the CBA benefits. While their status as regular employees were upheld throughout the
    entirety of the appeal up to the CA, they were not granted the benefits afforded to regular employees
    by the CBA as they had failed to raise it as an issue on appeal.

    Issue: W/N Fulache and petitioners were regular employees and are thus entitled to CBA benefits? YES

    Ruling:

    The decision of the NLRC holding the petitioners as regular employees was upheld. What only needs
    to be resolved as an issue for the purposes of implementation of the decision is whether the
    peitioenrs fall within the CBA coverage.

    The CBA provided that the appropriate bargaining unit shall be regular rank and file employees
    excluding 1.) Personnel classified as supervisor and confidential employees, 2.) Casual or probationary
    status, 3.) Personnel who are on contract status.

    Under these terms, the Fulache should be included in the CBA because they are rank and file
    employees who do not belong in any of the excluded categories. Nothing in the records show that
    they are supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor probationary employees.
    And most importantly, the arbiter's decision all the way up to the CA level held them as regular
    employees and not independent contractors.

    You might also like