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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Facts:: Employees Since They Were Hired To Perform Work in A Specific Undertaking - The Five Years

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    Petitioners filed complaints arguing they should be considered "regular" rather than "project" employees of National Steel Corporation (NSC) based on the nature of their jobs and having served more than six years. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in petitioners' favor but the NLRC modified the decision, finding petitioners were hired for a specific project. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that petitioners remaining as project employees after one year did not change their status, as the law treats project and casual employees differently. While project designations cannot be used to evade labor laws, the Court found no evidence NSC did so in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Facts:: Employees Since They Were Hired To Perform Work in A Specific Undertaking - The Five Years

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    18 views1 page
    Petitioners filed complaints arguing they should be considered "regular" rather than "project" employees of National Steel Corporation (NSC) based on the nature of their jobs and having served more than six years. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in petitioners' favor but the NLRC modified the decision, finding petitioners were hired for a specific project. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that petitioners remaining as project employees after one year did not change their status, as the law treats project and casual employees differently. While project designations cannot be used to evade labor laws, the Court found no evidence NSC did so in this case.

    Original Description:

    Labor Digest

    Original Title

    ALU-v.-NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed complaints arguing they should be considered "regular" rather than "project" employees of National Steel Corporation (NSC) based on the nature of their jobs and having served more than six years. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in petitioners' favor but the NLRC modified the decision, finding petitioners were hired for a specific project. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that petitioners remaining as project employees after one year did not change their status, as the law treats project and casual employees differently. While project designations cannot be used to evade labor laws, the Court found no evidence NSC did so in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views1 page

    Facts:: Employees Since They Were Hired To Perform Work in A Specific Undertaking - The Five Years

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    Petitioners filed complaints arguing they should be considered "regular" rather than "project" employees of National Steel Corporation (NSC) based on the nature of their jobs and having served more than six years. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in petitioners' favor but the NLRC modified the decision, finding petitioners were hired for a specific project. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that petitioners remaining as project employees after one year did not change their status, as the law treats project and casual employees differently. While project designations cannot be used to evade labor laws, the Court found no evidence NSC did so in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FACTS:

    Petitioners, as employees of private respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC), filed


    separate complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization and monetary benefits with the
    NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City. The complaints were consolidated and
    after hearing, the Labor Arbiter declared petitioners “regular project employees who shall
    continue their employment as such for as long as such project exists,” but entitled to the salary
    of a regular employee pursuant to the provisions in the collective bargaining agreement. It also
    ordered payment of salary differentials. The NLRC in its questioned resolutions modified the
    Labor Arbiter’s decision. It affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s holding that petitioners were project
    employees since they were hired to perform work in a specific undertaking — the Five Years
    Expansion Program, the completion of which had been determined at the time of their
    engagement and which operation was not directly related to the business of steel
    manufacturing. The NLRC, however, set aside the award to petitioners of the same benefits
    enjoyed by regular employees for lack of legal and factual basis. The law on the matter is Article
    280 of the Labor Code, where the petitioners argue that they are “regular” employees of NSC
    because: (i) their jobs are “necessary, desirable and work-related to private respondent’s main
    business, steel-making”; and (ii) they have rendered service for six (6) or more years to private
    respondent NSC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not petitioners are considered “permanent employees” as opposed to being only
    “project employees” of NSC.

    HELD:
    No, Petitioners are not considered “permanent employees”. However, contrary to petitioners’
    apprehensions, the designation of named employees as “project employees” and their
    assignment to a specific project are effected and implemented in good faith, and not merely as a
    means of evading otherwise applicable requirements of labor laws.
    On the claim that petitioners’ service to NSC of more than six (6) years should qualify them as
    “regular employees”, the Supreme Court believed this claim is without legal basis. The simple
    fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone beyond one (1) year,
    does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as “project employees”. The second
    paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted above, providing that an employee who has
    served for at least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular employee, relates to casual
    employees, not to project employees.

    You might also like