8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

1/13

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

No. L-48645. an!ary "# $%8".&'B()*+,(+)) L/B)( UN0*1 M)2,M,N* )3 *+, P+0L0PP0N,#/N*)N0) /B/0LL)# P()P,() */BL//# ,(N,*) B,N)N#

P/*(00) ,((/N)# /N*)N0) B. B)B0/# 20(0L0) ,+/# )M0N)P/(0N/# N)(B,(*) /L/N# U/N0*) N/2/(()# N,*)(0)M/(,LL/N/# *,)30L) B. //*0/N# (U3) L. ,U0/# /(L)UM)1/N# L/MB,(*) ()N7U0LL)# /N,L0*) /M/N0)# /N0L) B.M/*0/(# ,* /L.# petitioners# vs. +)N. ()N/L) B. Z/M)(/#P(,0,N*0/L /0*/N* 3)( L,/L /33/0(# )330, )3 *+,P(,0,N*# +)N. /M/) . 0N0)N# UN,(,(,*/(1 )3 L/B)(#/N M0U,L )(P)(/*0)N# ,N/() )L02,# ,N(07U, /M/+)(*#3,,(0) )/*,# ,(N,*) 20LL/NU,2/# /N*)N0) B)/L0N and))3(,) U,*)# respondents.

Labor (elations9 3a:tors :onsidered in determinin; employeremployeerelationship.in;? @aA the sele:tion and en;a;ement of the employee9 @bA thepayment of >a;es9 @7A the po>er of dismissal9 and @dA the employerspo>er to :ontrol the employee >ith respe:t to the means and methodsby >hi:h the >orC is to be a::omplished. 0t is the so:alled ':ontroltestD that is the most important element.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

& ,)N 0200)N.

5F

5F

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

BrotherhoodLabor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

Labor (elations9 riteria for determinin; e=isten:e of independent:ontra:tor relationship.in; :riteria? '>hetheror not the :ontra:tor is :arryin; on an independent b!siness9 thenat!re and e=tent of the >orC9 the sCill reG!ired9 the term and d!rationof the relationship9 the ri;ht to assi;n the performan:e of a spe:iHedpie:e of >orC9 the :ontrol and s!pervision of the >orC to another9 theemployers po>er >ith respe:t to the hirin;# Hrin;# and payment of the

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

2/13

:ontra:tors >orCers9 the :ontrol of the premises9 the d!ty to s!pplythe premises tools# applian:es# materials and laborer9 and the mode#manner# and terms of payment.

0bid9 Unfair Labor Pra:ti:e9 Ihere there is an e=istin; B/# a ;ro!p of

employees >ho >ish to form another !nion m!st follo> Labor odepro:ed!res.ith the 0BM Union >hi:h is the re:o;niJed:olle:tive bar;ainin; representative at the respondents ;lass pla:edthere bein; a re:o;niJed bar;ainin; representative of all employees atthe :ompanys ;lass plant# the petitioners :annot merely form a !nionand demand bar;ainin;. *he Labor ode provides the properpro:ed!re for the re:o;nition of !nions as sale bar;ainin;representatives. *his m!st be follo>ed.

P,*0*0)N to revie> the order of the B!rea! of Labor (elations.

*he fa:ts are stated in the opinion of the o!rt.

/rmando 2. /mpil for petitioners.

i;!ion (eyna# Monte:illo and )n;siaCo La> )K:e for privaterespondents.

U*0,((,Z# (.# .?

*he elemental G!estion in labor la> of >hether or not an employer-

employee relationship e=ists bet>een petitionersmembers of the'Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the PhilippinesD @BLUMA andrespondent an Mi;!el orporation# is the main iss!e in this petition.*he disp!ted de:ision of p!bli: respondent (onaldo Zamora#Presidential /ssistant for Le;al /airs# :ontains a brief s!mmary of thefa:ts involved?

5$

2)L. $4"# /NU/(1 "# $%8"

5$

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

'$. *he re:ords dis:lose that on !ly $$# $%6%# BLUM Hled a :omplaint>ith the no> def!n:t o!rt of 0nd!strial (elations# :har;in; an Mi;!elorporation# and the follo>in; oK:ers? ,nriG!e amahort# 3ederi:o

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

3/13

)ate# 3eli:iano /r:eo# Melen:io ,!;enio# r.# ,rnesto 2illan!eva#/ntonio Bo:alin; and odofredo !eto of !nfair labor pra:ti:e as setforth in e:tion 4 @aA# s!b-se:tions @$A and @4A of (ep!bli: /:t No. 8"5and of ille;al dismissal. 0t >as alle;ed that respondents ordered theindivid!al :omplainants to disaKliate from the :omplainant !nion9 and

that mana;ement dismissed the individ!al :omplainants >hen theyinsisted on their !nion membership.

')n their part# respondents moved for the dismissal of the :omplainton the ;ro!nds that the :omplainants are not and have never beenemployees of respondent :ompany b!t employees of the independent:ontra:tor9 that respondent :ompany has never had :ontrol over themeans and methods follo>ed by the independent :ontra:tor >hoenoyed f!ll a!thority to hire and :ontrol said employees9 and that theindivid!al :omplainants are barred by estoppel from assertin; thatthey are employees of respondent :ompany.

'Ihile pendin; >ith the o!rt of 0nd!strial (elations @0(A# pleadin;sand testimonial and do:!mentary eviden:es >ere d!ly presented#altho!;h the a:t!al hearin; >as delayed by several postponements.*he disp!te >as taCen over by the National Labor (elationsommission @NL(A >ith the de:reed abolition of the 0( and thehearin; of the :ase intransferably :ommen:ed on eptember 8# $%"5.

')n 3ebr!ary %# $%"6# Labor /rbiter Nestor . Lim fo!nd for:omplainants >hi:h >as :on:!rred in by the NL( in a de:ision dated!ne O8# $%"6. *he amo!nt of ba:C>a;es a>arded# ho>ever# >as

red!:ed by NL( to the eG!ivalent of one @$A year salary.

')n appeal# the e:retary in a de:ision dated !ne $# $%""# set asidethe NL( r!lin;# stressin; the absen:e of an employeremployeerelationship as borne o!t by the re:ords of the :ase. = = =.D

*he petitioners stron;ly ar;!e that there e=ists an employer-employeerelationship bet>een them and the respondent :ompany and that they>ere dismissed for !nionism# an a:t :onstit!tin; !nfair labor pra:ti:e'for >hi:h respondents m!st be made to ans>er.D

5O

5O

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

4/13

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

Unreb!tted eviden:e and testimony on re:ord establish that thepetitioners are >orCers >ho have been employed at the an Mi;!elParola lass 3a:tory sin:e $%6$# avera;in; abo!t seven @"A years of

servi:e at the time of their termination. *hey >orCed as ':ar;adoresDor 'pahinantesD at the M Plant loadin;# !nloadin;# pilin; or palletin;empty bottles and >ooden shells to and from :ompany tr!:Cs and>areho!ses. /t times# they a::ompanied the :ompany tr!:Cs on theirdelivery ro!tes.

*he petitioners Hrst reported for >orC to !perintendent-inhar;eamahort. *hey >ere iss!ed ;ate passes si;ned by amahort and>ere provided by the respondent :ompany >ith the tools# eG!ipmentand paraphernalia !sed in the loadin;# !nloadin;# pilin; and ha!lin;operation.

ob orders emanated from amahort. *he orders are then transmittedto an assistant-oK:er-in-:har;e. 0n t!rn# the assistant informs the>areho!semen and :he:Cers re;ardin; the same. *he latter#thereafter# relays said orders to the :apataJes or ;ro!p leaders >hothen ;ive orders to the >orCers as to >here# >hen and >hat to load#!nload# pile# pallet or :lean.

IorC in the ;lass fa:tory >as neither re;!lar nor :ontin!o!s#dependin; >holly on the vol!me of bottles man!fa:t!red to be loadedand !nloaded# as >ell as the b!siness a:tivity of the :ompany. IorC

did not ne:essarily mean a f!ll ei;ht @8A ho!r day for the petitioners.+o>ever# >orC# at times# e=:eeded the ei;ht @8A ho!r day andne:essitated >orC on !ndays and holidays. 3or this# they >ere neitherpaid overtime nor :ompensation f or >orC on !ndays and holidays.

Petitioners >ere paid every ten @$FA days on a pie:e rate basis# that is#a::ordin; to the n!mber of :artons and >ooden shells they >ere ableto load# !nload# or pile. *he ;ro!p leader notes do>n the n!mber orvol!me of >orC that ea:h individ!al >orCer has a::omplished. *his isthen made the basis of a report or statement >hi:h is :ompared >iththe notes of the :he:Cer and >areho!semen as to >hether or not they

tally. 3inal approval of report is by oK:er-in-:har;e amahort. *he

5

2)L. $4"# /NU/(1 "# $%8"

5

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

5/13

BrotherhoodLabor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

pay :he:C is ;iven to the ;ro!p leaders for en:ashment# distrib!tion#and payment to the petitioners in a::ordan:e >ith payrolls prepared

by said leaders. 3rom the total earnin;s of the ;ro!p# the ;ro!p leader;ets a parti:ipation or share of ten @$FQA per:ent pl!s an additionalamo!nt from the earnin;s of ea:h individ!al.

*he petitioners >orCed e=:l!sively at the M plant# never havin;been assi;ned to other :ompanies or departments of M plant# even>hen the vol!me of >orC >as at its minim!m. Ihen any of the ;lassf!rna:es s!ered a breaCdo>n# maCin; a sh!tdo>n ne:essary# thepetitioners >orC >as temporarily s!spended. *hereafter# thepetitioners >o!ld ret!rn to >orC at the ;lass plant.

ometime in an!ary# $%6%# the petitioner >orCersith thepetitioner !nion and en;a;ed in !nion a:tivities. Believin; themselvesentitled to overtime and holiday pay# the petitioners pressedmana;ement# airin; other ;rievan:es s!:h as bein; paid belo> theminim!m >a;e la># inh!man treatment# bein; for:ed to borro> at!s!rio!s rates of interest and to b!y raRe ti:Cets# :oer:ed by>ithholdin; their salaries# and salary ded!:tions made >itho!t their:onsent. +o>ever# their ;ripes and ;rievan:es >ere not heeded by therespondents.

)n 3ebr!ary 6# $%6%# the petitioner !nion Hled a noti:e of striCe >iththe B!rea! of Labor (elations in :onne:tion >ith the dismissal of someof its members >ho >ere alle;edly :asti;ated for their !nionmembership and >arned that sho!ld they persist in :ontin!in; >iththeir !nion a:tivities they >o!ld be dismissed from their obs. everal:on:iliation :onferen:es >ere s:hed!led in order to thresh o!t theirdieren:es. )n 3ebr!ary $O# $%6%# !nion member (o;elio ipad >asdismissed from >orC. /t the s:hed!led :onferen:e on 3ebr!ary $%#$%6%# the :omplainant !nion thro!;h its oK:ers headed by NationalPresident /rtemio Port!;al# r.# presented a letter to the respondent:ompany :ontainin; proposals andSor labor demands to;ether >ith a

reG!est for re:o;nition and :olle:tive bar;ainin;.

54

54

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

6/13

BrotherhoodLabor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

an Mi;!el ref!sed to bar;ain >ith the petitioner !nion alle;in; thatthe >orCers are not their employees.

)n 3ebr!ary OF# $%6%# all the petitioners >ere dismissed from theirobs and# thereafter# denied entran:e to respondent :ompanys ;lassfa:tory despite their re;!larly reportin; for >orC. / :omplaint for ille;aldismissal and !nfair labor pra:ti:e >as Hled by the petitioners.

*he :ase rea:hes !s no> >ith the same iss!es to be resolved as >henit had be;!n.

*he G!estion of >hether an employer-employee relationship e=ists in a:ertain sit!ation :ontin!es to bedevil the :o!rts. ome b!sinessmen

try to avoid the brin;in; abo!t of an employer-employee relationship intheir enterprises be:a!se that !di:ial relation spa>ns obli;ations:onne:ted >ith >orCmens :ompensation# so:ial se:!rity# medi:are#minim!m >a;e# termination pay# and !nionism. @MaHn:o *radin;orporation v. )ple# "F (/ $%A.

0n determinin; the e=isten:e of an employer-employee relationship#the elements that are ;enerally :onsidered are the follo>in;? @aA thesele:tion and en;a;ement of the employee9 @bA the payment of >a;es9@:A the po>er of dismissal9 and @dA the employers po>er to :ontrol theemployee >ith respe:t to the means and methods by >hi:h the >orC is

to be a::omplished. 0t is the so-:alled ':ontrol testD that is the mostimportant element @0nvestment Plannin; orp. of the Phils. v. *heo:ial e:!rity ystem# O$ (/ %O49 MaHn:o *radin; orp. v. )ple#s!pra# and (osario Brothers# 0n:. v. )ple# $$ (/ "OA.

/pplyin; the above :riteria# the eviden:e stron;ly indi:ates thee=isten:e of an employer-employee relationship bet>een petitioner>orCers and respondent an Mi;!el orporation. *he respondentasserts that the petitioners are employees of the !aranteed Laborontra:tor# an independent labor :ontra:tin; Hrm.

*he fa:ts and eviden:e on re:ord ne;ate respondent Ms -:laim.

.*he e=isten:e of an independent :ontra:tor relationship is ;enerallyestablished by the follo>in; :riteria? '>hether or not

55

2)L. $4"# /NU/(1 "# $%8"

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

7/13

55

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

the :ontra:tor is :arryin; on an independent b!siness9 the nat!re ande=tent of the >orC9 the sCill reG!ired9 the term and d!ration of therelationship9 the ri;ht to assi;n the performan:e of a spe:iHed pie:e of>orC9 the :ontrol and s!pervision of the >orC to another9 theemployers po>er >ith respe:t to the hirin;# Hrin; and payment of the:ontra:tors >orCers9 the :ontrol of the premises9 the d!ty to s!pplythe premises tools# applian:es# materials and labor9 and the mode#manner and terms of payment @56 Master and ervant# e:. @OA#469 ee also O" /M. !r. 0ndependent ontra:tor# e:. 5# 485 and/nne.# "5 /L( "O6F"O"A.

None of the above :riteria e=ists in the :ase at bar.

+i;hly !n!s!al and s!spe:t is the absen:e of a >ritten :ontra:t tospe:ify the performan:e of a spe:iHed pie:e of >orC# the nat!re ande=tent of the >orC and the term and d!ration of the relationship. *here:ords fail to sho> that a lar;e :ommer:ial o!tHt# s!:h as the anMi;!el orporation# entered into mere oral a;reements of employmentor labor :ontra:tin; >here the same >o!ld involve :onsiderablee=penses and dealin;s >ith a lar;e n!mber of >orCers over a lon;period of time. espite respondent :ompanys alle;ations not an iota

of eviden:e >as oered to prove the same or its parti:!lars. !:hfail!re maCes respondent Ms stand s!be:t to serio!s do!bts.

Un:ontroverted is the fa:t that for an avera;e of seven @"A years# ea:hof the petitioners had >orCed :ontin!o!sly and e=:l!sively for therespondent :ompanys shippin; and >areho!sin; department.onsiderin; the len;th of time that the petitioners have >orCed >iththe respondent :ompany# there is !stiH:ation to :on:l!de that they>ere en;a;ed to perform a:tivities ne:essary or desirable in the !s!alb!siness or trade of the respondent# and the petitioners are# thereforere;!lar employees @Phil. 3ishin; Boat )K:ers and ,n;ineers Union v.

o!rt of 0nd!strial (elations# $$O (/ $5% and (L MartineJ 3ishin;orporation v. National Labor (elations ommission# $O" (/ 454A.

/s >e have fo!nd in (L MartineJ 3ishin; orporation v. National Labor(elations ommission# @s!praA?

56

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

8/13

56

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

BrotherhoodLabor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora'= = = T*he employer-employee relationship bet>een the partiesherein is not :o-termino!s >ith ea:h loadin; and !nloadin; ob. /searlier sho>n# respondents are en;a;ed in the b!siness of Hshin;. 3orthis p!rpose# they have a Veet of Hshin; vessels. Under this sit!ation#respondents a:tivity of :at:hin; Hsh is a :ontin!o!s pro:ess and :o!ldhardly be :onsidered as seasonal in nat!re. o that the a:tivitiesperformed by herein :omplainants# i.e. !nloadin; the :at:h of t!na Hshfrom respondents vessels and then loadin; the same to refri;eratedvans# are ne:essary or desirable in the b!siness of respondents. *his

:ir:!mstan:e maCes the employment of :omplainants a re;!lar one# inthe sense that it does not depend on any spe:iH: proe:t or seasonablea:tivity. @NL( e:ision# p. %4# (olloA.

so is it >ith petitioners in the :ase at bar. 0n fa:t# despite pastsh!tdo>ns of the ;lass plant for repairs# the petitioners# thereafter#promptly ret!rned to their obs# never havin; been repla:ed# orassi;ned else>here !ntil the present :ontroversy arose. *he term ofthe petitioners employment appears indeHnite. *he :ontin!ity andhabit!ality of petitioners >orC bolsters their :laim of employee stat!svis-a-vis respondent :ompany.

,ven !nder the ass!mption that a :ontra:t of employment had indeedbeen e=e:!ted bet>een respondent M and the alle;ed labor:ontra:tor# respondents :ase >ill# nevertheless# faiL

e:tion 8# (!le 2000# BooC 000 of the 0mplementin; (!les of the Laborode provides?

'ob :ontra:tin;.in; :onditions are met?

@$A *he :ontra:tor :arries on an independent b!siness and !ndertaCesthe :ontra:t >orC on his o>n a::o!nt !nder his o>n responsibilitya::ordin; to his o>n manner and method# free from the :ontrol anddire:tion of his employer or prin:ipal in all matters :onne:ted >ith theperforman:e of the >orC e=:ept as to the res!lts thereof9 and

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

9/13

@OA *he :ontra:tor has s!bstantial :apital or investment in the form oftools# eG!ipment# ma:hineries# >orC premises# and other materials>hi:h are ne:essary in the :ond!:t of his b!siness.D

5"

2)L. $4"# /NU/(1 "# $%8"

5"

BrotherhoodLabor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

Ie Hnd that !aranteed and (eliable Labor :ontra:tors have neithers!bstantial :apital nor investment to G!alify as an independent:ontra:tor !nder the la>. *he premises# tools# eG!ipment and

paraphernalia !sed by the petitioners in their obs are admittedly alls!pplied by respondent :ompany. 0t is only the manpo>er or laborfor:e >hi:h the alle;ed :ontra:tors s!pply# s!;;estin; the e=isten:e ofa 'labor-onlyD :ontra:tin; s:heme prohibited by la> @/rti:le $F6# $F%of the Labor ode9 e:tion %@bA# (!le 2000# BooC 000# 0mplementin; (!lesand (e;!lations of the Labor odeA. 0n fa:t# even the alle;ed:ontra:tors oK:e# >hi:h :onsists of a spa:e at respondent :ompanys>areho!se# table# :hair# type>riter and :abinet# are provided for byrespondent M. 0t is therefore :lear that the alle;ed :ontra:tors haveno :apital o!tlay involved in the :ond!:t of its b!siness# in themaintenan:e thereof or in the payment of its >orCers salaries.

*he payment of the >orCers >a;es is a :riti:al fa:tor in determinin;the a:t!ality of an employer-employee relationship >hether bet>eenrespondent :ompany and petitioners or bet>een the alle;edindependent :ontra:tor and petitioners. 0t is important to emphasiJethat in a tr!ly independent :ontra:tor-:ontra:tee relationship# the feesare paid dire:tly to the manpo>er a;en:y in l!mp s!m >itho!tindi:atin; or implyin; that the basis of s!:h l!mp s!m is the salary per>orCer m!ltiplied by the n!mber of >orCers assi;ned to the :ompany.*his is the r!le in o:ial e:!rity ystem v. o!rt of /ppeals @% (/6O%# 65A.

*he alle;ed independent :ontra:tors in the :ase at bar >ere paid al!mp s!m representin; only the salaries the >orCers >ere entitled to#arrived at by addin; the salaries of ea:h >orCer >hi:h depend on thevol!me of >orC they had a::omplished individ!ally. *hese are basedon payrolls# reports or statements prepared by the >orCers ;ro!pleader# >areho!semen and :he:Cers# >here they note do>n then!mber of :artons# >ooden shells and bottles ea:h >orCer >as able to

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

10/13

load# !nload# pile or pallet and see >hether they tally. *he amo!nt paidby respondent :ompany to the alle;ed independent :ontra:tor:onsiders no b!siness e=penses or :apital o!tlay of the

58

58

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

latter. Nor is the proHt or ;ain of the alle;ed :ontra:tor in the :ond!:tof its b!siness provided for as an amo!nt over and above the >orCers>a;es. 0nstead# the alle;ed :ontra:tor re:eives a per:enta;e from the

total earnin;s of all the >orCers pl!s an additional amo!nt:orrespondin; to a per:enta;e of the earnin;s of ea:h individ!al>orCer# >hi:h# perhaps# a::o!nts for the petitioners :har;e of!na!thoriJed ded!:tions from their salaries by the respondents.

/nent the ar;!ment that the petitioners are not employees as they>orCed on pie:e basis# >e merely have to :ite o!r r!lin;s in y WehBen; v. 0nternational Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines @%F(/ $6$A# as follo>s?

'XTir:!mstan:es m!st be :onstr!ed to determine indeed if payment

by the pie:e is !st a method of :ompensation and does not deHne theessen:e of the relation. Units of time . 'and !nits of >orC are inestablishments liCe respondent @si:A !st yardsti:Cs >hereby todetermine rate of :ompensation# to be applied >henever a;reed !pon.Ie :annot :onstr!e payment by the pie:e >here >orC is done in s!:han establishment so as to p!t the >orCer :ompletely at liberty to t!rnhim o!t and taCe in another at pleas!re.

/rti:le $F6 of the Labor ode provides the le;al ee:t of a labor-only:ontra:tin; s:heme# to >it?

'= = = the person or intermediary shall be :onsidered merely as ana;ent of the employer >ho shall be responsible to the >orCers in thesame manner and e=tent as if the latter >ere dire:tly employed byhim.D

3irmly establishin; respondent Ms role as employer is the :ontrole=er:ised by it over the petitioners

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

11/13

methodsSmanner by >hi:h petitioners are to ;o abo!t their >orC# as>ell as in dis:iplinary meas!res imposed by it.

Be:a!se of the nat!re of the petitioners >orC as :ar;adores orpahinantes# s!pervision as to the means and manner of performin; the

same is pra:ti:ally nil. 3or# ho> many >ays are there to load and!nload bottles and >ooden shellsY *he mere

5%

2)L. $4"# /NU/(1 "# $%8"

5%

Bro therhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines !s. Zamora

:on:ern of both respondent M and the alle;ed :ontra:tor is that theob of havin; the bottles and >ooden shells bro!;ht to and from the>areho!se be done. More evident and prono!n:ed is respondent:ompanys ri;ht to :ontrol in the dis:ipline of petitioners. o:!mentaryeviden:e presented by the petitioners establish respondent Ms ri;htto impose dis:iplinary meas!res for violations or infra:tions of its r!lesand re;!lations as >ell as its ri;ht to re:ommend transfers anddismissals of the pie:e >orCers. *he inter-oK:e memoranda s!bmittedin eviden:e prove the :ompanys :ontrol over the petitioners. *hatrespondent M has the po>er to re:ommend penalties or dismissal of

the pie:e >orCers# even as to /bner B!n;ay >ho is alle;ed by M tobe a representative of the alle;ed labor :ontra:tor# is the stron;estindi:ation of respondent :ompanys ri;ht of :ontrol over the petitionersas dire:t employer. *here is no eviden:e to sho> that the alle;ed labor:ontra:tor had s!:h ri;ht of :ontrol or m!:h less had been there tos!pervise or deal >ith the petitioners.

*he petitioners >ere dismissed alle;edly be:a!se of the sh!tdo>n ofthe ;lass man!fa:t!rin; plant. (espondent :ompany >o!ld have !sbelieve that this >as a :ase of retren:hment d!e to the :los!re or:essation of operations of the establishment or !ndertaCin;. B!t s!:h

is not the :ase here. *he respondents sh!tdo>n >as merelytemporary# one of its f!rna:es needin; repair. )perations :ontin!edafter s!:h repairs# b!t the petitioners had already been ref!sed entryto the premises and dismissed from respondents servi:e. Ne> >orCersmanned their positions. 0t is apparent that the :los!re of respondents>areho!se >as merely a ploy to ;et rid of the petitioners# >ho >erethen a;itatin; the respondent :ompany for beneHts# reforms and:olle:tive bar;ainin; as a !nion. *here is no sho>in; that petitioners

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

12/13

had been remiss in their obli;ations and ineK:ient in their obs to>arrant their separation.

/s to the :har;e of !nfair labor pra:ti:e be:a!se of Ms ref!sal tobar;ain >ith the petitioners# it is :lear that the respondent :ompany

had an e=istin; :olle:tive bar;ainin; a;reement >ith the 0BM !nion>hi:h is the re:o;niJed :olle:-

6F

6F

UP(,M, )U(* (,P)(* /NN)*/*,

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

tive bar;ainin; representative at the respondents ;lass plant.

*here bein; a re:o;niJed bar;ainin; representative of all employees atthe :ompanys ;lass plant# the petitioners :annot merely form a !nionand demand bar;ainin;. *he Labor ode provides the properpro:ed!re for the re:o;nition of !nions as sole bar;ainin;representatives. *his m!st be follo>ed.

I+,(,3)(,# 0N 20,I )3 *+, 3)(,)0N# the petition is (/N*,.*he an Mi;!el orporation is hereby ordered to (,0N*/*,

petitioners# >ith three @A years ba:C->a;es. +o>ever# >herereinstatement is no lon;er possible# the respondent M is ordered topay the petitioners separation pay eG!ivalent to one @$A month pay forevery year of servi:e.

) )(,(,.

3eria @hairmanA# 3ernan# /lampay and Paras# .# :on:!r.

Petition ;ranted.

Note.ere neverseparated from the servi:e b!t their stat!s is that of re;!larseasonable employees >ho are :alled to >orC from time to time mostlyd!rin; s!mmer season# and the nat!re of their relationship >ith thehotel is s!:h that d!rin; o season they are temporarily laid o b!td!rin; s!mmer season they are re-employed or >hen their servi:es areneeded# and they are not stri:tly speaCin; separated from the servi:eb!t are merely :onsidered as on leave of absen:e >itho!t pay !ntil

8/10/2019 20. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

13/13

they are reemployed# it is held that their employment relationship isnever severed b!t only s!spended# and# as s!:h# they :an be:onsidered as in re;!lar employment of the hotel. @Manila +otelompany vs. o!rt of 0nd!strial (elations# % (/ $84.A