Employment relations

Allow me to briefly discuss a number of items in the legal framework that governs employment relations in the Labor Code and some of its corresponding jurisprudence. For those of us who are mostly non-lawyers, awareness of these provisions facilitates our appreciation of the rules and with it, reasonably avoid the perils of penal sanctions when a management action is deemed unlawful.

Except by implication from the following provisions in the Labor Code, the Code does not contain a specific definition of employment. At best it offers a circular description of the term, to wit:

1. “Employer is any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”

2. “Employee is any individual employed by an employer.”

3. “Employ means to suffer or permit to work.”

4. “Wage shall mean remuneration expressed in terms of money or in kind at an agreed fair and reasonable value under the principle of fair wage for fair work, equal pay for equal work and no-work-no-pay.”

The law determines the nature of employment regardless of any form in accordance with the constitutional provision for the protection of labor.

Employer-employee relationship exists when a person selects and engages an employee, pays wages, has the power of dismissal and exercises control over an employee with respect to the result expected.

It is the power of control that is the most decisive factor in determining the existence of an employer- employee relationship.

The Labor Code defines four kinds of employees– regular, project, seasonal and casual.

Jurisprudence later added a fifth kind, the fixed-term employee. To prevent employers from violating the right of employees to security of tenure, the Supreme Court (SC) laid down two concurrent criteria, namely: mutual agreement between employer and employee on the fixed period of engagement and a satisfactory evidence that the agreement is based on equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by either party.

The law allows probationary employment where an employer has the right to choose who will be hired or declined. The employer may fix the period of probation subject to legal prescription of six months as maximum trial period which is extendible by mutual agreement of both parties. This is a general rule on probation but a supplemental Manual of Regulations for Private Schools govern the period of probationary employment of teachers.

The following are controversial employment schemes:

While the accepted practice between jeepney drivers and operators is one of lessor-lessee, the SC ruled that the relationship is that of an employer and employee.

2. Contract of adhesion where the agreement is a proforma document prepared by the employer with a “take it or leave it” condition and the worker has just to adhere to by signing on the blank space.

3. Workers paid by results, either supervised or unsupervised, known as “pakyaw, piece basis, takay or task basis.”

Payment by piece is just a method of compensation and does not negate regular employment.

4. The company policy on “No Spouse Employment” which bans spouses from working in the same company has been ruled against by the (SC) as arbitrarily discriminatory which disregards qualifications and performance.

According to the Labor Code and Civil Code, the law expressly provides that all doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor.

But the Court clearly states that the presumption in favor of labor cannot defeat the purpose for which our labor laws exist. There is a need to balance the conflicting interest of labor and the employer and not tilt the scale to favor one over the other.

The law protects the rights of the worker but does not authorize oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.

Certainly, an employer cannot be made to answer for claims that have neither been sufficiently proved nor substantiated.

But in the event an employer faces a legal suit from a disgruntled or dismissed employee, he may still need to hire a labor lawyer.

Because, sadly, knowing the law may not be enough.