Dear Atty. Maan,

We engage maintenance technicians as independent contractors for on-call services. For security and client assurance, we make it mandatory for them to wear a standard company uniform when entering client buildings. Non-wearing of uniforms may results to sanctions and may lead to removal in the roster. Can we enforce this rule?

Judith

θ θ θ

Dear Judith,

Requiring independent contractors to wear your company’s uniforms may reflect the company’s control over their appearance and directly identifies them with the business. This is especially true where non-compliance to this mandate results in suspension, or any other disciplinary actions.

The Supreme Court has recognized that mandatory requirement of wearing uniforms are a strong indicator of an employment relationship. In Masonic Contractor, Inc. v. Madjos (G.R. No. 185094, 25 November 2009), the Supreme Court categorically declared the workers to be employees of the company. To quote:

“Respondents had identification cards or gate passes issued not by Malibiran, but by MCI, and were required to wear uniforms bearing MCI’s emblem or logo when they reported for work.

It is common practice for companies to provide identification cards to individuals not only as a security measure, but more importantly to identify the bearers thereof as bona fide employees of the firm or institution that issued them.

The provision of company-issued identification cards and uniforms to respondents, aside from their inclusion in MCI’s summary payroll, indubitably constitutes substantial evidence sufficient to support only one conclusion: that respondents were indeed employees of MCI.”

Similarly, in Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse Inc. (G.R. No. 225075, 19 June 2019), a butcher was barred from entering the company premises due to non-compliance of “No I.D., No Entry” and “No Uniform, No Entry” policies. In this case, the Court treated these policies as manifestations of managerial control. The worker was declared an employee, and his dismissal from work for failure to comply with the uniform and identification requirements was ultimately held to constitute illegal dismissal, entitling him to backwages and separation pay.

Although uniform requirements may be presented as tools for branding and security, when its compliance is strictly enforced through sanctions, it is indeed a strong indication of control.

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi