Dear Atty. Maan,

I am a regular employee who normally works six days a week. Because the company claims that business has slowed down, our employer suddenly reduced our schedule to only two or three days per week. As a result, my monthly income has substantially decreased. The company says that this is part of its management prerogative and is better than terminating employees altogether. Can an employer unilaterally reduce an employee’s workdays and corresponding pay?

Maggie

Dear Maggie,

As a rule, an employer cannot simply impose a flexible work arrangement that substantially reduces an employee’s working days and compensation without complying with the applicable requirements.

In Bacani, et al. v. Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp., et al., G.R. No. 271518, 30 September 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc ruled that an employer’s unilateral reduction of workdays and implementation of a work rotation scheme without complying with DoLE guidelines constitutes an invalid diminution of rights, though it does not automatically amount to constructive dismissal if done due to proven business necessity.

The Supreme Court recognized that employers are not absolutely prohibited from reducing the normal workweek. Indeed, flexible work arrangements may serve as a legitimate means of preserving employment when a business encounters genuine economic difficulties. Instead of immediately resorting to retrenchment or closure, an employer may temporarily reduce workdays or rotate its workers. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that management prerogative is not unlimited. Flexible work arrangements that result in a reduction of employees’ pay or benefits are governed by Department of Labor and Employment Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009. These arrangements may include a compressed workweek, reduction of workdays, rotation of workers, forced leave, broken-time schedules, and flexi-holiday schedules. Because these arrangements affect the income and benefits ordinarily received by employees, their validity is subject to certain safeguards.

One of the most important requirements is the voluntary agreement of the affected employees. The employer must consult the employees and obtain the express and voluntary support of the majority of the workers affected by the arrangement. In Bacani, the employer argued that it had conducted a meeting during which the employees were informed of the company’s difficulties and the need to adopt a rotation scheme. The Supreme Court, however, found this insufficient. Thus, an employer cannot equate an announcement or consultation meeting with the employees’ voluntary acceptance of the arrangement. The employer bears the burden of proving that the affected employees were actually consulted and that the majority voluntarily agreed to the reduced workweek or other flexible work arrangement.

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi