ALU-TUCP, et.al., vs. NLRC et.al., G.R. No. 109902 August 2, 1994
Subject: Statutory Construction
FACTS
On 5 July 1990, 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] activity 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
properly characterized as "project employees" rather than
"regular employees" of NSC.
Ruling:
YES.
The present case therefore
strictly falls under the definition of "project employees" on
paragraph one of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended. Moreover, it has
been held that the length of service of a project employee is not the
controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not "the employment
has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination
of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
In this case, the employment of
each "project worker" is dependent and co-terminus with the
completion or termination of the specific activity or undertaking for which he
was hired which has been pre-determined at the time of engagement. Since, there
is no showing that they (13 complainants) were engaged to perform work-related
activities to the business of respondent which is steel making, there is no
logical and legal sense of applying to them the proviso under the second
paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended
No comments:
Post a Comment