Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    November 13, 2021 (Labor Law I)

    Uploaded by

    John Turner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    November 13, 2021 (Labor Law I)

    Uploaded by

    John Turner
    7 views42 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views42 pages

    November 13, 2021 (Labor Law I)

    Uploaded by

    John Turner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 42
    In providing that the “normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day,” Article 83 of the Labor Code et a maximum of number of hours as “normal hours of work” id not prohibit work of less than eight hours. (Legend Hotel but (Manila) vs. Realuyo, G.R. No. 153511, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 10, Bersamin, J.) Art. 84. Hours Worked.—Hours worked shall include (a) all time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at a ed workplace; and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. Rest periods of short duration during working hours shall be counted as hours worked. THE RULES ON WAITING TIME _{a) Waiting time spent by an employee shall be considered as xg time if waiting is an integral part of his work or the eel is required or engaged by the employer to wait; and * (b) An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer’s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working patthileson call. (Section 5, Rule |, Book Ill of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) Question: Are the times spent by the employee on lectures, meetings, training programs part of his/ her working time? Answer: No. Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs, and other similar activities shall not be counted as working time if all of the following conditions are met: (a) Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours; (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and (c) The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance. (Section 6, Rule |, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) Art. 85. Meal Periods.—Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every emplover to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes ime-orf for their regular meals. My .uvey One-hour lunch break without any interruption is not compensable ra full one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for their_rest_and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and better performance in their work. Since the employees are no longer required to work during this one-hour lunch break, there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period. (sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 86, Bellosillo, J.) A 30-minute lunch break is considered as working time A 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be called uporr to do jobs during that period as they were “on call.” Even if denominated as lunch break, this period could very well be considered as working time because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and were paid accordingly for working. (sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 86, Bellosillo, J.) Question: The work schedule of the employées is from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break. Later, the emnlayer issued a memorandum changing their work schedule rom 7:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. with lunch break from 12 nn to 1 p.m. without _pay. The employees filed a complaint before the NLRC questioning the elimination of the 30 minute paid lunch break as diminution of their benefits. Was the argument of the employees correct? Answer: No. The right to fix the work schedules of the employees is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The reason for the adjustment of schedule is to improved production. The old work crreaure included a 30-minute paid lunch break where the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that period as they were “on call.” With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break without any interruption from their employer. There is no mqre need for them to be compensated for this period. (sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 86, Bellosillo, J.) 2017 Bar Question: Percival was a mechanic of Pacific Airlines. He enjoyed a meal break of one hour. However, during meal breaks, he quired to be on stand-by for emergency work. During emergencies, he was made to forego his meals or to hurry up eating. He demanded payment of overtime for work done during his meal periods. Is Percival correct? Explain your answer. (3%) b Suggested answer: Yes, Percival is correct. What is not compensable under the law is a one-hour undisturbed lunch break uhere an employee can freely and effectively use this hour not only or eating but also for their rest and comfort. In Percival’s case, he is considered “on call” during his lunch break since he was required to be on stand-by and was made to forego his meals during emergencies. (sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 86, Bellosillo, J.) Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time. (Section 7,Rule 1, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) The rule on time spent during “brownouts” Brownouts running for more than twenty minutes may not be eated as hours worked provided that any of the following conditions are present: (a) The employees can leave their work place or go elsewhere whether within or without the work premises; or (0) The employees can use the time effectively for their own interest. (Durabuilt Recapping Plant & Co. vs. NLRC, No. L-76746, July 27, 1987, 152 SCRA 328, Gutierrez, J.) ERALCO) , Semestral breaks may be considered as “hours worked” The semestral break scheduled is an interruption beyond ers’ control and it cannot be used effectively nor gainfully in the employee’s interest. Thus, the semestral break may also be considered as “hours worked.” (University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. University of Pangasinan, No. L-63122, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 691, Gutierrez, J.) The time-off for attending grievance meetings is working time The CBA provision categorically states that the company will pay Gic=

    You might also like