Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 213 views

    Besa v. Trajano

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    The union filed a petition for a certification election claiming there was an employer-employee relationship between Besa and 17 shoe shiners. Besa opposed, arguing no such relationship existed. The mediator ruled in favor of the union. On appeal, the court found no employer-employee relationship existed. Shoe shiners are not paid wages but receive a share of proceeds from customers. Besa does not exercise control or supervision over the shoe shiners work. To establish an employer-employee relationship there must be the right to hire, pay wages, fire, and control/supervise - conditions which were not met here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Besa v. Trajano

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    213 views1 page
    The union filed a petition for a certification election claiming there was an employer-employee relationship between Besa and 17 shoe shiners. Besa opposed, arguing no such relationship existed. The mediator ruled in favor of the union. On appeal, the court found no employer-employee relationship existed. Shoe shiners are not paid wages but receive a share of proceeds from customers. Besa does not exercise control or supervision over the shoe shiners work. To establish an employer-employee relationship there must be the right to hire, pay wages, fire, and control/supervise - conditions which were not met here.

    Original Description:

    A case about Employer-Employee relationship.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The union filed a petition for a certification election claiming there was an employer-employee relationship between Besa and 17 shoe shiners. Besa opposed, arguing no such relationship existed. The mediator ruled in favor of the union. On appeal, the court found no employer-employee relationship existed. Shoe shiners are not paid wages but receive a share of proceeds from customers. Besa does not exercise control or supervision over the shoe shiners work. To establish an employer-employee relationship there must be the right to hire, pay wages, fire, and control/supervise - conditions which were not met here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    213 views1 page

    Besa v. Trajano

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    The union filed a petition for a certification election claiming there was an employer-employee relationship between Besa and 17 shoe shiners. Besa opposed, arguing no such relationship existed. The mediator ruled in favor of the union. On appeal, the court found no employer-employee relationship existed. Shoe shiners are not paid wages but receive a share of proceeds from customers. Besa does not exercise control or supervision over the shoe shiners work. To establish an employer-employee relationship there must be the right to hire, pay wages, fire, and control/supervise - conditions which were not met here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Besa vs.

    Trajano | 146 SCRA 501 | December 29, 1986


    FACTS: January, 1985, private respondent Kaisahan ng Mangagawang Pilipino, a legitimate labor union duly
    registered with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, iled a Petition for Certification Election in the National
    Labor Relations Division of the National Capital Region. Petitioner opposed it alleging that 1. There is no
    employer-employee relationship between Besa's and the petitioners-signatories to the petition; 2. The subject of
    the present petition had previously been decided by the defunct Court of Industrial Relations, and is therefore
    barred under the principle of res judicata; 3. The petition fails to comply with the mandatory formal
    requirements under Sec. 2, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code; and 4. This Hon.
    Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to the petition.
    Acting on the Petition, the Opposition thereto, and the Reply to the Opposition, the Med-Arbiter on June 27,
    1985, issued an order declaring that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties and
    directed that an election be conducted. Petitioner appealed the order to the Director of BLR, but it was
    dismissed. Thus the Petition of the Union (KAMPIL) before the Med-Arbiter for the holding of the certification
    election was granted.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between Besa and the petitioner-signatories to
    the petition.
    RULING: No. The records of the case reveal that an employer-employee relationship does not exist between
    the 17 shoeshiners and petitioner. The shoe shiner is distinct from a piece worker because while the latter is paid
    for work accomplished, he does not, however, contribute anything to the capital of the employer other than his
    service. It is the employer of the piece worker who pays his wages, while the shoe shiner in this instance is paid
    directly by his customer. The piece worker is paid for work accomplished without regard or concern to the profit
    as derived by his employer, but in the case of the shoe shiners, the proceeds derived from the trade are always
    divided share and share alike with respondent BESA. The shoe shiner can take his share of the proceeds
    everyday if he wanted to or weekly as is the practice of qqqBesas The employer of the piece worker supervises
    and controls his work, but in the case of the shoe shiner, respondent BESA does not exercise any degree of
    control or supervision over their person and their work. All these are not obtaining in the case of a piece worker
    as he is in fact an employee in contemplation of law, distinct from the shoe shiner.
    Entitlement of the minimum requirements of the law particularly on wages and allowances presupposes the
    existence of employer-employee relationship which is determined by the concurrence of the following
    conditions: 1. right to hire; 2. payment of wages; 3. right to fire; and 4. control and supervision. The most
    important condition to be considered is the exercise of control and supervision over the employees. these shoe
    shiners are not employees of the company, but are partners instead. This is due to the fact that the
    owner/manager does not exercise control and supervision over the shoe shiners. That the shiners have their own
    customers from whom they charge the fee and divide the proceeds equally with the owner, which make the
    owner categorized them as on purely commission basis.

    You might also like