Scribd
Upload
127 views

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement VS NLRC

The workers were employed at a glass factory for an average of 7 years, loading and unloading bottles and shells. Their work hours varied and they sometimes had to work on weekends without overtime pay. They were paid per carton loaded. When production stopped due to furnace issues, so did their work. They organized a union but the company refused to bargain, claiming the workers were employed by an independent contractor. The Supreme Court ruled an employee-employer relationship existed as the company controlled the work, including supervision and payment of workers.

Uploaded by

Balaod Maricor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement VS NLRC

The workers were employed at a glass factory for an average of 7 years, loading and unloading bottles and shells. Their work hours varied and they sometimes had to work on weekends without overtime pay. They were paid per carton loaded. When production stopped due to furnace issues, so did their work. They organized a union but the company refused to bargain, claiming the workers were employed by an independent contractor. The Supreme Court ruled an employee-employer relationship existed as the company controlled the work, including supervision and payment of workers.

Uploaded by

Balaod Maricor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

3

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement


versus
National Labor Relations Commission
G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987

FACTS:
Complainants in this case are workers who were employed at the San Miguel Parola
Glass Factory averaging about seven (7) years of service at the time of their termination.
They worked at the SMC Plant as "cargadores" or "pahinante" tasked with loading,
unloading, piling or palleting empty bottles and woosen shells to and from company
trucks and warehouses. They also accompanied the company trucks on their delivery
routes. These workers first reported for work to Superintendent-in-Charge Camahort who
issues to them gate passes. The company provided them with tools, equipment and
paraphernalia used in their activities.
Job orders came from Camahort. Which are then handed to an assistant-officer-in-
charge who informs the warehousemen and checkers regarding the orders. Said orders are
relayed to the group leaders who then give instructions to the workers.
Work in the glass factory depended wholly on the volume of bottles manufactured to
be loaded and unloaded. Work day was not fixed at 8 hours. There were times it exceeded
8 hours and they were required to render work on Sundays and holidays. No overtime or
additional compensation was paid to them for these instances.
Workers were paid every ten (10) days on piece-rate based on the number of cartons
and wooden shells they were able to load, unload, or pile.
The complainants worked exclusive at the SMC plant. When any of the glass furnaces
suffered a breakdown, making a shutdown necessary, the work was temporarily
suspended. As soon as things were fixed, they would return to work at the glass plant.
There was no written contract specifying the performance of a specified piece of work,
the nature and extent of the work and the duration of their engagement.
Later, the workers organized and affiliated themselves with SMC’s employees union
and engaged in union activities. They tried to bargain with management who did not heed
to any of their demands. San Miguel refused to bargain alleging that the workers are not
their employee, and their real employer was Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an
independent labor contracting firm.
Their jobs were dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employee-employer relationship exists between San Miguel
Corporation and the workers

SUPREME COURT RULING:


Employee-employer relationship exists.

The indicators of Independent Contracting


4

The existence of an independent contractor relationship is generally established by the


following guidelines:
1. whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business;
2. the nature and extent of the work;
3. the skill required;
4. the term and duration of the relationship;
5. the control and supervision over the work, hiring, firing and payment of the
contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises
tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of
payment" the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work;
San Miguel failed to impress the court that the employees were of the independent
contractor. Most importantly, the company possessed the right of control over the means
and methods for performing the work. The workers were under the supervision of the
company supervisor.

You might also like