Employees’ Rights Management Prerogatives 1.Security of Tenure 1.Hire 2.Self Organization 2.Fire 3.Collective Bargaining 3.Transfer 4.Just and Humane Conditions of 4.Promote/Demote Work 5.Lay Off 5.Strikes/Concerted Actions 6.Lay Down Policies 6.Participation in Decision Making 7.Discipline 7.Just Share in the Fruits of 8.Working Hours Production 9.Working Procedures 8.Labor Standards 9.CBA Rights Employee Selection • "If the employer can compel the employee to work against the latter's will, this is servitude. If the employee can compel the employer to give him work against the employer's will, this is oppression.“ (Pampanga Bus Co., Inc v. Pambusco Employees’ Union, Inc, citing Mills v. United States Printing Co., 99 App. Div., 605; 91 N.Y.S., 185, 189-192.) To Discipline and/or Dismiss • Jumuad vs. Hi-Flyer Food, Inc. • Management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations. • As long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or under valid agreements. To Prescribe Reasonable Rules and Regulations • San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, GR No. 146121-22 • An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees. Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College • An employer undeniably has the right to discipline its employees and, if need be, dismiss them if there is a valid cause to do so. However, the conduct of the employee is not considered by law as disgraceful or immoral. Further, the employers at the time of the controversy, does not have any policy or rule against an employee who engages in pre- marital sexual relations and conceives a child as a result thereof. There being no valid basis in law or even in employer’s policy and rules, the dismissal of the employee is not a valid exercise of management prerogative. To Transfer/Reassign Employees • Alert Security and Investigation Agency vs. Pasawilan • “x x x The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. x x x“ Bisig Manggawa sa Tryco vs. NLRC • When the transfer is not unreasonable or inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to constructive dismissal. • Management prerogative extends to the management ‘s right to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment including the freedom to transfer and reassign employees from one area to another according to the requirements of its business. Aguanza vs. Asian Terminal Inc. • The transfer of employees has been traditionally among the acts identified as a management prerogative subject only to limitations found in law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. Endico vs. Quantum Foods Distribution Center • In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests, especially during adverse business conditions, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges and the action is not motivated by discrimination, bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprises effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. PT&T vs. Court of Appeals • There is no law that compels an employee to accept a promotion for the reason that a promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which a person has a right to refuse. Hence, the exercise by the private respondents of their right cannot be considered in law as insubordination, or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer. As such, there was no valid cause for the private respondents dismissal. Dosch vs. NLRC • "A transfer is a movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in the service. Promotion, on the other hand, is the advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary. Whereas, promotion denotes a scalar ascent of a senior officer or employee to another position, higher either in rank or salary, transfer refers to lateral movement from one position to another, of equivalent rank, level or salary." • There is no law that compels an employee to accept a promotion, as a promotion is in the nature of a gift or a reward, which a person has a right to refuse. Mendoza vs. Rural Bank of Lucban • In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -- provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Norkis Trading Co., vs. NLRC • Employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. • There was no showing of any valid and legitimate reason for the verbal transfer order and in fact the employee was not given any work to do. PLDT vs. Paquio • By its very nature, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of fair play and justice. In particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. The employer bears the burden of proving that the transfer of the employee has complied with the foregoing test. Duldulao vs. Court of Appeals • It is the employer’s prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees’ qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company. An employee’s right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful. To Set Productivity Standards Right to Demote • Leonardo v. NLRC • The right to demote an employee also falls within the category of management prerogatives. An employer is entitled to impose productivity standards for its workers, and in fact, non-compliance may be visited with a penalty even more severe than demotion. Said arrangement is an allowable exercise of company rights. Policy on Post-employment Ban • Rivera vs. Solidbank • In determining whether the contract is reasonable or not, the trial court should consider the following factors: (a) whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest of the employer; (b) whether the covenant creates an undue burden on the employee; (c) whether the covenant is injurious to the public welfare; (d) whether the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant are reasonable; and (e) whether the restraint is reasonable from the standpoint of public policy. Policy on Marital Discrimination • To justify a bona fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job. (Star Paper Corp., vs. Simbol) • Duncan and PT&T instruct us that the requirement of reasonableness must be clearly established to uphold the questioned employment policy. The employer has the burden to prove the existence of a reasonable business necessity. The burden was successfully discharged in Duncan but not in PT&T. Policy on Weight Management • Yrasuegui v. PAL • Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.”