14. Labor Congress of the Philippines vs. NLRCGR No. 123938 May 21, 1998

FIRST DIVISION | Davide, Jr., J.:

FACTS:

- Private petitioners, represented by Labor Congress of the Philippines (LCP), are rank-and-file employees of respondent Empire Food Products.

- Petitioners filed a complaint against Empire, praying for money claims and direct certification of Labor Congress as their bargaining representative.

- Oct. 1990 - LCP and Empire entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), providing:

A) LCP is recognized as the sole bargaining rep. of the employees.B) To adjust the wages of the employees.C) Deduct Union dues to the payroll

- Nov. 9, 1990 - LCP submitted to Empire a proposal for collective bargaining.

- Jan. 29, 1991 - LCP filed a complaint against Empire, alleging:

A) Unfair labor practices ( illegal lockout, dismissal)B) Union bustingC) violation of MOAD) underpayment of wagesE) other damages

- The Labor Arbiter ruled IN FAVOR of Empire, but ordered the reinstatement of the employees who resigned and those who signed quitclaims and releases.

- Upon appeal, NLRC remanded the case back to the Labor Arbiter

- The Labor Arbiter, and AFFIRMED by NLRC, ruled that:A) no prima facie evidence of existence of unfair labor practice, etc.B) Employees were piece-rate workers, hence not entitles to benefitsC) Not underpaid

ISSUE/S: 1) Whether the petitioners who are piece-rate workers are entitled to benefits 2) Whether they are considered regular employees

HELD: They are piece-rate workers; they are entitled to benefits; they are regular employees

RATIO: They are piece-rate workers. They are entitled to full backwages, however, the amount is indeterminate, hence, there is need to determine the varying degrees of production and days worked by each worker. They are REGULAR EMPLOYESS although they are paid in piece-rate basis, based on the following factors: (a) their job is necessary and desirable in the usual business of Empire, (b) petitioners work for them throughout the year, their employment NOT HAVING BEEN DEPENDENT on a specific season, and ( c ) the length of time they worked for Empire. Thus, “while petitioners mode of compensation was on a ‘per piece basis’, the status and nature of their employment was that of regular employees.”

PETITION: GRANTED(Prepared by: E.A.C. Martinez, for exclusive use of Block 3, Labor Standards)