Scribd
Upload
159 views2 pages

Sime Darby Pilipinas vs. NLRC

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. changed the work schedule of its factory workers in Marikina, Philippines from 7 hours 45 minutes to 9 hours and eliminated the 30-minute paid lunch break. The union representing the monthly salaried employees filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially dismissed the complaint, finding it a valid exercise of management prerogative. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its decision. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, holding that changing work hours and lunch breaks was within the employer's management rights and did not violate labor laws as long as it was applied equally and non-discriminatorily.

Uploaded by

Arah Salas Palac
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
159 views2 pages

Sime Darby Pilipinas vs. NLRC

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. changed the work schedule of its factory workers in Marikina, Philippines from 7 hours 45 minutes to 9 hours and eliminated the 30-minute paid lunch break. The union representing the monthly salaried employees filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially dismissed the complaint, finding it a valid exercise of management prerogative. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its decision. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, holding that changing work hours and lunch breaks was within the employer's management rights and did not violate labor laws as long as it was applied equally and non-discriminatorily.

Uploaded by

Arah Salas Palac
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

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs.

NLRC 2nd Division and Sime Darby Salaried


Employees Association (ALU-TUCP) G.R. No. 119205. April 15, 1998

FACTS:

All company factory workers of Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc., manufacturer


of automotive tires, tubes and other rubber products,  in Marikina
including members of private respondent union, Sime Darby Salaried
Employees Association (ALU-TUCP),  worked from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
with a 30-minute paid on-call lunch break. On August 14, 1992, the
petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory-based employees advising
all its monthly salaried employees in its Marikina Tire Plant a change in
work schedule.

The new schedule extends to 9 hours with two 10-minute paid coffee
break and 1-hour unpaid and undisturbed lunch break. The Warehouse and
Quality Assurance Department working on shifts, are excluded from this
change in work schedule.

Private respondent, which is an association of monthly salaried


employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory, filed on behalf of its
members a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice,
discrimination and evasion of liability.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change
in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute paid lunch
break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise of management
prerogative and that the new work schedule, break time and one-hour
lunch break did not have the effect of diminishing the benefits granted to
factory workers as the working time did not exceed eight (8) hours.

NLRC sustained the decision of Labor Arbiter but upon motion for
reconsideration by private respondent, the NLRC, having two new
commissioners, reversed its earlier decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the act of management in revising the work schedule of its
employees and eliminating their paid lunch break constitutes unfair labor
practice?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the employer has the right to exercise its
management prerogatives. Management is free to regulate, according to its own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work
assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to
be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees,
work supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of
workers. Management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the
service so require, to change the working hours of its employees. So long as
such prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.

In this case, the new work schedule set by the employer fully complies with the
daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code. Although
the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees
were on call and could be called upon to do jobs during lunch break. With the
new schedule, they can take one-hour lunch break without any interruption
from their employer.

Moreover, this act was not discriminatory as the new schedule applies to all
employees in the factory similarly situated whether they are union members or
not.

You might also like