G.R. No. 119205-SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC.

https://vdocuments.mx/labor-case-digest-batch-3.
html
Coffee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between:
9:30 A.M. 10:30 A.M. and

[G.R. No. 119205. April 15, 1998]
2:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M.
Lunch break will be between:

SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND DIVISION) and SIME DARBY
12:00 NN 1:00 P.M. (Monday to Friday).
SALARIED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ALU-TUCP), respondents.
Excluded from the above schedule are the Warehouse and QA

DECISION
employees who are on shifting. Their work and break time
BELLOSILLO, J.: schedules will be maintained as it is now.[1]
Since private respondent felt affected adversely by the change in the
Is the act of management in revising the work schedule of its employees work schedule and discontinuance of the 30-minute paid on call lunch break,
and discarding their paid lunch break constitutive of unfair labor practice? it filed on behalf of its members a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair
labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability pursuant to the
Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc., petitioner, is engaged in the manufacture of resolution of this Court in Sime Darby International Tire Co., Inc. v.
automotive tires, tubes and other rubber products. Sime Darby Salaried NLRC.[2]However, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground
Employees Association (ALU-TUCP), private respondent, is an association of that the change in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute
monthly salaried employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory. Prior to the paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise of
present controversy, all company factory workers in Marikina including management prerogative and that the new work schedule, break time and
members of private respondent union worked from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 one-hour lunch break did not have the effect of diminishing the benefits
p.m. with a 30 minute paid on call lunch break. granted to factory workers as the working time did not exceed eight (8)
On 14 August 1992 petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory- hours.
based employees advising all its monthly salaried employees in its Marikina The Labor Arbiter further held that the factory workers would be justly
Tire Plant, except those in the Warehouse and Quality Assurance Department enriched if they continued to be paid during their lunch break even if they
working on shifts, a change in work schedule effective 14 September 1992 were no longer on call or required to work during the break. He also ruled
thus that the decision in the earlier Sime Darby case[3] was not applicable to the
instant case because the former involved discrimination of certain employees
TO: ALL FACTORY-BASED EMPLOYEES who were not paid for their 30-minute lunch break while the rest of the
RE: NEW WORK SCHEDULE factory workers were paid; hence, this Court ordered that the discriminated
employees be similarly paid the additional compensation for their lunch
Effective Monday, September 14, 1992, the new work schedule break.
factory office will be as follows: Private respondent appealed to respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which sustained the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the
7:45 A.M. 4:45 P.M. (Monday to Friday) appeal.[4] However, upon motion for reconsideration by private respondent,
the NLRC, this time with two (2) new commissioners replacing those who
7:45 A.M. 11:45 P.M. (Saturday). earlier retired, reversed its arlier decision of 20 April 1994 as well as the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.[5] The NLRC considered the decision of this
1
https://vdocuments.mx/labor-case-digest-batch-3.html
Court in the Sime Darby case of 1990 as the law of the case wherein daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor
petitioner was ordered to pay the money value of these covered employees Code.[7] Besides, the new schedule applies to all employees in the factory
deprived of lunch and/or working time breaks. The public respondent similarly situated whether they are union members or not.[8]
declared that the new work schedule deprived the employees of the benefits
of time-honored company practice of providing its employees a 30-minute Consequently, it was grave abuse of discretion for public respondent to
paid lunch break resulting in an unjust diminution of company privileges equate the earlier Sime Darby case[9] with the facts obtaining in this
prohibited by Art. 100 of the Labor Code, as amended. Hence, this petition case. That ruling in the former case is not applicable here. The issue in that
alleging that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion case involved the matter of granting lunch breaks to certain employees while
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: (a) in ruling that petitioner depriving the other employees of such breaks. This Court affirmed in that
committed unfair labor practice in the implementation of the change in the case the NLRCs finding that such act of management was discriminatory and
work schedule of its employees from 7:45 a.m. 3:45 p.m. to 7:45 a.m. 4:45 constituted unfair labor practice.
p.m. with one-hour lunch break from 12:00 nn to 1:00 p.m.; (b) in holding The case before us does not pertain to any controversy involving
that there was diminution of benefits when the 30-minute paid lunch break discrimination of employees but only the issue of whether the change of
was eliminated; (c) in failing to consider that in the earlier Sime Darby case work schedule, which management deems necessary to increase production,
affirming the decision of the NLRC, petitioner was authorized to discontinue constitutes unfair labor practice. As shown by the records, the change
the practice of having a 30-minute paid lunch break should it decide to do so; effected by management with regard to working time is made to apply to all
and (d) in ignoring petitioners inherent management prerogative of factory employees engaged in the same line of work whether or not they are
determining and fixing the work schedule of its employees which is expressly members of private respondent union. Hence, it cannot be said that the new
recognized in the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and scheme adopted by management prejudices the right of private respondent
private respondent. to self-organization.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed in lieu of comment a Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the
manifestation and motion recommending that the petition be granted, process, it may devise means to attain that goal. Even as the law is solicitous
alleging that the 14 August 1992 memorandum which contained the new of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer
work schedule was not discriminatory of the union members nor did it to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives.[10] Thus, management
constitute unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner. is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects
We agree, hence, we sustain petitioner. The right to fix the work of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time,
schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. In the instant place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers,
case petitioner, as the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of
efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production.[6] It workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.[11] Further,
rationalizes that while the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so
lunch break, the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that require, to change the working hours of its employees. So long as such
period as they were on call. Even if denominated as lunch break, this period prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers
could very well be considered as working time because the factory interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of
employees were required to work if necessary and were paid accordingly for the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will
working. With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one- uphold such exercise.[12]
hour lunch break without any interruption from their employer. For a full While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and
one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees can freely and effectively the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every
use this hour not only for eating but also for their rest and comfort which are dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has
conducive to more efficiency and better performance in their work. Since the right which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
employees are no longer required to work during this one-hour lunch break, simple fair play. Although this Court has inclined more often than not toward
there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period. We agree the worker and has upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer, such
with the Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully complies with the as favoritism has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case
2
https://vdocuments.mx/labor-case-digest-batch-3.html
for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the
applicable law and doctrine.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission dated 29 November 1994 is SET ASIDE and the
decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 26 November 1993 dismissing the
complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 119205-SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 119205-SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://vdocuments.mx/labor-case-digest-batch-3.

Coffee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between:

9:30 A.M. 10:30 A.M. and

Lunch break will be between:

Excluded from the above schedule are the Warehouse and QA

You might also like