ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

June 1, 2022

FLOATING STATUS: NOT UNLAWFUL PER SE

Image Source

Published — June 1, 2022

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

For more information about other employment status read: Knowing the Difference Between Probationary Employment and Project Employment

What is “Floating Status”?

  • Floating Status is synonymous to temporary retrenchment of business or undertaking thereby inevitably forcing or causing its affected employees to go on leave.
  • It is sometimes called as “Temporary Off – detail” or “off-detailing” and is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

What is the legal basis of “Floating Status”?
o The legal basis for “Floating Status” is Article 301 of the Labor Code which states the following:

“The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment (sic) by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In such all cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.”

When “Floating Status” is not equivalent to dismissal
o “Off-detailing” or putting an employee on floating status is not equivalent to dismissal, for as long as it does not last for more than six (6) months. After six months, the employee should be recalled for work without loss of seniority rights, or for a new assignment; otherwise, he is deemed terminated.

When “Floating Status” is equivalent to constructive dismissal; thus, becomes unlawful
o In the case of Airborne Maintenance vs. Egos (G.R. No. 222748, April 03, 2019), to wit:

“Here, the totality of the foregoing circumstances shows that petitioner’s acts of not informing respondent and the DOLE of the suspension of its operations, failing to prove the bona fide suspension of its business or undertaking, ignoring respondent’s follow-ups on a new assignment, and belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it, were done to make it appear as if respondent had not been dismissed. These acts, however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which petitioner is liable.” (emphasis ours)

o Also, in the case of Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal (G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012), to wit:

“Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because “continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay” and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.”

Who has the burden of proof?
o In the case of Lopez vs. Irvine Construction Corporation (G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014), to wit:

“The paramount consideration should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put some of its employees temporarily out of work. This means that the employer should be able to prove that it is faced with a clear and compelling economic reason which reasonably forces it to temporarily shut down its business operations or a particular undertaking, incidentally resulting to the temporary lay-off of its employees.

Due to the grim economic consequences to the employee, case law states that the employer should also bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.” (emphasis ours)

225 thoughts on “FLOATING STATUS: NOT UNLAWFUL PER SE

  • Good day!
    for Security Agencies:
    What if there was no cessation of business, and an employee was exited from his/her post for any reason? How long he/she will be marked as “floating status”? Thank you

  • hi im employed in my company as security personel.thus the client reduced its maning due to high cost of administrative fee of our company that results to a reduction of posting.the pro blem is its not my post who is under concerned but the other area but instead i was relieved due to seniority without any grounds layed against to me from the employer.therefore i was choose to be the one who will be out as they replaced the one who lost its detailed post.was it lawful in that particular status that i am the who was relieved and not the one who had lost its post?

  • Hi there , I recently started to learning this cool language, I mean English, and I can not understand it very completely, but I have found this page very useful, vielen dank

  • Hi, if the client decided to pull-out the regular employee because he/she wasn’t able to meet the daily quota after all the coaching to the employee.
    Is it okay to to float the employee immediately?

  • Good day!
    Is floating status applicable only if business suspended operations?

    Instead of retrenchment, can an employer place some employees under floating status until such time that revenues can support the business operations?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

56 Shares
Share56
Tweet
Share