Photo from Pexels | Alex Kotliarskyi
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 a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is 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.
AT A GLANCE:
To ensure that a work pool arrangement is not used as a scheme to circumvent the employees’ security of tenure, the employer must prove that (i) a work pool in fact exists, and (ii) the members therein are free to leave anytime and offer their services to other employers.
The creation of a work pool is a valid exercise of management prerogative. It is a privilege inherent in the employer’s right to control and manage its enterprise effectively, and freely conduct its business operations to achieve its purpose.
In the case of Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No. 202481, September 8, 2020) the Supreme Court held that a work pool may exist although the workers in the pool do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary breaks in the business, provided that the worker shall be available when called to report for a project. Although primarily applicable to regular seasonal workers, this set-up can likewise be applied to project workers insofar as the effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned. It is said that this arrangement is beneficial to both the employer and employee for it prevents the unjust situation of “coddling labor at the expense of capital” and at the same time enables the workers to attain the status of regular employees. In Lao, the Court held that the continuous rehiring of the same set of employees within the framework of the Lao Group of Companies is strongly indicative that private respondents were an integral part of a work pool from which petitioners drew its workers for its various projects.
However, in order to ensure that the work pool arrangement is not used as a scheme to circumvent the employees’ security of tenure, the employer must prove that (i) a work pool in fact exists, and (ii) the members therein are free to leave anytime and offer their services to other employers. These requirements are critical in defining the precise nature of the workers’ employment.
Furthermore, in Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. v NLRC (G.R. No. 114290), the Court explained that members of a work pool could either be project employees or regular employees. Specifically, members of a work pool acquire regular employment status if: (i) they were continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (ii) the tasks they perform are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.