Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Management Prerogative
“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. The exercise of management prerogative, however,
is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights
of labor.” (Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc.; GR 198783,
April 15, 2013)
“However, the exercise of management prerogative is not absolute. By its very nature,
encompassing as it could be, management prerogative must be exercised in good faith
and with due regard to the rights of labor — verily, with the principles of fair play at
heart and justice in mind. While we concede that management would best know its
operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized as an
implement to circumvent our laws and oppress employees. The prerogative accorded
management cannot defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance
the conflicting interests of labor and management, not to tilt the scale in favor of one
over the other, but to guaranty that labor and management stand on equal footing
when bargaining in good faith with each other.” (Unicorn Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte;
GR 154689, November 25, 2004.)
Article 82
Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
Section 2(a), Rule I
Section 1(a), Rule II
Section 7, Rule III
Section 1(a), Rule IV
Section 1(a), Rule V
Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
Section 2(b) and 2(c), Rule I
Section 1(d), Rule II
Section 7, Rule III
Section 1(d), Rule IV
Section 1(c), Rule V
Section 2, Rule VI
Statutory definitions of managerial employee
Section 2(b) and 2(c), Rule I, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code
Section 2, Rule VI, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code
See also Article 218 (m), but note National Sugar Refineries Corporation ruling
(infra)
Cases:
Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. v. Castro; GR 186070, April 11, 2011.
Call center supervisor
M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez; GR 169173, June 5, 2009.
Administration Manager and the Executive Assistant to the General Manager
Penaranda v. BPC; GR 159577, May 3, 2006.
Dela Cruz v. NLRC; GR 121288, November 20, 1988.
Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. v. Laguesma;
GR 107761, December 27, 1994.
National Sugar Refineries Corporation v. NLRC; GR 101761; March 24, 1993
3rd type of excluded employees: Domestic servants and persons in the personal service
of another
Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
Section 2(d), Rule I
Section 1(c), Rule II
Section 7, Rule III
Section 1(c), Rule IV
Section 1(b), Rule V
Read the following provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
Section 2(e), Rule I
Section 1(e), Rule II
Section 1 & 7(a), Rule III
Section 1(e) & 8(b), Rule IV
Section 1(e), Rule V
Eight-Hour Labor Law: “designed not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the
laborer or employee, but in a way to minimize unemployment by forcing employers,
in cases where more than 8-hour operation is necessary, to utilize different shifts of
laborers or employees working only for eight hours each.” (Manila Terminal Co., Inc.
v. Court of Industrial Relations; GR L-4148, July 16, 1952.)
“For purposes of this Rule a "day" shall mean a work day of twenty-four (24)
consecutive hours beginning at the same time each calendar year. A "week" shall
mean the work of 168 consecutive hours, or seven consecutive 24-hour work days,
beginning at the same hour and on the same calendar day each calendar week.”
(Section 5, Rule I-A, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.)
“The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their
employer.” (Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC; GR 119205, April 15, 1998.)
“The Court is convinced from the records now before it, that there was no unfair
labor practice. As found by the NLRC, the private respondents themselves never
questioned the existence of an economic crisis but, in fact, admitted its existence.
There is basis for the petitioner's contentions that the reduction of work schedule
was temporary, that it was taken only after notice and consultations with the
workers and supervisors, that a consensus was reached on how to deal with
deteriorating economic conditions and reduced sales and that the temporary
reduction of working days was a more humane solution instead of a retrenchment
and reduction of personnel. The petitioner further points out that this is in
consonance with the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and
its employees.” (Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc. v. NLRC; GR 80737, September 29,
1988.)
“financial losses must be shown before a company can validly opt to reduce the
work hours of its employees.” (Linton Commercial Co., Inc. v. Hellera; G.R. No.
163147, October 10, 2007.)
Compressed workweek
Sections 8, 10 & 11, Rule I, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
PESALA v. NLRC; GR 105963, August 22, 1996.
Caltex Regular Employees v. Caltex (Phils), Inc.; GR 111359, August 15, 1995.