The broadcast industry is indeed a unique industry insofar as labor and employment situations are concerned. Broadcast industry workers, which refer to radio and television employees, are said to have peculiar and special skills necessary to provide news and entertainment.
Under Policy Instruction No. 40 issued in 1979 by then Minister of Labor Blas D. Ople, the status of broadcast industry workers was classified into two: (1) station employees and (2) program employees. Station employees include those whose services are related to such operations as finance, administration, human resource, and marketing. They are workers who report to work during the normal working hours.
Program employees, on the other hand, are those whose skills, talents, or services are engaged by the station for a particular or specific program or undertaking. They are not required to observe normal working hours and on other days beyond the normal work hours observed by station employees.
In the above classification, production assistants (PAs) are included under the classification of program employees. However, the issue arises as to whether or not PAs, considering the nature of their job, are considered regular employees. Shall they be accorded the benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of rank-and-file employees?
In the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Callejo et al., G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006, the Supreme Court settled the issue concerning the employment status of broadcast Pas. In the said case, respondents were Pas assigned at the news and public affairs for various radio programs in the ABS-CBN Cebu station. They were made to arrange airing of commercial broadcasting based on the daily operations log and digicart; coordinate with personalities for air interviews; prepare schedules of reporters for scheduled news reporting and lead-in or incoming reports; facilitate airtime schedule for public service announcements and complaints, assist the anchor in program interviews; and record clerical reports. They continuously performed the same Activities for an average of five years.
The petitioner company, however, contented the PAs are considered its talents or program employees, hence, not regular employees. It maintained that as program employee, A PA’s engagement is coterminous with the completion of the program, and may be extended or renewed provided that the program is on-going. A PA may also be assigned to new or other programs, as what actually happened to the respondent Pas when they were later assigned to non-drama programs, upon the cancellation of one program and the commencement of another or upon discretion of the management. Therefore, it posited that since Pas are not regular employees, they are not entitled to the benefits under the CBA.
The court, however, found the petitioner’s contention untenable and without merit. The court affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, which cited the New Pacific Timber and Supply Company v. NLRC (385 Phil 93), that PAs were entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were “regular employees who contributed to the profits of petitioner through their labor.” Even the Court of Appeals favored the NLRC ruling, stating that “production assistants are not mere project employees but regular employees who perform tasks necessary and desirable in the usual trade and business of the employer.”
The legal basis was found in Article 280 of the labor Code, which provides in part that “an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business and trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”
The Court held that respondent PAs cannot be considered project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement.
Citing Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, 473 SCRA 189, the Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a regular employee: “The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job of at leas a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.”
The Court ruled that respondents were not hired by petitioner as talents: The fact that respondent received pre-agreed talent fees instead of salaries, that hey did not observe the required office hours, and that they were permitted to join other productions during their free time are not conclusive of the nature of their employment. Respondents cannot be considered talents because they are not actors or actresses or radio specialists or mere clerks of utility employees. They are regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors.
Proven in the present case is the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents, which was not established in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 431 SCRA 538, and, therefore, cannot be applied to the case at bar because Sonza, by applying the control test, was found to be an independent contractor and not a regular employee. Thus, finding said respondent Pas as regular employees and not mere project employees, the Court held that they are entitled to the benefits provided for in the existing CBA between petitioner and its rank-and-file employees. (Written by Jerome Yanson for the Institute for Labor Studies, WorkLens, Vol. III, January – March 2007)
Under Policy Instruction No. 40 issued in 1979 by then Minister of Labor Blas D. Ople, the status of broadcast industry workers was classified into two: (1) station employees and (2) program employees. Station employees include those whose services are related to such operations as finance, administration, human resource, and marketing. They are workers who report to work during the normal working hours.
Program employees, on the other hand, are those whose skills, talents, or services are engaged by the station for a particular or specific program or undertaking. They are not required to observe normal working hours and on other days beyond the normal work hours observed by station employees.
In the above classification, production assistants (PAs) are included under the classification of program employees. However, the issue arises as to whether or not PAs, considering the nature of their job, are considered regular employees. Shall they be accorded the benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of rank-and-file employees?
In the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Callejo et al., G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006, the Supreme Court settled the issue concerning the employment status of broadcast Pas. In the said case, respondents were Pas assigned at the news and public affairs for various radio programs in the ABS-CBN Cebu station. They were made to arrange airing of commercial broadcasting based on the daily operations log and digicart; coordinate with personalities for air interviews; prepare schedules of reporters for scheduled news reporting and lead-in or incoming reports; facilitate airtime schedule for public service announcements and complaints, assist the anchor in program interviews; and record clerical reports. They continuously performed the same Activities for an average of five years.
The petitioner company, however, contented the PAs are considered its talents or program employees, hence, not regular employees. It maintained that as program employee, A PA’s engagement is coterminous with the completion of the program, and may be extended or renewed provided that the program is on-going. A PA may also be assigned to new or other programs, as what actually happened to the respondent Pas when they were later assigned to non-drama programs, upon the cancellation of one program and the commencement of another or upon discretion of the management. Therefore, it posited that since Pas are not regular employees, they are not entitled to the benefits under the CBA.
The court, however, found the petitioner’s contention untenable and without merit. The court affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, which cited the New Pacific Timber and Supply Company v. NLRC (385 Phil 93), that PAs were entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were “regular employees who contributed to the profits of petitioner through their labor.” Even the Court of Appeals favored the NLRC ruling, stating that “production assistants are not mere project employees but regular employees who perform tasks necessary and desirable in the usual trade and business of the employer.”
The legal basis was found in Article 280 of the labor Code, which provides in part that “an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business and trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”
The Court held that respondent PAs cannot be considered project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement.
Citing Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, 473 SCRA 189, the Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a regular employee: “The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job of at leas a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.”
The Court ruled that respondents were not hired by petitioner as talents: The fact that respondent received pre-agreed talent fees instead of salaries, that hey did not observe the required office hours, and that they were permitted to join other productions during their free time are not conclusive of the nature of their employment. Respondents cannot be considered talents because they are not actors or actresses or radio specialists or mere clerks of utility employees. They are regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors.
Proven in the present case is the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents, which was not established in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 431 SCRA 538, and, therefore, cannot be applied to the case at bar because Sonza, by applying the control test, was found to be an independent contractor and not a regular employee. Thus, finding said respondent Pas as regular employees and not mere project employees, the Court held that they are entitled to the benefits provided for in the existing CBA between petitioner and its rank-and-file employees. (Written by Jerome Yanson for the Institute for Labor Studies, WorkLens, Vol. III, January – March 2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment