Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot Digest

Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot 

Facts:

The petitioner company provided arrastre services at Pier 8 and employs stevedores for loading and unloading of cargoes from vessels. Private respondent Baclot was hires as a stevedore. When PPA took over PASSI, it absorbed its workers as well as the relievers. Baclot then filed a complaint alleging that he should be considered as a regular since he rendered a total of 1 year work to the company. On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that he was merely hired as a reliever stevedore and could not become regular.

Issue: W/N the private respondent is a regular employee

RULING: Yes, he is a regular employee but on a different basis. The standards in determining whether one is a regular or a casual or project employee is laid down in Art. 280 of the Labor Code. It is provided therein a regular employee is one who performs activities necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer except project or seasonal employees. 

Moreover, Art. 281 considers a regular employee as one who is allowed to work after a probationary period. The respondent is similar to that of a project/seasonal employee but on a daily basis. Finally, he is deemed as a casual under the 2nd par. of Art. 280, also under the CBA provisions between PASSI and the workers' union, where a union shop was adopted, it was provided that the petitioner shall agree to convert to regular status all incumbent probationary or casual employees of PASSI who served it for not less than 6 months from the date of hiring.

Kay Products v. CA Digest

Kay Products v. CA Digest

Facts:

1. The private respondents worked as factory sewers of the petitioner. They, together with other employees planned to form a union. When the petitioner learned of this plan, it announced the the concerned employees will be transferred to an employment agency (Gerico) with promised bigger and better benefits. The were however required to sign resignation letters.

2. The respondents still continued to report to the petitioner's factory and now enjoyed lesser wage rates. The petitioner again informed them that Gerico had been dissolved and as a result they need to sign separate contacts with another corporation (RCVJ). However, some of the employees refused to sign the new contract. Amidst all these developments, the employees were able to form a union. The 73 employees together with the union, filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice, underpayment and failure to classify then as regulars. Subsequently, these employees were asked to make a 2-week leave without pay and were no longer allowed to return back to work thereafter. Due to this development, the respondents amended the complain to one of illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter: There was voluntary resignation

NLRC: Affirmed.

CA: Respondents are regular employees and could only be terminated for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code

Issue: W/N the private respondents are regular employees

RULING:

Yes. The status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker in the day immediately after the end of his 1st year. There was bad faith with the dismissals entitling respondents to damages. Moreover, petitioner (Kay Lee) is liable solidarily with the corporation due to the termination done with malice and bad faith since she was the one who decided the transfers.