Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    MAGSALIN Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    1) Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils hired workers as temporary sales route helpers for up to 5 months but ended up employing them day-to-day for a longer period. 2) The workers filed for regularization of employment which totaled 58 workers claiming their services were necessary to the company's regular operations. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the repeated hiring and continuing need for the workers' daily services showed the necessity of their work to the company's regular business operations, qualifying them for regularization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MAGSALIN Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    19 views1 page
    1) Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils hired workers as temporary sales route helpers for up to 5 months but ended up employing them day-to-day for a longer period. 2) The workers filed for regularization of employment which totaled 58 workers claiming their services were necessary to the company's regular operations. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the repeated hiring and continuing need for the workers' daily services showed the necessity of their work to the company's regular business operations, qualifying them for regularization.

    Original Description:

    MAGSALIN vs nlrc

    Original Title

    MAGSALIN vs nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils hired workers as temporary sales route helpers for up to 5 months but ended up employing them day-to-day for a longer period. 2) The workers filed for regularization of employment which totaled 58 workers claiming their services were necessary to the company's regular operations. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the repeated hiring and continuing need for the workers' daily services showed the necessity of their work to the company's regular business operations, qualifying them for regularization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    MAGSALIN Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    1) Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils hired workers as temporary sales route helpers for up to 5 months but ended up employing them day-to-day for a longer period. 2) The workers filed for regularization of employment which totaled 58 workers claiming their services were necessary to the company's regular operations. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the repeated hiring and continuing need for the workers' daily services showed the necessity of their work to the company's regular business operations, qualifying them for regularization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    36

    Buenaventura C. Magsalin And Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils


    versus
    National Organization Of Working Men (N.O.W.N), Et. Al.,
    G.R. No. 148492, May 9, 2003

    FACTS:

    Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., petitioner, engaged the services of respondent workers
    as sales route helpers for a limited period of 5 years months. After 5 months, respondent
    workers were employed by petitioner company on a day-to-day basis. According to
    petitioner company, respondent workers were hired to substitute for regular sales route
    helpers whenever the latter would be unavailable or when there would be an unexpected
    shortage of manpower in any of its work places or an unusually high volume of work.
    The practice was for the workers to wait every morning outside the gates of the sales
    office of petitioner company. If thus hired, the workers then be paid their wages at the end
    of the day. Ultimately, respondent workers asked petitioner company to extend to them
    regular appointments. Petitioner company refused. On 07 November 1997, 23 of the
    temporary workers (herein respondents) fild with the National Labor Relations
    Commission (NLRC) a complaint for the regularization of their employment with
    petitioner company. The complaint was amended that ultimately totaled 58 workers.
    Claiming that petitioner company meanwhile terminated their services, respondent
    workers filed a notice of strike and a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
    practice with the NLRC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the nature of work of respondent in the company is of such nature as
    to be deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner that
    could qualify them to be regular employees.

    SUPREME COURT RULING:

    The repeated hiring of the respondent workers and continuing need of their daily
    services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular
    conduct of the business/trade of petitioner.

    In determining whether employment is regular or not, the applicable test is the


    reasonable connection between a particular activity performed in relation to the usual
    business or trade of the employer. The nature of work must be viewed from the
    perspective of the business in its entirety and not confined scope.

    You might also like