Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc vs NLRC April 15, 1998 | Bellosillo, J. By: Sam SUMMARY: Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association fled a case against Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc, alleging that the change o their work schedule schedule and the disconti discontinuan nuance ce o the 3!minute 3!minute paid on!call lunch break constituted "nair #abor Practice$ DOCTRINE: (Manaemen! Prer"a!ive# %anagement is ree to regulate, according to its own discretion and &udgment, &udgment, all aspects o employment, employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner o work, proce processe sses s to be ollow ollowed ed,, supe super'i r'isio sion n o worke workers rs,, workin working g regulat regulations, ions, transer transer o employe employees, es, work super'ision super'ision,, lay o( o workers and discipline, dismissal and recall o workers$ )urther, management retains the prerogati'e, whene'er e*igencies o the the ser'ic ser'ice e so re+u re+uir ire, e, to chang change e the the workin working g hours hours o its employees$ So long as such prerogati'e is e*ercised in good aith or the ad'ancem ad'ancement ent o the employers employers interest interest and not or the purpose o deeating or circum'enting the rights o the employees under special laws or under 'alid agreements $ACTS: Sime Darby Pilipin Pilipinas as issued issued a memorand memorandum um to all actory! actory!base based d employ employee ees s ad'isi ad'ising ng all its month monthly ly salari salaried ed employ employee ees s in its %arikina %arikina ire ire Plant, Plant, e*cept e*cept those those in the -arehous arehouse e and .uality .uality Assur Assuranc ance e Depar Departm tment ent workin working g on shit shits, s, a chang change e in work work schedule e(ecti'e /0 September /112 as ollows 4 A## )A546 )A5467 7!8ASED !8ASED E%P#47EES E%P#47EES 6E 9E- -46: S5;ED"#E$ E(ecti'e %onday, September /0, /112, the new work schedule actory o
13 A$%$ /3 A$%$ and 23 P$%$ 33 P$%$ #unch break will be between /2 99 / P$%$ ?%onday to )riday@$ Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association fled a case with the #abor #abor Arbiter Arbiter against Sime Darby Darby Pilipina Pilipinas s Inc, alleging alleging that that the change o their work schedule and the discontinuance o the 3! minute paid on!call lunch break constituted "nair #abor Practice and and disc discri rimi mina nati tion on and and e'as e'asio ion n o liab liabil ilit ity y purs pursua uant nt to the the resolution o this 5ourt in Sime Darby International Tire Co., Inc. . !"#C. Sime Darby Pilipinas maintained that the change was 'alid management prerogati'e$ #A Dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the elimination o the 3!minute paid lunch break o the actory workers constituted a 'alid e*ercise o management prerogati'e and that the new work schedule, break time and one!hour lunch break did not ha'e the e(ect o diminishing the benefts granted to actory workers as the working time did not e*ceed eight ?@ hours$ %oreo'er that the actory workers would be &ustly enriched i they continued to be paid during their lunch break e'en i they were no longer on call or re+uired to work during the break$ ;e also ruled that the decision in the earlier Sime Darby case was not applicable to the instant case because the ormer in'ol'ed discrimination o certain employees who were not paid or their 3!minute lunch break while the rest o the actory workers were paidB hence, this 5ourt ordered that the discriminated employees be similarly paid the additional compensation or their lunch break$ 9#65 Sustained #A ruling and dismissed the appeal$
=0> A$%$ 00> P$%$ ?%onday to )riday@ =0> A$%$ //0> P$%$ ?Saturday@$ 5o(ee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between
9#65 %6 6e'ersed its ruling$ 9#65 considered the decision o this 5ourt 5ourt in the Sime Darby case case o /11 /11 as the the law law o the the case case wherein petitioner was ordered to pay the money 'alue o these co'er co'ered ed emplo employee yees s depri depri'e 'ed d o lunch lunch andCor andCor workin working g time time breaks$ he public respondent declared that the new work schedule depri'ed the employees o the benefts o time!honored company
practice o pro'iding its employees a 3!minute paid lunch break resulting in an un&ust diminution o company pri'ileges prohibited by Art$ / o the #abor 5ode, as amended$ ;ence, this petition alleging that public respondent committed gra'e abuse o discretion amounting to lack or e*cess o &urisdiction ?a@ in ruling that petitioner committed unair labor practice in the implementation o the change in the work schedule o its employees 4S fled in lieu o comment a maniestation and motion recommending that the petition be granted, alleging that the new work schedule was not discriminatory o the union members nor did it constitute unair labor practice$ ISSUES%&ELD: -C9 the act o management in re'ising the work schedule and discontinuing their 3!minute paid lunch break constituted an unair labor practice 94$ RATIO: he right to f* the work schedules o the employees rests principally on their employer$ In the instant case petitioner, as the employer, cites as reason or the ad&ustment the e
perormance in their work$ Since the employees are no longer re+uired to work during this one!hour lunch break, there is no more need or them to be compensated or this period$ -e agree with the #abor Arbiter that the new work schedule ully complies with the daily work period o eight ?@ hours without 'iolating the #abor 5ode$ 8esides, the new schedule applies to all employees in the actory similarly situated whether they are union members or not$ he case beore us does not pertain to any contro'ersy in'ol'ing discrimination o employees but only the issue o whether the change o work schedule, which management deems necessary to increase production, constitutes unair labor practice$ As shown by the records, the change e(ected by management with regard to working time is made to apply to all actory employees engaged in the same line o work whether or not they are members o pri'ate respondent union$ ;ence, it cannot be said that the new scheme adopted by management pre&udices the right o pri'ate respondent to sel!organiFation$ %anagement is ree to regulate, according to its own discretion and &udgment, all aspects o employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner o work, processes to be ollowed, super'ision o workers, working regulations, transer o employees, work super'ision, lay o( o workers and discipline, dismissal and recall o workers$ )urther, management retains the prerogati'e, whene'er e*igencies o the ser'ice so re+uire, to change the working hours o its employees$ So long as such prerogati'e is e*ercised in good aith or the ad'ancement o the employers interest and not or the purpose o deeating or circum'enting the rights o the employees under special laws or under 'alid agreements
