Nlrctheclearlegislativeintentofthelawis

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: lainants
 filed
 a
 case
 for
 illegal
 dismissal,
 alleging
that
they
were
not
apprentices
but
regular
 employees
 Petitioners
 should
 be
 reinstated
 as
 regular
 employees.
 They
 have
 never
 been
 probationary
 employees.
 While
 it
 is
 true
 that
 petitioners
 were
 initially
 employed
 on
 a
 fixed
 term
 basis,
 they
 were
 allowed
to
continue
working
in
the
same
capacity
as
 meter
readers
without
the
benefit
of
a
new
contract
 or
 agreement
 or
 without
 the
 term
 of
 their
 employment
 being
 fixed
 anew.
 After
 October
 31,
 1990,
the
employment
of
petitioners
is
no
longer
on
 a
fixed
term
basis.
The
fact
that
the
petitioners
were
 allowed
 to
 continue
 working
 after
 the
 expiration
 of
 their
 employment
 contract
 is
 evidence
 of
 the
 necessity
 and
 desirability
 of
 their
 service
 to
 the
 employer’s
business.
 When
 “five­month
 contractuals”
 considered
 regular
 employees;
 the
Purefoods
precedent
 o Purefoods
Corp
v.
NLRC
 • • 34
 It
 could
 not
 be
 supposed
 that
 respondents
 and
 all
 other
 so­called
 “casual”
 workers
 of
 knowingly
 and
 voluntarily
 agreed
 to
 the
 5­month
 employment
 contract.
Cannery
workers
are
never
on
equal
terms
 with
 their
 employers.
 The
 employer
 does
 not
 deny
 that
the
company
hired
“casual”
every
month
for
the
 duration
of
5
months,
after
which
their
services
were
 terminated
and
they
were
replaced
by
other
“casual”
 employees
 on
 the
 same
 5­month
 duration
 and
 that
 these
 “casual”
 employees
 were
 actually
 doing
 work
 that
 were
 necessary
 and
 desirable
 in
 petitioner’s
 usual
business.
 This
 scheme
 of
 the
 petitioner
 was
 apparently
 designed
 to
 prevent
 the
 private
 respondents
 and
 other
“casual”
employees
from
attaining
the
status
of
 a
 regular
 employee.
 It
 was
 a
 circumvention
 of
 the
 employees’
 right
 to
 security
 of
 tenure
 and
 to
 other
 benefits.
 Effect
of
renewals
of
fixed­period
employment
in
regular
jobs
 o 2
 criteria
 so
 that
 “term
 employment”
 may
 not
 violate
 the
 law
on
security
of
tenure
are
–
 The
 fixed
 period
 employment
 was
 knowingly
 and
 freely
agreed
upon
by
the
parties
 Employer
 and
 the
 employee
 dealt
 with
 each
 other
 on
 more
 or
 less
 equal
 terms
 with
 no
 moral
 dominance
exercised
by
the
former
over
the
latter
 Seaf...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online