7/25/2019 Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v. Zamora

1/2

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v. Zamora

G.R. No. 48645 January 7, 1987

Facts:

The petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory aspahinantes or kargadors for almost seven years. They worked exclusively at the SMC plant,

never having been assigned to other companies or departments of San Miguel Corp, even when

the volume of work was at its minimum. Their work was neither regular nor continuous, depending

on the volume of bottles to be loaded and unloaded, as well as the business activity of the

company. However, work exceeded the eight-hour day and sometimes, necessitated work on

Sundays and holidays. -for this, they were neither paid overtime nor compensation.

Sometime in 1969, the workers organized and affiliated themselves with Brotherhood Labor Unity

Movement (BLUM). They wanted to be paid to overtime and holiday pay. They pressed the SMC

management to hear their grievances. BLUM filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor

Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members. San Miguel refused to bargain

with the union alleging that the workers are not their employees but the employees of anindependent labor contracting firm, Guaranteed Labor Contractor.

The workers were then dismissed from their jobs and denied entrance to the glass factory despite

their regularly reporting for work. A complaint was filed for illegal dismissal and unfair labor

practices.

Issue:

Whether or not there was employer-employee (ER-EE)relationship between the workers and San

Miguel Corp.

Held:

YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-EE) relationship, the four-fold test was

used by the Supreme Court. These are:

The selection and engagement of the employee

Payment of wages

Power of dismissal

Control Test- the employers power to control the employee with respect to the means andmethods by which work is to be accomplished

In the case, the records fail to show that San Miguel entered into mere oral agreements of

employment with the workers. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked

with the company, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities

necessary in the usual business or trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the workers

7/25/2019 Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v. Zamora

2/2

promptly returned to their jobs. The term of the petitioners employment appears indefinite and

the continuity and habituality of the petitioners work bolsters the claim of an employee status.

As for the payment of the workers wages, the contention that the independent contractors were

paid a lump sum representing only the salaries the workers where entitled to have no merit. The

amount paid by San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business expense or capital outlay of the

latter. What the contractor receives is a percentage from the total earnings of all the workers plusan additional amount from the earnings of each individual worker.

The power of dismissal by the employer was evident when the petitioners had already been

refused entry to the premises. It is apparent that the closure of the warehouse was a ploy to get

rid of the petitioners, who were then agitating the company for reforms and benefits.

The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the companys control over the workers.

That San Miguel has the power to recommend penalties or dismissal is the strongest indication

of the companys right of control over the workers as direct employer.

*SC ordered San Miguel to reinstate the petitioners with 3 years backwages.