G.R. No. 119205 Case Digest

G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. petitioner,

vs NLRC and Sime Darby Salaried Employees Assoc., respondents

Ponente: Bellosillo

Issue: Is the act of management in revising the work schedule of its employees and discarding their paid lunch break constitutive of unfair labor practice?

Facts:

Sime Darby is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tires, tubes and other rubber products. Private respondent is an association of the monthly salaried employees of the Sime Darby factory workers in Marikina. Prior to the controversy, all employees of Sime Darby worked from 7:45am to 3:45pm with a 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break.

On August 14, 1992, the company issued a memorandum to all factory employees advising all its monthly salaried employees in Marikina Tire plant except those in the warehouse and Quality Assurance Dept., of a change in work schedules. (M-F, 7:45am-4:45pm and Sat 7:45am-11:45am) with cofee break of 10 minutes between 9:30am-10:30am and 2:30pm-3:30pm and lunch break between 12nn-1pm(M-F).

Because of this memorandum, the association filed a complaint in behalf of its members a complaint with labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability. However, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the elimination of the 30 minute paid lunch break constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative and that the new work schedule did not have the effect of dimishing the benefits for the work did not exceed 8 hours.

Labor arbiter added that it would be unjust if they continue to be paid during their lunch break even if they are no longer on call or required to work during the break.

The association appealed to the NLRC but NLRC has affirmed the labor arbiter's decision and dismissed the appeal. However, in the motion for reconsideration, NLRC having two new commissioners has reversed the earlier decision. Stating that,the public respondent declared that the new work schedule deprived the employees of the benefits of a time-honored company practice of providing its employees a 30-minute paid lunch break resulting in an unjust diminution of company privileges prohibited by Art. 100 of the Labor Code, as amended. 

Ruling:

The Office of the Solicitor General filed in a lieu of comment a manifestation and motion recommending that the petitioner be granted, alleging that the 14 August 1992 memorandum which contained the new work schedule was not discriminatory of the union members nor did it constitute unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner.

We agree, hence, we sustain petitioner. The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. In the instant case petitioner, as the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production. 

The case before us does not pertain to any controversy involving discrimination of employees but only the issue of whether the change of work schedule, which management deems necessary to increase production, constitutes unfair labor practice. As shown by the records, the change effected by management with regard to working time is made to apply to all factory employees engaged in the same line of work whether or not they are members of private respondent union. Hence, it cannot be said that the new scheme adopted by management prejudices the right of private respondent to self-organization.

Management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Further, management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working hours of its employees. So long as such prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold such exercise.

Petition granted.