Scribd
Upload
57 views1 page

#43. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998

The employer changed the work schedule of factory workers, including eliminating a 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break. The union filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the schedule change a valid exercise of management prerogative that did not reduce benefits or exceed an 8-hour workday. The NLRC disagreed, finding the loss of the paid lunch break an unjust diminution of benefits. However, the Supreme Court ruled no unfair labor practice was committed, as the right to set work schedules rests with the employer, and the new 1-hour uninterrupted lunch break allowed for rest and did not violate the 8-hour workday.

Uploaded by

delantar.john31
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views1 page

#43. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, April 15, 1998

The employer changed the work schedule of factory workers, including eliminating a 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break. The union filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the schedule change a valid exercise of management prerogative that did not reduce benefits or exceed an 8-hour workday. The NLRC disagreed, finding the loss of the paid lunch break an unjust diminution of benefits. However, the Supreme Court ruled no unfair labor practice was committed, as the right to set work schedules rests with the employer, and the new 1-hour uninterrupted lunch break allowed for rest and did not violate the 8-hour workday.

Uploaded by

delantar.john31
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

#43. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.

119205, April 15, 1998

Doctrine: The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their
employer.

FACTS:
1. Prior to the present controversy, all company factory workers in Marikina including
members of private respondent union worked from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30-
minute paid “on call” lunch break.

2. Sometime after, petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory-based employees


advising all its monthly salaried employees except those in the Warehouse and Quality
Assurance Department working on shifts, a change in work schedule which provides
among others a lunch break between 12-1 PM.
3. Private respondent felt affected adversely by the change in the work schedule and
discontinuance of the 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break, it filed on behalf of its
members a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice.

4. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change in the work
schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute paid lunch break of the factory workers
constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative and that the new work schedule,
break time and one-hour lunch break did not have the effect of diminishing the benefits
granted to factory workers as the working time did not exceed eight (8) hours.

5. 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.

ISSUE:
Whether is the employer committed an unfair labor practice.

RULING:
No, unfair labor practice was not committed.

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. It rationalizes that while the old
work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be called upon to
do jobs during that period as they were “on call.” Even if denominated as lunch break, this
period could very well be considered as working time because the factory employees were
required to work if necessary and were paid accordingly for working. With the new work
schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break without any interruption from
their employer. For a full one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees can freely and
effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for their rest and comfort which are
conducive to more efficiency and better performance in their work. Since the employees are no
longer required to work during this one-hour lunch break, there is no more need for them to be
compensated for this period.

The Court agrees with the Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully complies with the daily
work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code.

You might also like