employees under the special laws, the Court will uphold the exercise of its

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC (Vi) management prerogative.

April 5, 1998|Bellosillo, J. | Hours of Work DOCTRINE: The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests
PETITIONER: SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC principally on their employer.
RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(2ND DIVISION) and SIME DARBY SALARIED EMPLOYEES
FACTS:
ASSOCIATION (ALU-TUCP)
1. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of
SUMMARY: Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of
automotive tires, tubes, and other rubber products. Sime Darby
automotive tires, tubes, and other rubber products. The employees of Sime
Salaried Employees Association (ALU-TUCP) is an association of
Darby work from 7:45 am to 3:45 pm with a 30-minute paid on call lunch.
monthly salaried employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory.
Sime Darby issued a memorandum changing the work schedule of the
Prior to the present controversy, all company factory workers in
employees from 7:45 am to 4:45 pm, taking away the 30-min paid on-call
Marikina including members of private respondent union worked
lunch and replacing it with an unpaid 1 hour lunch break.
from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30 minute paid on call lunch
ISSUE: Whether the new work schedule was discriminatory and
break.
constituted unfair labor practice – NO
2. On 14 August 1992, Sime Darby issued a memorandum to all
The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally
factory-based employees advising all its monthly salaried
on their employer. Sime Darby, as the employer, said that its reason for
employees in its Marikina Tire Plant, except those in the
the adjustment was the efficient conduct of its business operations and
Warehouse and Quality Assurance Department working on
its improved production. Sime Darby argued that while the old work
shifts, a change in work schedule:
schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be
7:45 A.M. 4:45 P.M. (Monday to Friday)
called upon to do jobs during that period as they were on call. Even if
7:45 A.M. 11:45 P.M. (Saturday)
denominated as lunch break, this period could very well be considered as
Coffee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between:
working time because the factory employees were required to work if
9:30 A.M. 10:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M.
necessary and were paid accordingly for working. With the new work
Lunch break will be between:
schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break without
12:00 NN 1:00 P.M. (Monday to Friday).
any interruption from their employer. Since the employees are no longer
3. ALU-TUCP filed on behalf of its members a complaint with the
required to work during this one-hour lunch break, there is no need for them
Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion
to be compensated for this period.
of liability because of the change in the work schedule and
The Court agreed with the LA that the new work schedule fully complies
discontinuance of the 30-minute paid on call lunch break.
with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor
4. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint on the ground that
Code. Also, the new schedule applies to all employees in the factory
the change in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-
similarly situated whether they are union members or not. Part of the
minute paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid
management prerogative is to change the working hours of its employees.
exercise of management prerogative and that the new work
As long as it is exercised in good faith and not to defeat the rights of
schedule, break time and one-hour lunch break did not have the
 effect of diminishing the benefits granted to factory workers as the freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for
working time did not exceed eight (8) hours. their rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and
5. The LA also held that the factory workers would be justly enriched better performance in their work. Since the employees are no
if they continued to be paid during their lunch break even if they longer required to work during this one-hour lunch break, there is
were no longer on call or required to work during the break. He also no more need for them to be compensated for this period.
ruled that the decision in the earlier Sime Darby case was not
3. The Court agreed with the LA that the new work schedule fully
applicable to the instant case because it involved discrimination of
certain employees who were not paid for their 30-minute lunch complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without
break while the rest of the factory workers were paid; hence, this violating the Labor Code. Also, the new schedule applies to all
Court ordered that the discriminated employees be similarly paid the employees in the factory similarly situated whether they are union
additional compensation for their lunch break. members or not.
6. ALU-TUCP appealed to NLRC which sustained the LA and 4. The earlier Sime Darby case doesn’t apply here because the issue
dismissed the appeal. However, upon Motion for Reconsideration, here is not about discrimination of employees but about the work
the NLRC, reversed its earlier decision. hours. The change in work hours apply to all factory employees in
7. NLRC declared that the new work schedule deprived the employees the same line of work, so there is no discrimination.
of the benefits of time-honored company practice of providing its 5. Every business enterprise aims to increase its profits and it can
employees a 30-minute paid lunch break resulting in an unjust create means to attain that goal. Even as the law is solicitous of the
diminution of company privileges prohibited by Art. 100 of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an
Labor Code, as amended. employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives.
ISSUES: Thus, management is free to regulate, according to its own
1. Whether the new work schedule was discriminatory and discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including
constituted unfair labor practice – NO hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and
RATIO: manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of
1. The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work
principally on their employer. In this case, Sime Darby, as the supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and
employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct recall of workers. Further, management retains the prerogative,
of its business operations and its improved production. It whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the
reasoned out that while the old work schedule included a 30-minute working hours of its employees. So long as such prerogative is
paid lunch break, the employees could be called upon to do jobs exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers
during that period as they were on call. Even if denominated as interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
lunch break, this period could very well be considered as working rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
time because the factory employees were required to work if agreements, this Court will uphold such exercise.
necessary and were paid accordingly for working. 6. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice
2. With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one- and the protection of the working class, it doesn’t mean that every
hour lunch break without any interruption from their employer. dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.
For a full one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees can
Management also has right and is entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.