View full case

ALU-TUCP v. NLRC

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case, who are members of the National Steel Corporation (NSC) represented by ALU-TUCP, lodged complaints against NSC for unfair labor practice, regularization, and monetary benefits. They alleged that they were regular employees of NSC. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, declaring them as regular project employees eligible for the wages of regular employees. Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling that the petitioners were project employees hired for NSC's Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II). Nevertheless, it set aside the grant of benefits to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners sought recourse by filing a Petition for Certiorari in order to challenge the NLRC's resolutions. The main contention in the case revolves around whether or not the petitioners should be classified as project employees or regular employees of NSC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioners are properly characterized as "project employees" rather than "regular employees" of NSC.

  2. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in declaring the petitioners as project employees.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the petitioners are properly characterized as "project employees" rather than "regular employees" of NSC. The determination of whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee depends on whether the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, or if the employee has been engaged for a specific project or undertaking with a determined completion or termination. In this case, the petitioners were hired for NSC's Five Year Expansion Program, which was determined and specified at the time of their engagement. Therefore, they are considered project employees and their services are co-terminous with the project.

  2. The court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in declaring the petitioners as project employees. The court stated that grave abuse of discretion refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. In this case, the NLRC's ruling was based on the provisions of the Labor Code and the specific circumstances of the case. There was no capricious or arbitrary exercise of judgment by the NLRC.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee depends on whether the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, or if the employee has been engaged for a specific project or undertaking with a determined completion or termination. (Article 280 of the Labor Code)

  • Project employees have co-terminous services with the project for which they were hired, while regular employees are entitled to remain in the service of their employer until the service is terminated by one of the recognized modes of termination under the Labor Code.