HOURS OF WORK

 Management Prerogative

 “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. The exercise of management prerogative,
however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to
the rights of labor.” (Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc.; GR
198783, April 15, 2013)

 “However, the exercise of management prerogative is not absolute. By its very

nature, encompassing as it could be, management prerogative must be exercised in
good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor — verily, with the principles of
fair play at heart and justice in mind. While we concede that management would
best know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be
utilized as an implement to circumvent our laws and oppress employees. The
prerogative accorded management cannot defeat the very purpose for which our
labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interests of labor and management, not to
tilt the scale in favor of one over the other, but to guaranty that labor and
management stand on equal footing when bargaining in good faith with each other.”
(Unicorn Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte; GR 154689, November 25, 2004.)

 Article 82

 General Rule on Coverage: All employees in all establishments are covered.

 1st type of excluded employees: Government Workers

 Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
 Section 2(a), Rule I
 Section 1(a), Rule II
 Section 7, Rule III
 Section 1(a), Rule IV
 Section 1(a), Rule V

 Section 2 (1), Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution

 LRTA v. Venus, Jr.; GR 163782 & 163881, March 24, 2006.

 2nd type of excluded employees: Managerial employees

 Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
 Section 2(b) and 2(c), Rule I
 Section 1(d), Rule II
 Section 7, Rule III
 Section 1(d), Rule IV
 Section 1(c), Rule V
 Section 2, Rule VI
  Statutory definitions of managerial employee
 Section 2(b) and 2(c), Rule I, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code
 Section 2, Rule VI, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code
 See also Article 218 (m), but note National Sugar Refineries Corporation
ruling (infra)

 Cases:
 Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. v. Castro; GR 186070, April 11, 2011.
 Call center supervisor
 M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez; GR 169173, June 5, 2009.
 Administration Manager and the Executive Assistant to the General
Manager
 Penaranda v. BPC; GR 159577, May 3, 2006.
 Dela Cruz v. NLRC; GR 121288, November 20, 1988.
 Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. v.
Laguesma; GR 107761, December 27, 1994.
 National Sugar Refineries Corporation v. NLRC; GR 101761; March 24, 1993

 3rd type of excluded employees: Domestic servants and persons in the personal
service of another

 Coverage provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
 Section 2(d), Rule I
 Section 1(c), Rule II
 Section 7, Rule III
 Section 1(c), Rule IV
 Section 1(b), Rule V

 Considered as a special group of employees. Terms and conditions of

employment governed by RA 10361 (Batas Kasambahay), which repealed
Chapter III, Title III, Book III, Labor Code. [We will discuss the rights of
kasambahays when we tackle the special groups of employees.]

 Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC; GR 94951, April 22, 1991.

 4th type of excluded employees: Workers who are paid by results.

 Read the following provisions in Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor
Code:
 Section 2(e), Rule I
 Section 1(e), Rule II
 Section 1 & 7(a), Rule III
 Section 1(e) & 8(b), Rule IV
 Section 1(e), Rule V

 In relation to the following cases:

 Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC; GR 123938, May 21, 1998.
 Lambo v. NLRC; GR 111042, October 26, 1999.
 Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista; G.R. No. 156367, May 16,
2005.

 5th type of excluded employees: Field Personnel

 Cases:
  San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Democratic Labor Organization; GR L-18353, July
31, 1963.
 Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr.; GR 79255, January 20, 1992.

 83 – Normal Hours of Work

 Eight-Hour Labor Law: “designed not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the
laborer or employee, but in a way to minimize unemployment by forcing employers,
in cases where more than 8-hour operation is necessary, to utilize different shifts of
laborers or employees working only for eight hours each.” (Manila Terminal Co., Inc.
v. Court of Industrial Relations; GR L-4148, July 16, 1952.)

 Meaning of “day”; “week”.

 “For purposes of this Rule a "day" shall mean a work day of twenty-four (24)
consecutive hours beginning at the same time each calendar year. A "week" shall
mean the work of 168 consecutive hours, or seven consecutive 24-hour work
days, beginning at the same hour and on the same calendar day each calendar
week.” (Section 5, Rule I-A, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.)

 “The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their
employer.” (Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC; GR 119205, April 15, 1998.)

 Reduction of work hours:

 “The Court is convinced from the records now before it, that there was no unfair
labor practice. As found by the NLRC, the private respondents themselves never
questioned the existence of an economic crisis but, in fact, admitted its
existence. There is basis for the petitioner's contentions that the reduction of
work schedule was temporary, that it was taken only after notice and
consultations with the workers and supervisors, that a consensus was reached on
how to deal with deteriorating economic conditions and reduced sales and that
the temporary reduction of working days was a more humane solution instead of
a retrenchment and reduction of personnel. The petitioner further points out that
this is in consonance with the collective bargaining agreement between the
employer and its employees.” (Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc. v. NLRC; GR 80737,
September 29, 1988.)

 “financial losses must be shown before a company can validly opt to reduce the
work hours of its employees.” (Linton Commercial Co., Inc. v. Hellera; G.R. No.
163147, October 10, 2007.)

 Flexible work schedule for solo parents.

 Section 6, R.A. 8972.

 Flexible work arrangements in times of economic difficulties and national

emergencies.

 DOLE Department Order No. 2, series of 2009.

 Compressed workweek
  DOLE Advisory No. 02, series of 2004.
 Bislig ng Manggagawa sa Tryco v. NLRC; GR 151309, October 15, 2008.
 Linton Commercial Co., Inc. v. Hellera; supra.

 Part-time workers.

 DOLE Explanatory Bulletin on Part-Time Employment dated January 2, 1996.

 84– Hours Worked

 Sections 3 to 6, Rule I, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.

 Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Luzon Marine Dept. Union, (GR L-9265; April 29, 1957)
 J.P. Heilbronn Co. v. National Labor Union (GR L-5121, January 30, 1953)
 Arica v. NLRC; GR 78210, February 28, 1989.