Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    2 - Arrastre Vs Boclat

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent had become a regular employee of the petitioner and was entitled to regularization. While performing tasks necessary to the petitioner's business as a stevedore, the respondent's work was similar to that of a project or seasonal employee who works only when the regular employee is absent. However, according to the collective bargaining agreement, an employee who renders at least six months of accumulated service becomes regular. Since the respondent had rendered over eight months of service since 1999, he qualified for regularization under the terms of the CBA.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 - Arrastre Vs Boclat

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    81 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent had become a regular employee of the petitioner and was entitled to regularization. While performing tasks necessary to the petitioner's business as a stevedore, the respondent's work was similar to that of a project or seasonal employee who works only when the regular employee is absent. However, according to the collective bargaining agreement, an employee who renders at least six months of accumulated service becomes regular. Since the respondent had rendered over eight months of service since 1999, he qualified for regularization under the terms of the CBA.

    Original Title

    2 - Arrastre vs Boclat

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent had become a regular employee of the petitioner and was entitled to regularization. While performing tasks necessary to the petitioner's business as a stevedore, the respondent's work was similar to that of a project or seasonal employee who works only when the regular employee is absent. However, according to the collective bargaining agreement, an employee who renders at least six months of accumulated service becomes regular. Since the respondent had rendered over eight months of service since 1999, he qualified for regularization under the terms of the CBA.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    81 views1 page

    2 - Arrastre Vs Boclat

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent had become a regular employee of the petitioner and was entitled to regularization. While performing tasks necessary to the petitioner's business as a stevedore, the respondent's work was similar to that of a project or seasonal employee who works only when the regular employee is absent. However, according to the collective bargaining agreement, an employee who renders at least six months of accumulated service becomes regular. Since the respondent had rendered over eight months of service since 1999, he qualified for regularization under the terms of the CBA.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Pier 8 Arrastre Stevedoring services Inc.

    vs Boclot
    GR No. 173849
    September 28, 2007
    Chico-Nazario, J:

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
    promoting arrastre and stevedoring services at Pier 8 in the Manila North harbor since 1974. Petitioner Eliodoro
    C. Cruz is its Vice-President and General Manager while Respondent Jeff B Boclot was hired to perform the
    functions of a stevedore.
    Later on, respondent filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC, claiming regularization; payment of
    service incentive leave and 13 th month pays, moral, exemplary and actual damages; and attorney’s fees.

    Boclot PASSI
    Contended that was hired since October 1999, was Alleged that respondent was hired as a mere “reliever”
    issued a company ID, a PPA Pass, and SSS stevedore and could thus not become a regular
    Documents, and that he became a regular employee employee.
    by April 2000, since it was his sixth continuous month
    in service in PASSI’s regular course of business.

    LA: Finding no factual and legal basis for the regularization of respondent, LA ruled for petitioners and dismissed
    respondent’s complaint.
    NLRC: Modified LA’s ruling. Ruled that respondent is a regular employee of petitioners on the reasonable
    connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
    employer.
    CA: Affirmed NLRC Resolution. Grounding its Decision on this Court's previous rulings that what determines
    regularity or casualness is not the employment contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job.
    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent became a regular employee.
    HELD:
    Yes. A regular employee is (1) one who is either engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable
    in the usual trade or business of the employer except for project or seasonal employees; or (2) a casual employee
    who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which
    he is employed. Based on the aforementioned, although performing activities that are necessary or desirable in
    the usual trade or business of the employer, an employee such as a project or seasonal employee is not
    necessarily a regular employee. The situation of respondent is similar to that of a project or seasonal employee,
    albeit on a daily basis.
    No doubt, serving as a stevedore, respondent performs tasks necessary or desirable to the usual business of
    petitioners. However, it should be deemed part of the nature of his work that he can only work as a stevedore in
    the absence of the employee regularly employed for the very same function.
    Also included in Article II of its CBA – Under a union-shop agreement, although nonmembers may be hored, an
    employee is required to become a union member after a certain perios, in order to retain employment. This
    requirement applies to present and future employees. The same article of the CBA stipulates that employment
    in PASSI cannot be obtained without prior membership in the union.
    Hence, applying the foregoing provisions of the CBA, respondent should be considered a regular employee after
    six months of accumulated service. Having rendered 228.5 days, or eight months of service to petitioners since
    1999, then respondent is entitled to regularization by virtue of the said CBA provisions.

    You might also like