WORK HOURS AS ULP

1st G.R. No. 119205 April 15, 1998 SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND DIVISION) and SIME DARBY SALARIED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ALU-TUCP BELLOSILLO, J.:

Is the act of management in revising the work schedule of its employees and discarding their paid lunch break unfair labor practice?

The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. In the instant case, the reason for the adjustment is the efficient conduct of business operations and improved production. The old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, and employees were "on call." Although termed lunch break, this period was working time because factory employees were required to work if necessary and paid accordingly. With the new work schedule, the employees were given an uninterrupted one-hour lunch break which employees can freely and effectively for eating, rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and better work performance. The employees are no longer required to work during the lunch break, thus no more need for them to be compensated for this period. The new work schedule fully complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code. The new schedule applied to all similarly situated factory employees.

Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. It may devise means to attain that goal. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, not every dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has rights which are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.