JULY 12, 2019 which is very expensive in Diwalwal.

Whatever net there is again

divided by 2.
INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP
Q: If you’re an industrial partner what differentiates you from an 1. ½ to tunnel owner;
employee? 2. Other half to the crew and;
A: This can be seen in this type of operation. Very common in 3. The abantero is again given double share.
GenSan, deep-sea fishing.
There is only 1 instance when that is not followed.
There’s an owner of a fishing vessel that goes out to deep-sea.
There’s a financier or the owner of the vessel, he chooses the patron. That is when you hit high grade and the beautiful people na walay
sapatos mu duol and mu ingon sila tagai mig 24 hours mangayo mig
1. The patron is the one who chooses his crew and not the bahin. Naa pud silay abantero 24 hours kuha silag ore or ibaligya
financier. This patron is an experienced sea-person who nila, ila tanan. Kana wala nay employer-employee.
can read the stars, track the fish. But he has no license he
did not pass the Officer’s test of being a captain; Q: What is the relationship of the mining crew with the tunnel owner?
2. The owner/financier supplies the crude oil or diesel fuel Are they employees or industrial partners that they do not contribute
that is used by the boat; the ice, the commissions (I think anything but their industry.
dapat commissary) of the crew, mostly it’s just rice because
they get fresh catch. A: Once again the whole idea of control is what I think will determine
if there is employer-employee relationship.

If the tunnel owners say you can only go to this destination after that
They go out fishing for as long as the ice last and there is fish to be you have to stop, and that is the maximum ore you will get that you
caught. They hold it in and when they are ready they go back either can process.
into their mother shop or back to land.From the gross sales you
deduct the expenses (the diesel oil, food, victuals, etc.) you deduct. If there is that detailed direction as to destination as to amount of ore
The remainder is then to be divided by 2. and how will you dispose them then there will be the issue of whether
the control test is met otherwise, it is industrial partnership.
1. ½ goes to the financier/owner of the ship;
2. The other half is divided among the crew;
3. The patron or “captain” gets 2 shares.
MANILA GOLF CLUB V. NLRC

So there are 10 of them it is divided into11 shares, so that the captain This is where the caddies filed a petition for certification eletion
gets 2. because they believe they are employees.

Q: The patron and the captain what are they? Manila Golf Club is a non-stock non-profit but its shares are
1. Are they employees of the fishing boat owner/financier. transferable therefore it is considered as security.
2. Or are they industrial partners?
The caddies argue that they are employees even if they are not
A: If you read the cases you will see that there are 2 lines of the given salary by the golf club. Now, the caddie says we are
decision of the Supreme Court. employees because they control us they dictate what our attire
is. There is a specific place for us. After we have qualified we
1st line says: employer-employee relationship. wait. And then a client will pick us up and then we caddie.
2nd line says: industrial partnership
The situation here is normally the client pays the caddie and the
Q: What is the difference? caddie has a registration fee with the golf club which is a
A: It is submitted that the difference is still the CONTROL TEST. percentage of the amount which the client pays him. Sometimes
the client can bring the caddie outside to another golf course
If the fishing boat continues to maintain some sort of contract with the then will pay the caddie a fine so he can go with the client..
owner who now and then feeds it with data to help it locate fish.
Because now you have satellite phones, sometimes they give data The arbiter awarded them with certificate election but the club
to help them. Wala gani na saka ka sa fishing boat adto ka sa taas,
opposed. So they appealed to DOLE Secretary which affirmed the
tan-aw kag asa ang isda, mangita kag isda, maniguro kag pangita.
Then there is no control. You decide when to come back, where to arbiter.
go, how far to go.
The SC reversed.
That is the same in Diwalwal:
Ruling: They are not employees. The rules that subjected the
There is a tunnel owner, he finances the crew that goes to him. One
caddies is not an index of control anymore than the rules that the
destination kay kanang tunnel only the main tunnel is timbered. Pag
abot ana sa ubos mag ka lahi-lahi na nga destinasyon. Now, 1 crew members are subjected to.
is given 24 hours in 1 destination. It is headed by an abantero
equivalent to a patron. Mag tigom ug basa sa bina sa gold. Kanang
abantero kabalo na mu basa ug bina, kanang uban mao nay mga
alalay sa abantero gi tawag na silag kicker (?). Now the accumulated
ore that is gotten for a 24-hour period is sold. Whatever proceeds can
be gotten out of that production right away the expenses are
deducted (machine for pumping water etc.). You spend for electricity
 ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. - Whenever
Manila Golf Club vs. NLRC an employer enters into a contract with another
SC: the rules that subjected the caddies is not an person for the performance of the former’s work, the
index of control anymore than the rules that the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s
members are subjected to are an idnex that there is subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with
employer employee relationship between members the provisions of this Code.
and golf course. Members have a protocol in terms of
attire. In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails
to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with
For instance, as to attire, di man ka maka caddy ug this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally
mag tsinelas ka kinahanglan mag sapatos ka nga liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such
naay liston. Dili ka maka caddy ug nag tshirt ka lang, employees to the extent of the work performed under
kailangan naay kwelyo. Daghan silag balaod but there the contract, in the same manner and extent that he
is always an exception. If the client wants you, he can is liable to employees directly employed by him.
bring you out to another golf course and you just have
to inform management and management will call from The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by
the pool of qualified approved caddies to take your appropriate regulations, restrict or prohibit the
place. Now question, gusto man sila mag union vis a contracting-out of labor to protect the rights of workers
vis the Manila Golf Club because they say they are established under this Code. In so prohibiting or
employees. restricting, he may make appropriate distinctions
between labor-only contracting and job contracting as
Controversy when Buenaventura was still a central well as differentiations within these types of
bank governor, he brought his wife to Manila golf club contracting and determine who among the parties
and then the manager said not to serve the woman involved shall be considered the employer for
because she was in violation of the rules. There is a purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or
grievance committee who are anonymous so they circumvention of any provision of this Code.
cannot be pressured.
There is "labor-only" contracting where the person
Lucio Tan as well was disciplined by Manila Golf Club. supplying workers to an employer does not have
He flew his helicopter, not really land but it hovered. substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
He argued, “the helicopter didn’t land, it was hovering equipment, machineries, work premises, among
and I went in” but the committee said it was others, and the workers recruited and placed by such
equivalently landing. Kusog man kaayo nang rotor sa person are performing activities which are directly
helicopter. Guba ang punuan. related to the principal business of such employer. In
such cases, the person or intermediary shall be
So caddies and members are subject to very considered merely as an agent of the employer who
subversive rules. In this instance, you cannot make shall be responsible to the workers in the same
these rules as an index of emploer employee realtion manner and extent as if the latter were directly
ship because everybody is under the same set of employed by him.
rules.
ART. 107. Indirect employer. - The provisions of the
Here we look at the ointention/goal behind the control immediately preceding article shall likewise apply to
the rule seeks to achieve. any person, partnership, association or corporation
which, not being an employer, contracts with an
Note that at the time the decision was made, there independent contractor for the performance of any
were two justices members of the MGC who did not work, task, job or project.
inhibit themselves. Justice Padilla and Sarmiento.

Now, there is no problem with respect to contracting our services that are:
1.Security
We come not to the crucial part of Employer - Emplyee relationship created 2.Janitorial
by law. 3.Technical and
4.other maintenance services
EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP CREATED BY LAW
Why? Becasue SC ame out with an en banc ruling in Kimberly CLark
2 kinds: independent labor union vs Drilon.
1.Labor only contracting (illegal)
2.Permissible bonafide labor contracting
Kimberly Clark Independent Labor Union Vs.
Drilon
Provisions: 106, 105, 107 (labor code)
This court take judicial notice of the general practice
adopted in several government and private
institutions and industries of hiring a janitorial service
on an independent contractor basis.
Q: Why is it judicial notice? contracting/subcontracting, if there is non payment/underpayment, then
A: It is judicial notice because the court itself contracts out: it is the principal who must pay. Now you are government, are you obliged
to pay?
1.Security SC: Yes, it is the law that imposes employer/ employee relationship
2.Janitorial (created by law)
3.Technical and This is somehow ironic because it is possible for SC to be in this situation
4.other maintenance services because it contracts out.

To be a contractor, you need to have: Q: What happens if there is underpayment by the agency and they
1.Sufficient capital; or already paid?
2.Investments by way of equipment, offices A: it is not a defense.you are still obliged to pay without prejudice to your
3.the activity for which you are contracted to perform is not directly
right of reimbursement for the overpayment made to the agency.
related to the main business and activity of the indirect employer.
The principal contracts out.
Now, very important is the so called consumer articles. They are so fond
now of recruiting agency workers. Consumer articles like toiletries, even
Manpower agency from the basis of the contract hires people that he
food items in the grocery. You go into the grocery, you cannot tell who are
seconds to the principal.
the regular employees of the supermarket because there are so many
agencies who employ them. The moment you see somebody in uniform
Q; Are these people employees of the principal?
and he is identified with one produce, you can be sure that he or she is not
A: according to the SC, if manpower agency does not have sufficient capital,
an employee of the supermarket. He or she is the employee of the
(how do you verify that? You go to the SEC and find out its articles of
particular product. What these companies pay for are the spaces in the
incorporation) and then if not the capital, tis investments by way of
supermarket (Safeguard soaps for example as opposed to papayas which
equipment.
do not have merchandisers).
If it’s janitorial, it must have an office. Then it must have its own equipment.
When it comes merchandising, we have the case of Tabas vs.
California Manufacturing.
So either capital or investments by way of equipment make you a bonafide
manpower agency.
Tabas vs. California Manufacturing
Now, just recently go to the DOLE website, they have added rules. There is
This is a case 25 years ago where the SC came up with the
now a minimum capitalization of 5 million and you must be registered with
ruling that merchandisers cannot be contracted out. When a
the DOLE. product is launched, extra new personnel are need to do the
launching. If there is a special offer, there is an agency na mag-
If you cannot meet that, you are a fly by night operation and you are not a specialize and do house-to-house offers. They are not regular force.
bona fide contractor. Therefore all these people you hired to implement They are from a manpower agency. The question arise because the
the contract, they are really employees of the principal. In other words, you special campaign to launch them product goes for about 1 year but
are disregarded by the law. the probationary period is only 6 months lang man. Can they be
contracted out? In the case, they entered into a manpower supply
Now, security agency, that is already given - it can be contracted out as an agreement and in the agreement it was specified, that the real
activity. employer is the manpower agency and the agency holds the principal
free and without liability as to any claims the may rise from this
contract to supply manpower.
Seconded manpower conducting activities directly related to the business
of the principal Q: What is the validity of that agreement that ER-EE relationship is
But what happens if you have, let’s say coca cola -a bottling line and it is already owned by the manpower agency and that the indirect
the christmas season so you have to build up because there is a spike in the employer is relieved all obligation and responsibilities of the
demand. So as early as september, you are already building up inventory. manpower agency or employer?
So you need more manpower. Now you are assigning those extra people
DIRECTLY RELATED ACTIVITY TO THE BUSINESS OF the PRINCIPAL. A: That particular provision in the contract, the SC says, is void
because it involves third parties that are not privy to the contract. EE-
ER relation according to the SC in that case is a question of law and
Rule: if the additional personnel has been supplied by a manpower agency,
not a question of fact. And yet when you go to LVN Musicians Guild
even if the agancy has sufficient capital for equipment, if the activity for
case, the SC said that EE-ER relationship is a question of facts. So
which the seconded people are engaged to perform is directly related, then what is correct?
you violate the law and you become again a labor only contractor. the
pricipal becomes the only employer of the agency workers and you must RULE:
answer not only for non payment/ underpayment but you are also When there is only 1 putative employer, it is a question of fact.
responsible for all the olbigations of an emploeyr under social legislation: However, once you have contracting and subcontracting, and
1.Sss; there are a possibility of multiple employers, then it becomes a
2.Pag ibig questions of law.
3.Philhealth
4.Employee’s compensation. What if the indirect employer is the government?
What if muingon ang indirect employer na “Government
This is what happens when there is labor only contracting. man ko (NFA for example)” They have a security guard and then
here’s a wage order that was issued which says that the increase
Q: What happens when principal is government? here must be borne by the principal and not the manpower agency.
A: Like a GOCC and the agency that supplies the manpower underpays or NFA says “Human na among budget. Usaon nato pag-increase na
fails to pay wages of employees. That law says, even if there is bona fide ang magbuot man sa budget kay ang Congress. Dili mi kabayad.
Besides we are not covered by the labor code because this is private But in the banana companies (Del Monte, Lapanday, Unifrutti), Sumifru is
and we are government.” a late comer wherein it inherited the Soriano farms. They were preparing
for the implementation of the Agrarian Reform, their solution was in aid to
The SC says that they are covered and liable. The the beneficiaries who agreed to the growership agreement. In other words,
employee after securing a favorable decision may go to Congress the small farms entered into a contract with the banana company wherein
and request for a law appropriating money to fulfill this final and
the contract is denominated with several name (grower’s contract,
executory decision. The court says that the government cannot
exclusive seller’s contract) but the whole idea is the banana company will
be saved because it is the law that imposes ER-ER relation in
support the inputs to the growers as long as the growers will sell exclusively
this instance.
to the banana companies their produce. That went on for 10 or 15 years
Recently, in 2015 Frontera vs NLRC came out (trivia: Frontera is but the growers said “we cannot manage the workforce” so it was still the
selling Anchor butter daw). workforce of the banana corporation that did the critical phases like
harvesting. So, that became problematic.
NB: Friends, read the full text of Frontera na lang.
The banana corporation were still accumulating a lot of
manpower (high-skilled, semi-skilled), the ratio of workers to cultivated
Frontera vs NLRC
plant was 1 worker per hectare. So if there is 35,000 hectares, there must
Frontera had contract with a manpower agency to supply be at least 35, 000 workers. Now that being the case, naglisod na man, naay
merchandisers (mag-atang atang sa imoha sa supermarket because nakahunahuna (magsubil?) sa banana company. Ingon sa consultant sa
they are small compared to San Miguel). banana company kay magbuhat ug cooperative. Ang workers iparesign
then himoag members sa cooperative. Unya in a cooperative, mao
The issue in this case is can this merchandiser who had muservice sa growers, tawgon sila sa mga growers tagaan nilag schedule
served in this particular supermarket for Frontera and had been ang mga growers depende sa ilahang pahinganglan. Unya ang growers,
passed on to different manpower agencies… mudeduct gikan sa banana corporation kay naa pa silay dawatunon tagaan
man nilag saging. Mudeduct sila para panweldo sa mga workers na
If the previous winning agency’s contract ends, i-bid-out provided by the cooperative. Ostensibly, the employers are the growers.
nasad ang manpower services kay ang brand manager So daghan mga employers ang cooperative. Tan awa ra gud murag
wants na gwapo iyang profit contribution; so, mangita syag manpower agency.
mas mubo pa. Another agency wins and when the principal
wants to retain certain merchandisers because of good Karon nigawas na man ang decision, SC says the banana
performance, the good merchandisers are made to append company is the employer. The SC affirms the decision of the arbiter that
themselves in the new agency that won the succeeding the control test is met. “In affirming the arbiter, the DOLE Secretary relied
contract. on the document sent by the parties and ascertained that Sumifru indeed
exercised control over the workers. The DOLE Secretary found that the
Did the succession contracts make them the employees of element of control is present because Sumifru required monitoring
the principal because it’s just nominal that they are engaged by the sheets and imposed disciplinary action for noncompliance such as the no
agency and seconded to the principal? helmet rule, the no id rule etc. Gikan man ang rules sa banana corporation
and dili gikan sa growers. After this decision came out, the workers
Frontera says merchandisers are independent contractors demanded from the Sumifru magbargaining pero dili man musugot ang
and they are no longer regular employees as ruled in Tabas vs Sumifru. Sira ang Sumi, then ang Japan kay nagwithdraw na lang kay samok
California Manufacturing. The sad part is that when you read the na kaayo. This decision has wide ranging effects since Lapanday, Unifrutti,
decision, there is no referring to the 25 year old precedent. The court etc employs cooperative. Since cooperative is their way to circumvent or
does not even advert to it. The big debate in Tabas is that whether
prevent the unionization of the workers. (826 SCRA 438)
these special offers, the launching products, special sales program
have become usual and necessary to the trade and business of xxxxx
selling of personal goods. Asa man ka makakita ug loads of products
na dili mu-employ of merchandisers? Naa man gyud na launching. There is another decision where Sumifru also lost. Kaning mga growers,
they find it difficult to comply with the requirements of the banana
company. Most of them are not educated so they failed. So most of their
Banana Industry bananas kay masayang, karon naa man ta market sa China so naa nay class
B. Ingon sila “mas maayo pa ning class B kay dili kaayo strikto pareha ra ni
SUMIFRU Corp. vs NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU para sa Japan, dili na nato ibaligya diri (banana company) ato na ibaligya sa
mag export sa Japan (daghan na man third parties). This is called pole
There is this case called SUMIFRU Corp. vs NAMASUFA-
vaulting. If you sell to other than the banana company with which you are
NAFLU-KMU. It is in line with contracting and subcontracting. This is
the decision which gives you the reason why in Compostela, there in contract to sell with.
was a big strike of the banana workers.
They can afford to give you a higher price because they did not supply the
manpower, inputs etc. for the original investment to develop your farm. So
The business of cavendish bananas for export is a large
scale farm operation, but since the advent of agrarian reform, after ang mga growers kay mubaligya sa gawas, so Sumifru sued a couple –
the leeway of 10 years + 10 years, finally, the DAR implemented breach of contract with prayer for injunction. Meaning in the meantime,
agrarian reform. when they are in litigation you are ordered by the court not to sell. But the
RTC did not grant it. For the court to grant it, you must first establish a clear
The big estates like Hijo Plantation, they were divided up, the right. The growers are saying “we already gave you notice that we are
landowners became small landowners because the original workers terminating the contract because we cannot understand the amount of
became beneficiaries because many of them were left less - 3 hectares per deductions you make from the proceeds that we are supposed to receive
beneficiaries. from you”. Mga sigatoka na wa kabalo ang mga growers unsa na kay dili
man sila musulti. “Kwaan ra mi for the inputs then if magkasakit kay putlon
dayon, so wan na mi, wa mi kasabot.”
So, who is in breach of contract? According to the judge “It is not clear, so
how can I order an injunction?” Gisaka sa CA which affirmed the RTC’s [Back to the situation about Marco Polo] Here, can you sue
decision. In the SC, the court said that “we cannot review the facts all we everybody? When can you sue them? The moment when you
can do is review the review of the CA.” and the question to be asked is did employer, the direct employer, fails to pay then you can sue
the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the lower court’s everybody. There is only one exception.
decision? Since there is no grave abuse of discretion, it is a safe decision.
Since according to the SC is that “the damage that is done if the injunction Let us say, this is a cellular telephone company. Suppose he sells all
his cell sites, all his transmittals, all his hardware. To whom? To the
is issued is greater than the damage that will result if it is not granted
same people who sold it to him but not before he enters into a lease
because the overall damage is verifiable mathematically”. So after the
agreement with them – 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
decision of the merit, we can see the losses and you can recover the losses. And, the lessor now [the cellular company is now the lessee of the
Sayon ra na pagsulti pero unsaon man nimo pabayad kay wala na man equipment which was originally his] has the obligation to organically
tanom, muingon ra na siya ug sige mubayad ko pag makakwarta ko kay wa add to his equipment as his subscriber base grows. What’s the whole
man mapriso sa nonpayment of debt. So naniguro tong sa injuction, pero point? Why did he sell everything? Gusto nimo kwartahon aron mapa
wa man gigrant. Afiirmed by the court. Pag affirmed sa court, pole vaulting dagan kapa ug sigeg program, pamalit ug cellphone aron imong
has become a common place. Everybody is pole vaulting kay di na man ipanghatag sa imong subrscribers aron mag sige sila ug gamit.
magukod sa banana corporation with whom you have a contract. Good for
the growers but bad for the banana company. So this is also a failed So, mao na iyahang gina buhat. He enters into a lease agreement
structure to deflect the liabilities of the employer just like a manpower with let us say, Ericsson Siemens. They form a consortium and then
agency they contract out the maintenance of the service of this cell sites to
Electronics Talents Inc., they are the former employees who now
xxxxx formed a corporation who sole job is to maintain cell sites. But, these
people also subcontract the part of repairing on site transmitters.
So if you have a bona fide contracting out this is what happens even if it is They also subcontract the part where you climb up and retune the
bona fide. An example would be Marco Polo Hotel contracts EEI sites. Climbers Inc. mao na sila ang maka katkat, di na sila mahadlok
(Engineering Equipment Inc.) to construct their building. mu katkat. Suppose, these climbers subcontracts assistants who
assist these climbers. Now let us say, these assistants are not paid.
Whom can they sue? Ang tauhan sa Climbers Inc. are the climbers
themselves but their assistants are procured by the climbers. Now,
ER-EE RELATIONSHIP CREATED BY LAW the assistant, if he’s not paid he can sue the climber.
So, if you have a bona fide contracting out, this is what happens even
if it’s bona fide. Lat’s just put an example, Marco Polo Hotel, it Question: Can he sue the employer of the climber technician?
contracts EEI (Engineering Equipment Inc.) to construct their
building. Unsay contrata? EEI contracts Foundations and Structures Answer: Yes.
Inc., mao nang mubuhat sa foundation kay separate contractor
mana. Foundations and Structures Inc. subcontracts to Grains Inc. Q: Can he sue Electronics?
and Grains subcontracts with C&HE Manpower Inc. (crane operators, A: Yes.
heavy equipment).
Q: Can he sue Ericsson?
Karon, kung di mabayran ang crane operator, whom can he sue? If A: Yes.
you look at Article 105, it says that the indirect employer who engages
the manpower agency becomes jointly and solidarily liable for any Q: But can he sue the cellular company?
under payment or non-payment of wages and benefits. Now, ang A: No more.
operator ini ug di bayran sa iyang company, he can sue this. But he
can also sue all the way to Marco Polo. They are jointly and solidarily Q: Why?
liable so you can sue all of them at the same time. A: Because that is not contracting. The relationship between the
cellular company and Ericsson is not labor-contracting. It is a lease
Article 105. Contractor or Subcontractor – contract and that is a nominate contract under the Civil Code. So, the
xxxx suability ends here [with Ericsson Siemens].
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails
to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this If you can device a contract that cuts the contracting line then you
Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his cans shield the particular entity from liability. That is employer-
contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of employee relationship created by law.
the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and
extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. There is a third kind, labor-only contracting and bona fide contracting;
xxx the third kind of employer-employee relationship created by law is
Article 136 which provides for Classification of Certain Women.

Article 136. Classification of Certain Women –

Any woman who is permitted or suffered to work with
or without compensation in any nightclub, cocktail lounge,
Dili na parehas sa Obligations and Contracts ninyo na guarator lang. massage clinic, bar, or similar establishment under the effective
When the principal obligor fails to pay, can you sue the guarantor? control or supervision of the employer for a substantial period of
Not yet, you still have to prove that the principal obligor is insolvent. time as determined by the Secretary of Labor shall be
That’s the benefit of excussion of the guarantor. If it were a surety, considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes
you can sue the surety upon failure of payment of the principal debtor. of labor and social legislation.
If it is a solidary signatory to the contract, promissory note (solidary
ha kay co-signatory man siya), the moment the obligation becomes
due you can sue anyone of them or all of them together.
Mao ning mga GROs, or mga hospitality girls. Wala man silay sweldo.
Commission mana ilaha. Commission on what? Commission on the
drinks that they take which the client pays and the commission on the
drinks that the clients also drinks. The GROs or hospitality girls gets
a commission and that’s it, that’s her compensation.

Question: Are they obliged to report there everyday?

Answer: No, they are not.

Q: Do they receive a basic wage?

A: No, they do not receive a basic wage. They can even leave the
place if they so want to leave because the client brings them out. But
the client just pays the bar fine. The bar fine is the amount of business
he brings to the house on average a night.

The law says, no matter what the arrangement is, there is employer-
employee relationship for all labor and social legislation purposes. In
other words, the night club owner has the obligation to enroll her to
SSS, Pag-ibig, Philhealth, and Employees Compensation. This
overall pay, must not be less than the minimum wage. Otherwise,
he’ll be violating the Labor Code because she is an employee for all
purposes. That is the third kind of employer-employee relationship
created by law.