5.

CHANGE OF WORKING HOURS

Er’s Right to Change Working Hours
The working hours may be changed, at the
discretion of the company, should such change be
necessary for its operations, and that Ees shall
observe such rules as have been laid down by the
company. (Interphil Laboratories Union-FFW v.
Interphil Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 142824, 19 Dec.
2001)
Management retains the prerogative, whenever
exigencies of the service so require, to change the
working hours of its Ees. 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., G.R. No.
198783, 15 Apr. 2013)

Q: May the normal hours fixed in Art. 83 of the

LC be reduced by the Er? Explain.
A: YES. Art. 83 of the LC provides that the normal
hours of work of an Ee shall not exceed eight (8)
hours a day. This implies that the Er, in the exercise
of its management prerogatives, may schedule a
work shift consisting of less than eight (8) hours.
And following the principle of “a fair day’s wage for
a fair day’s labor,” the Er is not obliged to pay an Ee,
working for less than eight (8) hours a day, the
wages due for eight (8) hours.
Nonetheless, if by voluntary practice or policy, the
Er, for a considerable period of time, has been
paying his Ees’ wages due for eight (8) hours work
although the work shift is less than eight (8) hours
(e.g., seven hours) it cannot later on increase the
working hours without an increase in the pay of the
Ees affected. An Er is not allowed to withdraw a
benefit which he has voluntarily given.
Q: Sime Darby Pilipinas issued a memorandum
implementing a new work schedule. It
eliminated the 30-minute paid “on call” lunch
break of its monthly salaried Ees and instead
provided for a 10-minute break time and one
hour lunch break. The Ees felt adversely affected
by the memorandum and filed before the LA a
complaint for unfair labor practice.
The LA dismissed the complaint on the ground
that the change in the work schedule constituted
a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Is changing the work schedule of the Ees a valid
exercise of management prerogative?
A: YES. The right to fix the work schedules of the Ee
rests principally on their Er. The petitioner, as the
Er, cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient
conduct of its business operations and improved
production. Management retains the prerogative,
whenever exigencies of the service so require, to
change the working hours its Ees.
So long as such prerogative is exercised in good faith
for the advancement of the Er’s interest and not for
the purpose of defeating and circumventing the rights of the Ees under special laws or under valid
agreements, this court will uphold such exercise.
(Sime Darby Pilipinas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, 15
Apr. 1998)

2. TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
Transfer
a movement from one position to another which is
of equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in
service.
Demotion
It involves a situation where an employee is
relegated to a subordinate or less important
position constituting a reduction to a lower grade or
rank, with a corresponding decrease in duties and
responsibilities, and usually accompanied by a
decrease in salary.
Promotion
The advancement from one position to another with
an increase in duties and responsibilities as
authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an
increase in salary.
Conditions for a valid exercise by the Employer
of its right to transfer Employees
The transfer should:
1. Not be unreasonable, inconvenient, or
prejudicial to the Ee; and
2. Not involve a demotion in rank, diminution
in salaries, benefits and other privileges
concerning the transfer.
Employer’s Right to Transfer and Reassign
Employees
In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests,
especially during adverse business conditions,
management has the prerogative to transfer or
assign Ees from one office or area of operation to
another provided there is no demotion in rank or
diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges
and the action is not motivated by discrimination,
bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or
demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is
inherent in the right of Ers to control and manage
their enterprises effectively.

NOTE: The right of Ees to security of tenure does

not give them vested rights to their positions to the
extent of depriving management of its prerogative
to change their assignments or to transfer them.
(Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center, G.R.
No. 161615, 30 Jan. 2009)

When transfer is deemed to be constructive

dismissal
A transfer is deemed to be constructive dismissal
when three conditions concur:
(1) when the transfer is unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to the
employee;
(2) when the transfer involves a demotion in
rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and
other privileges; and
(3) when the employer performs a clear act of
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain
towards the employee, which forecloses
any choice by the latter except to forego his
continued employment.
Q: May the employer exercise his right to
transfer an employee and compel the latter to
accept the same if said transfer is coupled with
or is in the nature of promotion?
A: NO. There is no law that compels an Ee to accept
promotion. Promotion is in the nature of a gift or a
reward which a person has a right to refuse. When
an Ee refused to accept his promotion, he was
exercising his right and cannot be punished for it.
While it may be true that the right to transfer or
reassign an Ee is an Er’s exclusive right and the
prerogative of management, such right is not
absolute. (Dosch v. NLRC and Northwest Airlines, G.R.
No. 51182, 05 July 1983)
Q: Manalo is a faculty member of the
Accountancy Department of Ateneo de Naga
University's College of Commerce and also the
part-time Manager of the Ateneo de Naga MultiPurpose Cooperative. The Grievance Committee
of the University found her in “fraud in issuance
of official receipts, collection of cash without
documented remittance to the cooperative, use
of inappropriate forms of documents cash
receipts” and, thus, recommended her
dismissal.” Instead of dismissing Manalo, the
University President transferred Manalo to
teach Economics in another Department. Was
Manalo constructively dismissed?
A: NO. Transferring Ees, to the extent that it is done
fairly and in good faith, is a valid exercise of
management prerogative and will not, in and of
itself, sustain a charge of constructive dismissal. In
III. EMPLOYMENT PROPER
this case, the acts committed by Manalo run afoul
from the principles of integrity and objectivity
governing ethics and education in the accountancy
profession as mandated by the International
Federation of Accountants. Relevant as it is, ethical
behavior takes on even greater significance in the
education and training of individuals who are
prospective members of the profession.
Professionals who concurrently take on the role of
educators act as gatekeepers to the esteemed ranks
of a profession or as channels of skills and
knowledge. (Manalo v. Ateneo De Naga University, et
al., G.R. No. 185058, 09 Nov. 2015)
Burden of Proving that the Transfer was
Reasonable
The Er must be able to show that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the Ee;
nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salaries, privileges and other
benefits. Should the Er fail to overcome this burden
of proof, the Ee’s transfer shall be tantamount to
constructive dismissal. (Blue Dairy Corporation v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 129843, 14 Sept. 1999)