ECOP bucks bill changing categories of employment

THE Employers Confederation of the Philippines is bucking a Senate bill aimed at reclassifying employment arrangements. Senate Bill 858 proposes to change the existing classification of employment into two broad categories: from regular employment and non-regular, to work arrangements based on contracts for indefinite period and contracts for definite period.

In a statement, Edgardo G. Lacson, ECOP president, said the bill filed by Senator Jinggoy Estrada constitutes a “radical change since it discards fundamental concepts and doctrines on employment that have evolved through the years and are deeply entrenched in law and jurisprudence as well as in practice.”

Lacson said the proposed measure “introduces a new taxonomy of terms and definitions whose applicability if not validity remains to be tested in unnecessary litigations.”

ECOP expressed “strong reservations” against enacting SB 858, citing “controversial” provisions of the bill, particularly Section 4, which contains an enumeration of contracts for definite period.

“The danger of making such enumeration which creates rights and obligations between the parties is that contracts not included are deemed excluded,” Lacson said.

The said bill excludes the following arrangements:

• activities that may not be directly related to the business of the employer such as casual employment as well as certain types of project employment;

• fixed term employment; and

• contractual employment.

ECOP also questioned Section 5, which prescribes the form and content of contracts for definite period and specifies that renewal of a contract for definite period can be made only once.

“This prescription is highly objectionable not only on the ground that it restricts flexibility of employers to adjust to business exigencies and does not conduce to job growth as well, but also on legal and constitutional grounds,” Lacson said.

Contracts for definite period renewed a second time are transformed into contracts for an indefinite period or regular employment under Article 280, he said, adding that this is tantamount to perpetual employment for non-regular employees.

Lacson also noted the absence of logic or rationality for basing the duration of the probationary period on a fixed amount of salary that is eroded by inflation through time. He said probationary employment is an exercise of management prerogative subject to regulation by the law which sets a maximum “trial period” extendible when parties agree otherwise, as the when longer probationary period is justified by the nature of work to be performed by the employee, or to give the employee a second chance to pass probation standards. –Manila Times