Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc vs NLRCApril 15, 1998 | Bellosillo, J.By: SamSUMMARY:SimeDarbySalariedEmployeesAssociationfledacaseagainstSimeDarbyPilipinasInc, allegingthat thechangeof theirworkscheduleandthediscontinuanceof the3!minutepaidon!calllunch break constituted "nfair #abor Practice$ DOCTRINE: (Manaemen! Prer"a!ive# %anagement is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and&udgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, workassignments, workingmethods, time, placeandmannerofwork,processes to be followed, super'ision of workers, workingregulations, transfer of employees, work super'ision, layo(ofworkers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers$ )urther, management retains the prerogati'e, whene'er e*igenciesof the ser'ice so re+uire, to change the workinghours of itsemployees$ So long as such prerogati'e is e*ercised in good faithfor thead'ancement of theemployersinterest andnot for thepurpose of defeating or circum'enting the rights of the employeesunder special laws or under 'alid agreements$ACTS:SimeDarbyPilipinasissuedamemorandumtoall factory!basedemployees ad'ising all its monthly salaried employees in its%arikina,irePlant, e*cept thoseinthe-arehouseand.ualityAssurance Department working on shifts, a change in workschedule e(ecti'e /0 September /112 as follows3 ,43 A## )A5,467!8ASED E%P#47EES6E3 9E- -46: S5;ED"#E$ E(ecti'e %onday, September /0, /112, the new work schedule factory o A$%$ 030> P$%$ ?%onday to )riday@=30> A$%$ //30> P$%$ ?Saturday@$5o(ee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between3133 A$%$ /33 A$%$ and233 P$%$ 333 P$%$#unch break will be between3/23 99 /3 P$%$ ?%onday to )riday@$Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association fled a case with the#abor Arbiter against SimeDarbyPilipinasInc, allegingthat thechange of their work schedule and the discontinuance of the 3!minutepaidon!call lunch breakconstituted"nfair#aborPracticeanddiscrimination and e'asion of liability pursuant to theresolution of this 5ourt in Sime Darby International Tire Co., Inc. .!"#C. Sime Darby Pilipinas maintained that the change was 'alid management prerogati'e$ #A3Dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the elimination of the 3!minute paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a 'alid e*ercise of management prerogati'e and that the new work schedule, break time and one!hour lunch break did not ha'e the e(ect of diminishing the benefts granted to factory workers as the working time did not e*ceed eight ?A@ hours$ %oreo'er that the factory workers would be &ustly enriched if they continued to be paid during their lunch break e'en if they were no longer on call or re+uired to work during the break$ ;e also ruled that the decision inthe earlier Sime Darby case was not applicable to the instant case because the former in'ol'ed discrimination of certain employees who were not paid for their 3!minute lunch break while the rest of the factory workers were paidB hence, this 5ourt ordered that the discriminated employees be similarly paid the additional compensation for their lunch break$9#653 Sustained #A ruling and dismissed the appeal$ 9#65 %63 6e'ersed its ruling$ 9#65 considered the decision of this5ourt inthe SimeDarby caseof /11as thelawof thecasewhereinpetitionerwas orderedtopaythemoney'alue oftheseco'ered employees depri'ed of lunch andCor working timebreaks$ ,he public respondent declared that the new work scheduledepri'ed the employees of the benefts of time!honored companypractice of pro'iding its employees a 3!minute paid lunch breakresulting in an un&ust diminution of company pri'ileges prohibitedbyArt$ /of the#abor5ode, asamended$ ;ence, thispetitionalleging that public respondent committed gra'e abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or e*cess of &urisdiction3 ?a@ in rulingthat petitioner committed unfair labor practice in theimplementation of the change in the work schedule of itsemployees4SD3 fled in lieu of comment a manifestation and motionrecommending that the petition be granted, alleging that the newwork schedule was not discriminatory of the union members nor didit constitute unfair labor practice$ ISSUES%&ELD: -C9theact of management inre'isingtheworkscheduleanddiscontinuing their 3!minute paid lunch break constituted anunfair labor practiceE 94$RATIO:,he right to f* the work schedules of the employees restsprincipally on their employer$ In the instant case petitioner, as theemployer, cites as reason for the ad&ustment the e