How to shorten the 1-hour meal period under the Labor Code

How to shorten - legalaspects.ph

The 1-hour meal period should be uninterrupted. Did you know that you can shorten it?

The Labor Code provides that employees should be afforded a 1-hour meal period for every day of work. It expressly provides that it should be continuous and uninterrupted. The purpose of this is to ensure that the employees should be given ample opportunity to take their meals and take a long rest during their work shift.

Continue reading here.

 

Are payslips required to be given to ordinary employees by the employer under labor law?

This is a frequently asked question in Philippine labor law from both the employers and the employees. Are employers required to issue payslips to employees?

The answer is not a direct one. This is primarily the reason why this question keeps coming up.

In summary, there is no express statute or rule requiring employers to provide employees with payslips. However, Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly declared that employers should provide them

Continue reading here.

… this Court had occasion to reiterate management’s prerogative to close or abolish a department or section of the employer’s establishment for economic reasons. We reasoned out that since the greater right to close the entire establishment and cease operations due to adverse economic conditions is granted an employer, the closure of a part thereof to minimize expenses and reduce capitalization should also be recognized.

 Dangan v. Tierra Factors Corporation, G.R. No. 63127-28, 20 February 1984

Extent of Joint and Solidarily Liability in Contracting or Subcontracting

The joint and several liability of the employer or principal was enacted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Code, principally those on statutory minimum wage. The contractor or subcontractor is made liable by virtue of his or her status as a direct employer, and the principal as the indirect employer of the contractors employees. This liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers compensation, thus, giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This is not unduly burdensome to the employer. Should the indirect employer be constrained to pay the workers, it can recover whatever amount it had paid in accordance with the terms of the service contract between itself and the contractor.

Continue reading here.