Myline Cordial

Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco  and/or Francisco Siquig, as Union President, Joselito Lario, Vivencio B. Barte, Saturnino Egeria and Simplicio Aya-ay vs Natinal Labor Relations Commission, Tryco Pharma Corporation, and/or Wilfredo C. Rivera
GR No. 151309. October 15, 2008

FACTS:
Tryco Pharma Corporation (Tryco) is a manufacturer of veterinary medicines and its principal office is located in Caloocan City. Petitioners Joselito Lario, Vivencio Barte, Saturnino Egera and Simplicio Aya-ay are its regular employees, occupying the positions of helper, shipment helper and factory workers, respectively, assigned to the Production Department. They are members of Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco (BMT), the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees.

Tryco and the petitioners signed separate MOA providing for a compressed workweek schedule to be implemented in the company with 8:00 a.m. to 6:12 p.m., from Monday to Friday, as the regular working hours.

After the Department of Agriculture directed Trycos to transfer its production activities to San Rafael, Bulacan, it ordered petitioner Aya-ay, Egera, Lario and Barte to report to the company’s plant site in Bulacan. They refused to obey and BMT opposed the transfer of its members to San Rafael, Bulacan.

The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC,and the CA uniformly agreed that the petitioners were not constructively dismissed and that the transfer orders did not amount to an unfair labor practice.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the transfer of Trycos personnel from Caloocan City to its plant site in Bulacan constitutes constructive dismissal.
2. Whether or not the petitioner-employees were entitled to payment of wages, overtime pay and service incentive leave.
3. Whether or not the MOA is not enforceable as it is contrary to law.

RULING:
1. The transfer of Trycos personnel, assigned to the Production Department was within the scope of its management prerogative. This prerogative extends to the managements right to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including the freedom to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business. When the transfer is not unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. A mere incidental inconvenience is not sufficient to warrant a claim of constructive dismissal.

2. The nonpayment of wages was justified because the petitioners did not render work from May 26 to 31, 1997; overtime pay is not due because of the compressed workweek agreement between the union and management; and service incentive leave pay cannot be claimed by the complainants because they are already enjoying vacation leave with pay for at least five days.

3. The MOA on compressed workweek scheme is enforceable and binding against the petitioners. Where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. MOA clearly states that the employee waives the payment of overtime pay in exchange of a five-day workweek.