Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 413 views

    BLUM vs. Zamora Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    Petitioners filed a complaint against San Miguel alleging unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. San Miguel claimed the petitioners were independent contractors, not employees. The petitioners worked loading and piling bottles and shells at San Miguel's warehouse. They were given tools by the company and paid piece-rate every 10 days. The court analyzed several factors and found San Miguel had the right to control the workers, including hiring, firing, and payment. As San Miguel exercised control over the workers and premises, an employer-employee relationship existed, not an independent contractor relationship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BLUM vs. Zamora Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    413 views1 page
    Petitioners filed a complaint against San Miguel alleging unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. San Miguel claimed the petitioners were independent contractors, not employees. The petitioners worked loading and piling bottles and shells at San Miguel's warehouse. They were given tools by the company and paid piece-rate every 10 days. The court analyzed several factors and found San Miguel had the right to control the workers, including hiring, firing, and payment. As San Miguel exercised control over the workers and premises, an employer-employee relationship existed, not an independent contractor relationship.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed a complaint against San Miguel alleging unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. San Miguel claimed the petitioners were independent contractors, not employees. The petitioners worked loading and piling bottles and shells at San Miguel's warehouse. They were given tools by the company and paid piece-rate every 10 days. The court analyzed several factors and found San Miguel had the right to control the workers, including hiring, firing, and payment. As San Miguel exercised control over the workers and premises, an employer-employee relationship existed, not an independent contractor relationship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    413 views1 page

    BLUM vs. Zamora Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    Petitioners filed a complaint against San Miguel alleging unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. San Miguel claimed the petitioners were independent contractors, not employees. The petitioners worked loading and piling bottles and shells at San Miguel's warehouse. They were given tools by the company and paid piece-rate every 10 days. The court analyzed several factors and found San Miguel had the right to control the workers, including hiring, firing, and payment. As San Miguel exercised control over the workers and premises, an employer-employee relationship existed, not an independent contractor relationship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Myla Ruth N.

    Sara

    Brotherhood Unity (BLUM) v Zamora

    FACTS

    BLUM filed a complaint charging San Miguel and some officers of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
    Respondents moved for dismissal alleging that complainants are not their employees but of the independent
    contractor. Petitioners are workers employed at San Miguel, loading and piling empty bottles and shells. They first
    reported for work to the superintendent wherein the latter issues gate passes and they were provided with tools by
    the company.
    The warehousemen and checkers relays the orders to the group leaders who give orders to the workers.
    Work in the factory was neither regular nor continuous. It did not necessarily mean full 8 hours and they were
    neither paid overtime nor compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. Petitioners were paid every 10 days on
    a piece-rate basis according to the number of cartons they were able to load.

    ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between workers and San Miguel

    HELD: Yes.

    The existence of an independent contractor is established by the ff. criteria:


    1. whether or not contractor is carrying on an independent business
    2. nature and extent of work
    3. skill required
    4. term and duration of the relationship
    5. right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work
    6. control and supervision of the work to another
    7. employer’s power of hiring, firing and payment of workers
    8. control of premises
    9. duty to supply the tools
    10. mode of payment
    Job contracting is permissible under the ff. conditions: 1) the contractor carries an independent business
    with his own contract under his own responsibility according to his own method; 2) the contractor has substantial
    capital in the form of tools, equipment and other materials.
    In the case at bar, the contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment. The tools are supplied
    by the company. The power of SMC to recommend penalties or dismissal of the piece workers is the strongest
    indication that the company has right to control as direct employer.
    As to the change of unfair labor practice because of SMC’s refusal to bargain with petitioners, it is clear that
    the company had an existing collective bargaining with IBM union which is the recognized union at the
    respondent’s company. Thus, the petitioners cannot merely form a union and demand bargaining because there is a
    recognized bargaining representative of all employees at the company.

    You might also like