Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 488 views

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    mimisabayton
    1. Private respondent Hernandez, a radio officer, was ordered by the ship captain to carry the luggage of a crew member being repatriated but refused due to the crew member's utterances. He was dismissed for insubordination. 2. The NLRC ruled the dismissal was illegal since carrying luggage was not part of Hernandez's duties. It also awarded him overtime pay. 3. The Court affirmed Hernandez's dismissal was illegal as the order was not within his duties and his single act of disobedience did not warrant dismissal. It also said entitlement to overtime pay requires proof that extra hours were actually worked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    mimisabayton
    488 views2 pages
    1. Private respondent Hernandez, a radio officer, was ordered by the ship captain to carry the luggage of a crew member being repatriated but refused due to the crew member's utterances. He was dismissed for insubordination. 2. The NLRC ruled the dismissal was illegal since carrying luggage was not part of Hernandez's duties. It also awarded him overtime pay. 3. The Court affirmed Hernandez's dismissal was illegal as the order was not within his duties and his single act of disobedience did not warrant dismissal. It also said entitlement to overtime pay requires proof that extra hours were actually worked.

    Original Description:

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services v. NLRC... Labor Digest

    Original Title

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Private respondent Hernandez, a radio officer, was ordered by the ship captain to carry the luggage of a crew member being repatriated but refused due to the crew member's utterances. He was dismissed for insubordination. 2. The NLRC ruled the dismissal was illegal since carrying luggage was not part of Hernandez's duties. It also awarded him overtime pay. 3. The Court affirmed Hernandez's dismissal was illegal as the order was not within his duties and his single act of disobedience did not warrant dismissal. It also said entitlement to overtime pay requires proof that extra hours were actually worked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    488 views2 pages

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    mimisabayton
    1. Private respondent Hernandez, a radio officer, was ordered by the ship captain to carry the luggage of a crew member being repatriated but refused due to the crew member's utterances. He was dismissed for insubordination. 2. The NLRC ruled the dismissal was illegal since carrying luggage was not part of Hernandez's duties. It also awarded him overtime pay. 3. The Court affirmed Hernandez's dismissal was illegal as the order was not within his duties and his single act of disobedience did not warrant dismissal. It also said entitlement to overtime pay requires proof that extra hours were actually worked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services v.

    NLRC
    STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES V. NLRC
    258 SCRA 643
    ROMERO, J.
    FACTS
    1. Respondent Meynardo J. Hernandez was hired by Stolt-Nielsen Marine Servies
    !"hils.# $n. as radio o%%ier on board M&T Stolt Condor %or a period o% ten 'onths. He
    boarded the vessel on Jan(ary )*+ 1,,*.
    ). -n April ).+ 1,,*+ the ship aptain ordered private respondent to arry the ba//a/e
    o% rew 'e'ber 0ito 0overia who was bein/ repatriated. He re%(sed to obey the
    order o(t o% %ear in view o% the (tterane o% said rew 'e'ber 1'a2a2asa2sa2 a2o1
    and also bea(se he did not pereive s(h tas2 as one o% his d(ties as radio o%%ier.
    3. As a res(lt o% s(h re%(sal+ private respondent was ordered to dise'bar2 on April 3*+
    1,,* and was hi'sel% repatriated on May 14+ 1,,*. He was paid his salaries and
    wa/es only (p to May 1.+ 1,,*.
    5. "rivate respondent %iled be%ore p(bli respondent "-6A a o'plaint %or ille/al
    dis'issal and breah o% ontrat payin/ %or+ a'on/ other thin/s+ pay'ent o% salaries+
    wa/es+ overti'e and other bene%its d(e hi' %or the (ne7pired portion o% the ontrat
    whih was si7 !.# 'onths and three !3# days.
    4. "etitioner in its answer alle/ed that private respondent re%(sed to %ollow the 1re8(est1
    o% the 'aster o% the vessel to e7plain to 0olito 0overia+ the reason %or the latter9s
    repatriation and to assist hi' in arryin/ his ba//a/e+ all in violation o% Artile ::$;+
    Setion $ o% the Colletive <ar/ainin/ A/ree'ent !C<A# and the "-6A Standard
    Contrat. Hene+ private respondent+ a%ter bein/ a%%orded the opport(nity to e7plain
    his side+ was dis'issed %or /ross ins(bordination and serio(s 'isond(t.
    .. Respondent denied that the 'aster o% the vessel re8(ested hi' to e7plain to 0overia
    the reason %or the latter9s repatriation.
    =. Therea%ter+ "-6A Ad'inistrator rendered an award in %avor o% private respondent.
    >. A//rieved+ petitioner Stolt-Nielsen appealed to the National 0abor Relations
    Co''ission !N0RC#. The N0RC on(rred with the "-6A Ad'inistrator in r(lin/
    that private respondent+ havin/ been ille/ally dis'issed+ was+ there%ore+ entitled to
    the 'onetary award.
    ,. $t %(rther stated that private respondent9s d(ty as a radio o%%ier or radio operator
    does not inl(de the arryin/ o% the l(//a/e o% any sea'an or e7plainin/ to said
    sea'an the reason %or his repatriation. Th(s+ onl(ded the N0RC+ his ter'ination
    on this /ro(nd was not proper and+ there%ore+ he had every ri/ht to the 'onetary
    award. The N0RC li2ewise /ranted private respondent9s lai' %or %i7ed overti'e pay
    and attorney9s %ees.
    $SS?6S
    1. Whether or not private respondent was legally dismissed on the ground of gross
    insubordination and serious misconduct.
    2. Whether or not private respondent was entitled to the award of over-time pay.
    H60@
    1. A6S. Bill%(l disobediene o% the e'ployer9s law%(l orders+ as a C(st a(se %or the
    dis'issal o% an e'ployee+ envisa/es the on(rrene o% at least two !)# re8(isites.
    The e'ployee9s assailed ond(t '(st have been will%(l or intentional+ the
    will%(lness bein/ haraterized by a 1wron/%(l and perverse attit(de1+ and the order
    violated '(st have been reasonable+ law%(l+ 'ade 2nown to the e'ployee and '(st
    pertain to the d(ties whih he had been en/a/ed to dishar/e. The Co(rt a/rees
    that by virt(e o% the a%ore'entioned C<A and "-6A Standard Contrat provisions
    ited by petitioner+ private respondent is indeed bo(nd to obey the law%(l o''ands
    o% the aptain o% the ship+ b(t only as lon/ as these pertain to his d(ties. The order to
    arry the l(//a/e o% a rew 'e'ber+ while bein/ law%(l+ is not part o% the d(ties o% a
    radio o%%ier. Ass('in/ ar/(endo that law%(l o''ands o% a ship aptain are
    s(pposed to be obeyed by the o'ple'ent o% a ship+ private respondent9s so-alled 1at o%
    disobediene1 does not warrant the s(pre'e penalty o% dis'issal. $n instant
    ase+ the "-6A %o(nd that private respondent9s at(ation whih led to his dis'issal
    was the %irst and only at o% disobediene d(rin/ his servie with the petitioner+
    F(rther'ore+ e7a'ination o% the ir('stanes s(rro(ndin/ private respondent9s
    disobediene shows that the repatriated sea'an9s (tterane o% 1'a2a2asa2sa2 a2o1
    so instilled %ear in private respondent that he was deterred %ro' arryin/ o(t the
    order o% the aptain. Hene+ his at o(ld not be ri/ht%(lly haraterized as one
    'otivated by a 1wron/%(l and perverse attit(de.1 <esides+ said inident posed no
    serio(s or s(bstantial dan/er to the well-bein/ o% his other o-e'ployees or o% the
    /eneral p(bli doin/ b(siness with petitioner e'ployer+ neither did s(h behavior
    threaten s(bstantial preC(die to the b(siness o% his e'ployer.
    ). N-. The Co(rt reiterated that the rendition o% overti'e wor2 and the s(b'ission o%
    s(%%iient proo% that said wor2 was at(ally per%or'ed are onditions to be satis%ied
    be%ore a sea'an o(ld be entitled to overti'e pay whih sho(ld be o'p(ted on the
    basis o% 3*D o% the basi 'onthly salary. $n short+ the ontrat provision /(arantees
    the ri/ht to overti'e pay b(t the entitle'ent to s(h bene%it '(st %irst be established.
    Realistially spea2in/+ a sea'an+ by the very nat(re o% his Cob+ stays on board a ship
    or vessel beyond the re/(lar ei/ht-ho(r wor2 shed(le. For the e'ployer to /ive hi'
    overti'e pay %or the e7tra ho(rs when he 'i/ht be sleepin/ or attendin/ to his
    personal hores or even C(st l(llin/ away his ti'e wo(ld be e7tre'ely (n%air and
    (nreasonable.
    Principle the orret riterion in deter'inin/ whether or not sailors are entitled to overti'e pay
    is not+ there%ore+ whether they were on board and annot leave ship beyond the re/(lar ei/ht
    wor2in/ ho(rs a day+ b(t whether they at(ally rendered servie in e7ess o% said n('ber o%
    ho(rs.

    You might also like