This SC jurisprudence, G.R. No. 186070, should ensure due diligence when classifying a supervisor position.
A BPM company insisted employee, whose position title is Team Coach, is a supervisory job and a member of managerial staff. Therefore, he is not entitled to holiday premium, OT and alike.
But the Supreme Court said he is not.
Quoting from IRR of Book 3 rule 1, SC said an officer or member of managerial team should not devote more than 20% of their time on work not related to:
- The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management of policies of their employer;
- Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
- (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (iii) execute, under general supervision, special assignment and tasks
As a consequence, said BPM company was asked to pay employee of the unpaid premium.
Lesson for management:
If employee does not fall on the ambit of above framework, regardless of the claim of supervisory role, employee is entitled to holiday premium, service incentive leave pay, overtime pay and rest day pay, pursuant to Book Three of the Labor Code, specifically Article 82, in relation to Articles 87, 93, and 95.
Note to employees:
This jurisprudence did not say Supervisors are now entitled to OT, holiday premium and night differential
This is rather a costly lesson, what is your take on this case?