Since the signing of DOLE Department Order 174 opinions against the new DO were written. At one end, labor groups denounced the order because they believed it will kill jobs. While an employers group claim DO 174 will lead to job losses.
To help out those who don’t have a budget to attend a learning event, our soon to be lawyer and HR Manager friend, Ely Ypilan, made a comparative table of DOLE Department Order 174 side by side with the provisions of the (1) Labor Code, (2) DOs 18A and (3) 19.
Below are Ely’s thoughts, and his comparative table for your reference. Should you have Qs or other ideas, feel free to post it in the comments section below this post, and let’s have a value adding discussion.
- DO 174 is actually an Implementing Rules and Regulations for the strict compliance of legitimate Contractors and Subcontractors and not to eliminate contractualization. It only increased the contractor’s capital from P 3,000,000.00 to P 5,000,000.00.
- Other listed prohibitions are already existing prohibitions in our Labor Code.
- HR who wants to avoid any problem in dealing with contractors may instead employ a fixed-term contract engagement with the employees. Fixed-term employment directly facilitated by the employer is not prohibited. Nowhere in the DO 174 prohibits it.
The Court thus laid down the criteria under which fixed-term employment could not be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, thus:
(1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
(2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.