Compensable hours of work

Compensable hours of work "I filed a labor complaint against my employer. In one occasion, I was already at work when I recalled that there was a hearing of my case, which was scheduled on that day. I immediately asked the permission of my supervisor to leave the company premises to attend the hearing. Surprisingly, the company is now charging the hours used in attending the hearing to my vacation leave. Since the case was filed against my employer because of its fault, is it correct also that I should be compensated during the time that I attended the hearing?Cyrine Dear Cyrine,An employee shall be compensated during the time that he is required to render work. This is in consonance with Article 84 of Presidential Decree 442, or the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended and renumbered, which provides that: “Hours worked shall include (a) all time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at a prescribed workplace and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. Rest periods of short duration shall be counted as hours worked.”It is clear that you spent your employer’s time in attending the hearing of your case and you were not performing any work during that time hence, the same is not compensable. This is in accordance with the ruling in the case titled Sugue et. al. vs Triumph International (Phil.) Inc. (GR 164804, Jan. 30, 2009), where the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Teresit Leonardo-de Castro, said:“With respect to the first alleged discriminatory act, we can conceive of no reason to ascribe bad faith or malice to Triumph for charging to the leave credits of Sugue and Valderrama the half-day that they spent in attending the preliminary conference of the case they instituted against Triumph. It is fair and reasonable for Triumph to do so considering that Sugue and Valderrama did not perform work for one-half day on June 19, 2000. xxx “As the NLRC correctly pointed out, as early as the case of JB Heilbronn Co. v[s] National Labor Union, this Court held that:“When the case of strikes, and according to the CIR even if the strike is legal, strikers may not collect their wages during the days they did not go to work, for the same reasons if not more, laborers who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend the hearing of a case in which they seek to prove and establish their demands against the company, the legality and propriety of which demands is not yet known, should lose their pay during the period of such absence from work. The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee is that a ‘fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.’ If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer’s time.” (Citation omitted)Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital is that a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.” It is important to emphasize that no work was performed when you attended the hearing of the case which you filed against your employer thus, there can be no wage and the charging of the same to your vacation leave is fair and reasonable. Therefore, your claim that you should be compensated during the hearing because the filing of the case against your employer was due to his fault has no legal basis.We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated. Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net" - https://www.affordablecebu.com/