In a move meant to better protect domestic workers, the Philippine Congress passed a law known as the “Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas Kasambahay”. On 18 January 2013, President Benigno Aquino III signed Republic Act No. 10361 (full text), instituting policies for the protection and welfare of domestic helpers. Considering that it equally affects the domestic helpers and the employers, let’s get to know what’s provided in this law. Continue reading
Category Archives: HR & Labor
Dealing with a single-layer question simply requires spilling out what you know. The challenge to a lawyer, or any person for that matter, is untangling the layers of issues to come up with an answer. This labor question we received illustrates that point. Continue reading
On 14 November 2011, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued Department Order No. 18-A, which becomes effective fifteen (15) days after completion of its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Considering that Department Order 18-A was published on 19 November 2011, it shall take effect on 4 December 2011. Continue reading
Last year, we noted that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) is trying to address the problem of at least a million “discouraged workers“, or jobless people available for work but are not actively seeking employment, as well as the prevailing skills mismatch among workers. According to a report, “jobseekers have difficulty finding jobs because they possess skills that are not needed by companies.” It takes “months or almost a year for employers to find the right workers to fill in vacancies in their companies,” the report quotes Criselda Sy, director of DOLE’s Bureau of Local Employment. Continue reading
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer. The word “probationary”, as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer at the same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. Continue reading
The title of this post should have been in the form of a question, intended to solicit your opinion: Do you agree with Malacanang’s policy to discontinue the holiday economics of the previous administration? You could go direct to the bottom of the post to write down your opinion. Or you can read on. Continue reading
I received an interesting email asking if tattoos would adversely affect the chances of getting good employment, specifically, whether there’s any legal provision that prohibits an employer from discriminating against individuals who have tattoos.
A tattoo is an expression of individuality. The more serious ones treat this skin art as a mode self-expression, as it should be. The tattoo has outgrown the image of being a badge of those who are in prison. It has become fashionable for the rest, a badge of coolness. Whatever the reason for getting a tattoo, each one has the right to inscribe ink on his/her own body.
Employers, on the other hand, enjoy a wide leeway in exercising its managerial prerogative in selecting the employees who they think are best suited for the requirements of their companies or businesses. There’s no legal provision that expressly prohibits them from rejecting a job applicant because he/she has a tattoo.
Not that it matters, anyway. The prospective employee has no way of knowing the exact reason for the denial of the application. The applicant usually gets a call informing him/her that he/she is hired. It’s very rare for a rejected applicant to get a call from company, informing him/her that he/she has not been accepted, and it’s close to impossible to get a reason for the denial of the application.
While each one has the right to get a tattoo, the employer also has the right to select their employees. If the company believes that having a tattoo is perfectly ok, then no problem. Of course, having a tattoo has nothing to do with one’s ability to work. It’s one thing to reject an applicant because of a tattoo; an entirely different matter to terminate an employee because of a tattoo. The employer could have a perfectly valid reason to prohibit tattoos among certain departments of the company. There can be no hard and fast rule because it should be decided on a case-to-case basis.