Blum Vs. Zamora Case Digest

Myla Ruth N. Sara

Brotherhood Unity (BLUM) v Zamora FACTS BLUM filed a complaint charging San Miguel and some officers of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. Respondents moved for dismissal alleging that complainants are not their employees but of the independent contractor. Petitioners are workers employed at San Miguel, loading and piling empty bottles and shells. They first reported for work to the superintendent wherein the latter issues gate passes and they were provided with tools by the company. The warehousemen and checkers relays the orders to the group leaders who give orders to the workers. Work in the factory was neither regular nor continuous. It did not necessarily mean full 8 hours and they were neither paid overtime nor compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. Petitioners were paid every 10 days on a piece-rate basis according to the number of cartons they were able to load. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between workers and San Miguel

HELD: Yes. The existence of an independent contractor is established by the ff. criteria: 1. whether or not contractor is carrying on an independent business 2. nature and extent of work 3. skill required 4. term and duration of the relationship 5. right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work 6. control and supervision of the work to another 7. employer’s power of hiring, firing and payment of workers 8. control of premises 9. duty to supply the tools 10. mode of payment Job contracting is permissible under the ff. conditions: 1) the contractor carries an independent business with his own contract under his own responsibility according to his own method; 2) the contractor has substantial capital in the form of tools, equipment and other materials. In the case at bar, the contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment. The tools are supplied by the company. The power of SMC to recommend penalties or dismissal of the piece workers is the strongest indication that the company has right to control as direct employer. As to the change of unfair labor practice because of SMC’s refusal to bargain with petitioners, it is clear that the company had an existing collective bargaining with IBM union which is the recognized union at the respondent’s company. Thus, the petitioners cannot merely form a union and demand bargaining because there is a recognized bargaining representative of all employees at the company.