NLRC favors GMA Network in illegal dismissal complaint | GMANetwork.com - Corporate - Articles

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed a regularization case filed by a former talent of broadcast company GMA Network, Inc. (GMA).

NLRC favors GMA Network in illegal dismissal complaint

July 13 2015



The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed a regularization case filed by a former talent of broadcast company GMA Network, Inc. (GMA).

The complainant, Micholl P. Mabinta, was engaged as a creative talent to perform duties and functions as a program researcher and/or production assistant on a fixed term basis.

Prior to filing his complaint, Mabinta rejected GMA’s offer of a new talent agreement after his last one expired. He also rejected the Network’s offer to provide him with a project employment contract, a program-based contract which includes additional benefits such as membership with the Social Security System, Philhealth, and Pag-Ibig fund, 13th month pay, rice subsidy and health insurance, as well as the option to apply for regular employment provided that he meets the qualifications and complies with the requirements needed for the position.

In her June 8, 2015 decision, Labor Arbiter Remedios L.P. Marcos ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties and thus complainant is not entitled to regularization.

The arbiter said that in the case of Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals decided by the Supreme Court on 15 June 2007, it was declared that under the control test, there is an employer-employee relationship “when the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve that end.”

In Mabinta’s case, the arbiter found that he worked with minimal supervision from GMA and if there is any level of control exercised by GMA, it is only to make sure that “he does not violate applicable laws and/or delete any inappropriate scenes or language, which was restricted by existing laws to be aired on television.”

In finding that Mabinta is an independent contractor, the arbiter added that the complainant “cannot feign ignorance that his tax due on his talent fees had been withheld in accordance with the rates set forth by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for professionals/independent contractors as opposed to the rate withholding tax for regular employees.”

The arbiter further said that complainant had the “full and absolute freedom and discretion” to decline any work that are not stipulated in his talent agreement.

Mabinta’s claims for 13th month-pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, were also denied for lack of factual and legal basis.

advertisement

Elsewhere on GMA

advertisement