NLRC orders Taiwanese employers to pay dismissed Ilonggo workers over P5.1M
Over P5.1 million in compensation awaits 86 dismissed workers of a Taiwanese businessman involved in deep sea fishing and processing of sea and aqua food products here.
The Decision was handed down by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with the multi-million award comprising the dismissed workers’ separation, backwages, salary and 13th month pay.
The group’s counsels headed by lawyer Roberto Catolico stand to receive nearly P500,000 in attorney’s fees in an order penned by Labor Arbiter Rene Eñano.
Docketed as NLRC SCRAB Cases 06-11-50327-05, 11-50338 and 11-50344-05, the Decision upheld the complaint of the workers for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and 13th month pay among others.
Found guilty of illegally dismissing the affected workers were JB Aqua Marine Corporation and Benny Tee. Taiwanese Tsai Wen Pao is the company president while Tee is the manager. The duo was earlier subject of a hold-departure request filed before Immigration Officer Noel Ojoy.
As such, the Order was out for the company and Tee “to jointly and severally pay” the respondent-workers of P237,016 in separation pay, P1,386,802.73 in backwages, P2,213,079.88 in salaries, P836,331.26 in 13th month pay and P407,322.98 in attorney’s fees.
The company’s tiff with the workers was first brought to the NLRC for mediation back in 2005. Records showed that the complainants were paid an hourly rate of P15 to P22. The services of the workers include sizing, scaling, beheading, skinning and cutting fish and other marine products of the company.
Efforts to amicably settle the differences got the employers to offer a P1 million settlement payable in twelve installments which the group refused to accept.
When the workers began to question the work conditions, an order was apparently issued barring them from further rendering their services.
Respondent-employers for their part denied the charges stating that no intention from their end was made to terminate the complainants. That in fact, it was them who abandoned their work assignments.
The NLRC in its Decision ruled for the complainants.
“Verily, it is our considered view that after learning of the complaint for underpayment against them, the respondents were disturbed. Logically, respondents’ first reaction was to confront the complainants,” excerpts of the 11-paged Decision went. “Respondents’ postulation that they did not dismiss the employment of complainants as in fact notices to return to work were sent out to them fails to impress us. The manifestation and notices were just afterthoughts to avoid being held liable for having terminated the employment of the complainants without due process.”