Temporary Lay-off?

[hf_blade]

Hey there, guys. I and other (former?) employees of our company have been laid-off, so we're supposed to be getting severance/redundancy pay. But when we consulted HR as to how we're going to get those benefits, we get this bullcrap. Read the quote below for reference, especially the ones in bold:

Notes about the layoffs. Cascading this info from the HR personnel as I talked to her yesterday.

* The situation we have right now is called a Temporary Lay off. What this means: we are still employees of the company and get certain benefits (Maxicare, HSBC card use, 13th month pay), but we're not on payroll. This lasts for six months, and they'll call us back within that timeframe to see if we want to work for the company again.
* Our time with the company ends on September 10. We will get pay for up till September 10.
* We will get a LAST PAY: 13th month pay, plus unused sick leave pay, plus tax refund.
* Redundancy Pay: You get paid equivalent of 1 month for every year of service.
o This will be given approximately six months after September 10 if we aren't contacted again by the company and asked to return.
o If we are contacted by the company and asked to return, but decline (new job, not interested, etc.), we waive the redundancy pay.

If you read between the lines, it basically says that it only takes one phone call to totally render us ineligible for the severance/redundancy pay. It's totally unfair - they're not giving us what we're due. And to rub salt onto our wounds, the company properly compensated the ones who were laid off a few months ago.

Is this "Temporary lay-off" thing legal? We need some advice, especially of the legal kind. Thanks.

[rheasol20]

I don't know if we have the same company.. coz 700 employees are going to be lay-off maybe this week or nextweek. And they called it redundancy program!!?? letse! they also going to pay 1 month per every year of service, and they said that it was tax free.
well.. for me, i don't think it was temporay lay-off, it was just their style!! sabi nga.. Style nila bulok!

[c0Rinthian]

it's just a sugar coated way of saying na retrenched kayo :(

temporary lay-off? ano yun? bakasyon na walang bayad?

anong gagawin niyo for 6 months- tambay lang?... paging DOLE!

[pagie]

Dapat nga bawal na ang layoff, may redundancy na nga kasi eh. Kung di ka na nila kailangan, eh i-redundant(legal na tuntungan ng pagtatanggal ng empleyado) ka nila. Malinaw sa labor code ang sinasabi sa redundancy, 1month notice sa empleyado, 1month per year din ang bayad.
Parang umiiwas lang sa pagbabayad ng redundancy pay ang employer niyo, kaya idadaan pa sa lay off. Sempre, sino ba naman di maghahanap ng trabaho sa loob ng 6 months? Pag nakahanap ka, so libre na sila?

[hf_blade]

Sempre, sino ba naman di maghahanap ng trabaho sa loob ng 6 months? Pag nakahanap ka, so libre na sila?
Exactly.

Which is what I don't want to happen. We were honest workers, and the company is gypping us off the redundancy pay.

[council]

Exactly.

Which is what I don't want to happen. We were honest workers, and the company is gypping us off the redundancy pay.

Terminology may be incorrect, but procedure, in general, is valid under Article 286 of the Labor Code. However, we have to determine the reason for the suspension of the operation, and if there is an actual suspension.

ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. - The bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

[hf_blade]

Actually, there is no suspension of operation, if we're talking about suspending a certain function of the company. Other employees who serve the same job description as I do are still hired and are still doing the same job that I was doing.

[council]

Actually, there is no suspension of operation, if we're talking about suspending a certain function of the company. Other employees who serve the same job description as I do are still hired and are still doing the same job that I was doing.

In that case, they should pay out the benefits due already.

I don't recall "temporary lay-off" in any of the books I've read.

[hf_blade]

Thanks council. I'm just checking if I'm on the right standing here.

I just talked with the HR head earlier. She "explained" to me (in quotation marks because it felt more like a spin than a true explanation of what's happening) that the reason why we're in a temporary lay-off status is that management is not sure whether or not the company's luck will turn around in six months and need our services again, if that happens.

She also told me that they "can't" lay-off or redundate people because if they do that, they can't re-hire people again. Does that even make sense?

I really feel as if I'm being fed a bucket of bovine droppings here, but I have no license to take it out on the HR people. The HR head is, or course, just following orders.

Now, she offered me something that isn't even assured if it can be actually given. She told me that I can just resign and she'll check if she can make "adjustments". It's an entirely iffy thing, if you ask me.

[council]

Thanks council. I'm just checking if I'm on the right standing here.

I just talked with the HR head earlier. She "explained" to me (in quotation marks because it felt more like a spin than a true explanation of what's happening) that the reason why we're in a temporary lay-off status is that management is not sure whether or not the company's luck will turn around in six months and need our services again, if that happens.

Since it's a profitability issue, then dapat retrenchment. That's 1/2 month salary for every year of service.

She also told me that they "can't" lay-off or redundate people because if they do that, they can't re-hire people again. Does that even make sense?

That's correct. Redundancy is in effect removing people because there could be an "excess" of manpower, because of automation, blah blah. And by practice/experience, a position declared redundant can't be filled in the future because there's already another one (machine or person) doing it. The position can be filled only if nobody is doing the job anymore.

I really feel as if I'm being fed a bucket of bovine droppings here, but I have no license to take it out on the HR people. The HR head is, or course, just following orders.

Now, she offered me something that isn't even assured if it can be actually given. She told me that I can just resign and she'll check if she can make "adjustments". It's an entirely iffy thing, if you ask me.

If you resign, you may get nothing except 13th month pay, tax refund, leave conversion. Other bonuses/payments are at the discretion of management.

[hf_blade]

Since it's a profitability issue, then dapat retrenchment. That's 1/2 month salary for every year of service.

That's correct. Redundancy is in effect removing people because there could be an "excess" of manpower, because of automation, blah blah. And by practice/experience, a position declared redundant can't be filled in the future because there's already another one (machine or person) doing it. The position can be filled only if nobody is doing the job anymore.

If you resign, you may get nothing except 13th month pay, tax refund, leave conversion. Other bonuses/payments are at the discretion of management.

Yup. If I resign, then it's tantamount to just letting go of the severance/redundancy (or whatever it is, I seem to be switching terms here) pay.