Flexible work arrangements

The spike in fuel prices caused by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has forced the government and the business sector to adapt ways and means to cut energy costs.

The options available to businesses for that purpose are: four-day work week that extends work hours beyond the usual eight hours; compressed workweek and hybrid setup where some employees work from home (WFH) on certain days of the week; or a combination of any of them.

The Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) has left it to the employers to choose the work arrangement they want to implement, depending on the nature of their business, as long as it does not result in the reduction of the wages and other benefits of their employees.

The Dole’s approval is not required in making that decision, but it wants to be informed of any such arrangements so it can monitor their compliance with labor regulations.

It’s a sense of déjà vu about the work arrangement that the country put in place in 2020 and 2021 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world. Unlike that once-in-a-century illness, however, the recent crisis is expected (knock on wood) to be less devastating to the national economy.

This time, most businesses are more prepared. They have the benefit of the lessons learned in 2020 and 2021 that would allow them to ride out the energy crisis with the least financial damage to their company.

A critical element in any flexible work arrangement is that the majority, if not all, of the affected employees agree to it and fully understand the manner by which it will be implemented.

Bear in mind that what is involved in any change in work arrangements is the money that pays for food on the table for the employees’ family.

This condition is particularly essential in companies that have collective bargaining agreements with their employees that contain provisions that clearly define, among others, work shifts, meal and transportation allowances and overtime pay.

Some issues that arose when WFH was earlier adopted were:

whether an employee on WFH arrangement is entitled to overtime pay if he or she is called after the end of work schedule;
whether a meal allowance that is given when an employee is on duty should be similarly enjoyed when work is being done from home; or
whether the transportation allowance that is routinely given for field work is paid if the employee is able to clinch contracts without physically meeting the client.

Note that under existing regulations, when a certain benefit has been given to the employees for an extended period of time, or is treated as an integral part of compensation, the right to receive that benefit evolves as an obligation on the part of the employer to continue to give.

That benefit can only be terminated or rescinded under exceptional justifying circumstances that the employer must convincingly prove.

The rule of thumb is when the union leadership enters into an agreement with management, its action is considered binding on all union members. That dispenses with the need to secure the consent or agreement of the affected employees.

During the pandemic, that principle was challenged in some companies where some employees objected to the WFH arrangement they were required to observe on the ground that the assignment is personal to them, not a collective union matter, so their prior consent is needed before it can be implemented.

That dispute could have been avoided had the union leaders talked to the affected employees first and listened to their side before the WFH scheme was finalized.

It should be food for thought for employers who are inclined to adapt flexible work assignment to meet the exigencies of the present energy crisis, to learn from the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, to maintain peace and quiet within the ranks of their employees.

For comments, please send your email to raul.palabrica@inquirer.net.

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber