INTEGRATED CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING WORKS, INC. V.

NLRC & GLEN SOLON

9 August 2005

Facts:
 Petitioner is a plumbing contractor. Its business depends on the number and frequency of the
projects it is able to contract with clients. Private respondent Solon worked for petitioner from
1994 – 1998 (for months but never continuously, ex: December to January, February to April,
May to June).
 In 1998, when Solon was about to log out from work, he was informed by the warehouseman
that the main office had instructed them to tell him that it was his last day of work and that he
had been terminated. Solon verified this with petitioner and his termination was confirmed.
 He went back to petitioner’s office to sign a clearance so he can claim his 13 th month pay and
tax refunds. However, he had second thoughts and refused to sign the clearance when he
read that such indicated that he resigned.
 Solon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal without just cause and due process.
 LA held in favor of Solon and found that he was a regular employee. NLRC affirmed the LA’s
decision with modification (only re: computation of 13th month pay and SIL). MR was denied.
 Petitioner asserts in the appeal before the SC that Solon was only a project employee. Thus,
when the project was completed and Solon was no re-assigned to any other project, petitioner
did not violate any law.

Issue: WON Solon was a project employee

Held: No. He was a regular employee

Ruling:
 Citing Art 280 of the LC and jurisprudence, the SC explained that the principal test in
determining whether an employee is a project employee or regular employee is: Whether he is
assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are
specified at the time the employee is engaged in the project.1
 Upon review of Solon’s employment contracts, the SC found that he was initially a project
employee since the services he rendered, the duration, and scope of each project were clearly
indicated in the contracts.
 While there were several employment contracts between petitioner and Solon, in all of them,
Solon performed tasks which were usually necessary or desirable in petitioner’s business.
 A review of Solon’s work assignments showed that he belonged to a work pool tapped from
where workers are and assigned whenever their services are needed.
 In a work pool, the workers do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment
during temporary breaks in the business. They are like regular seasonal workers insofar as the
effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned. This arrangement is beneficial to both the
employer and employee for it prevents the unjust situation of “coddling labor at the expense of
capital” and at the same time enables the workers to attain the status of regular employees.
 Nonetheless, the pattern of re-hiring and recurring need for Solon’s services are sufficient
evidence of the necessity and indispensability of such services to petitioner’s business or
trade.
 Once a project or work pool employee has been 1) Continuously, as opposed to intermittently,
re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks, and 2) these tasks are
vital, necessary, and indispensible to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the
employee must be deemed a regular employee.

1Project refers to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer, but
which is distinct and separate and identifiable from the undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking
begins and ends at determined or determinable times.
 Where the employment of project is extended long after the supposed project has been
finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered
regular employees.
 While length of time may not be the controlling test for project employment, it is vital in
determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions
vital, necessary and indispensible to the usual business or trade of the employer.
 Here, Solon has been a project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be
coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of
petitioner’s business.
 Where from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security, they must be struck down for being contrary to public policy,
morals, good customs or public order.
 Further, Policy Instruction No. 20 and DO No. 19 (which superseded PI No. 20) require
employers to submit a report of an employee’s termination to the nearest public employment
office every time his employment was terminated due to a completion of a project. The
employer’s failure to submit this report is an indication that the employee was a not a project
employee.
 As a regular employee, Solon was illegally dismissed when he was dismissed without just
cause and when his employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Art. 283
of the LC.
 Award: Reinstatement, backwages, SIL, 13th month pay