Practice question
A principal instructs a contractor to remove two assigned workers because they testified in a labor-standards proceeding. The principal’s email identifies the testimony as the sole reason. The contractor implements the removal as a dismissal and argues that the principal gave the order, while the principal argues that only the contractor is the formal employer. Which assessment is best under section 27?
- Both are exempt because each can point to the other
- Only the workers may be penalized for giving testimony
- The stated retaliatory acts are prohibited, and the provision expressly reaches both principal and contractor
- The conduct becomes lawful if no written dismissal notice is issued
- The conduct is lawful unless the workers are union officers
Legal references
- https://www.dole.gov.ph/php_assets/uploads/2017/07/DO-174-17-Rules-Implementing-Articles-106-to-109-of-the-Labor-Code-As-Amended1.pdf — DO 174-17, sections 10(e), 23–24, and 27, organizing rights, cancellation due process, and retaliatory measures.
- https://www.scribd.com/document/768934000/Department-Order-No-174-Series-of-2017 — mirrored issued DO 174-17 text, sections 10, 23–24, and 27.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/90581 — EO 51, s. 2018, section 2, protection against contracting that circumvents organizing and other protected rights.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html — Labor Code, Article 118, retaliatory measures.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.