Duty Free employees sue bosses for plunder in labor dispute

A Duty-Free Philippines employee shows the plunder and graft complaints he and his co-workers filed against incumbent and former officials of the government-owned and controlled corporation for refusing to recognize their tenures, thus depriving them of employee benefits. (CONTRIBUTED PHOTO)

MANILA — Ten employees of Duty Free Philippines Corp. have filed a plunder and graft complaint at the Office of the Ombudsman, accusing their bosses of refusing to recognize the “correct” start of their government tenures and depriving them of their benefits.

In a 19-page complaint filed Thursday and recently obtained by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the employees of the state-owned business claimed that four officials made it appear that the workers’ government employment only started in January 2016.

In effect, they said this disregarded the services they provided Duty Free from the time they were “unknowingly” hired through manpower agency DFP Services, Inc.

Named as respondents were incumbent Chief Operating Officer Vicente Pelagio Angala, former COO Lorenzo Formoso, former Human Resources Management Division Manager Roberto Policarpio, and current Physical Distribution Department Manager Manolito Canlas

The complaint stated that the same persons were also the president, incorporator, vice-president, and director of DFPSI, the manpower agency through which the employees were allegedly hired unknowingly.

The move is allegedly a way of “never recognizing” the Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling that Duty Free was the direct employer of the workers originally hired through DFPSI.

DFPSI allegedly began providing manpower services in May 1989 after its formation by the respondent officials. Despite the termination of the outsourcing deal in the aftermath of the 1998 SC ruling, the employees claimed that Duty Free continued engaging the agency’s services.

The complaint was filed by logistics division workers Alexander Sablan, Nestor Zabala, Eric Oracion, Carlito Ardales, Nilo Duarte and Joaquin Vibal, store supervisor Ernesto Mangalindan, stock clerk Francis Daco, and merchandising assistants Romeo Silva Jr. and Rizalino Santos.

The case was prompted by the Duty Free management’s issuance of appointment papers stating their government service began on Jan. 1, 2016.

In October, the complainants asked the board of directors to recognize them as employees “from the time they were engaged to work for [manpower agency] DFPSI.”

Angala took office, and this Jan. 12, the management wrote the complainants’ lawyer that Duty Free “cannot unilaterally make the correction.”

As compromise, the management allegedly offered to reckon their tenure from the year 2005. But, the complainants said this “amounted to a complete disregard” of the Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling.

The complainants blamed Angala and his predecessor Formoso as “largely at fault for forming DFPSI and illegally assuming DFPSI as the employer to their personal benefit.” They also accused the two of covering up their “illegal involvement” in the manpower agency by “refusing to acknowledge” the workers as government employees.

“Respondents very well know that by acknowledging that the DFPC employees to be government employees from their date of hiring shall be an adminission or re-visitation of the illegal assumption of the role as employer by DFPSI,” the complaint read.

It claimed that reckoning their government service only to a later year prejudiced the employees’ status and benefits, such as bonuses, allowances, and membership with the Government Service Insurance System.

Thus, the officials were accused of violating Section 1(d) of the Plunder Law for amassing wealth through DFPSI, as well as Section 3(b), 3(d),  3(f), 3(g), and 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The complaining employees also sought administrative sanctions for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, oppression, inefficiency and incompetence, failure to resign or divest interest when conflict of interest arises, having financial or material interest, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The complainants also asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate DFPSI further “since this case involves a multitude of transactions and various officers over a decade.”

The Philippine Daily Inquirer tried to seek Angala’s comment, but chief-of-staff Angel Nuñez said his office has not received a copy of the complaint.  SFM