There is seasonal employment where the job, work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duratio...

There is seasonal employment where the job, work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. (Sec.5 [a], Rule I, Book VI, IRR) 

An employment arrangement where an employee (Ee) is engaged to work during a particular season on an activity that is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (Er). 

For seasonal Ees, their employment legally ends upon completion of the project or the season. The termination of their employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal. (Mercado v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79869, Sept. 5, 1991) 

One year duration on the job is pertinent in deciding whether a casual Ee has become regular or not, but it is not pertinent to a seasonal or project Ee. Passage of time does not make a seasonal worker regular or permanent. (Mercado v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78969, Sep. 5, 1991) 

During off‐season, the relationship of Er‐Ee is not severed; the seasonal Ee is merely considered on LOA without pay. Seasonal workers who are repeatedly engaged from season to season performing the same tasks are deemed to have acquired regular employment. (Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers‐Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, Jan. 28, 2003)

Are seasonal Ees entitled to separation pay?
When the business establishment is sold which effectively terminates the employment of the seasonal Ees, the latter would be entitled to separation pay.

Can seasonal employees (Ees) be considered as regular Ees?
Yes. The fact that seasonal Ees do not work continuously for one whole year but only for the duration of the season does not detract from considering them in regular employment. Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off‐season are not separated from service in that period, but merely considered on leave until re‐employed. 

If the Ee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. (Benares v. Pancho, G.R. No. 151827, April 29, 2005) 
DISCLAIMER: The author is not lawyer nor an authority on this topic. It is a product of humble research and study of law. It should not be used as sole basis in filing a case, instead, consult your lawyer for proper legal advice.

You Might Also Like