What Is "Floating Status"?

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

What is “Floating Status”?

 Floating Status is synonymous to temporary retrenchment of business or undertaking


thereby inevitably forcing or causing its affected employees to go on leave.
 It is sometimes called as “Temporary Off – detail” or “off-detailing” and is a valid
exercise of management prerogative.

What is the legal basis of “Floating Status”?


The legal basis for “Floating Status” is Article 301 of the Labor Code which states the following:

“The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not
exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment (sic) by the employee of a military or civic duty shall
not terminate employment. In such all cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his
former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not
later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief
from the military or civic duty.”
When “Floating Status” is not equivalent to dismissal
o “Off-detailing” or putting an employee on floating status is not equivalent to dismissal, for as
long as it does not last for more than six (6) months. After six months, the employee should be
recalled for work without loss of seniority rights, or for a new assignment; otherwise, he is
deemed terminated.

When “Floating Status” is equivalent to constructive dismissal; thus, becomes unlawful


o In the case of Airborne Maintenance vs. Egos (G.R. No. 222748, April 03, 2019), to wit:
“Here, the totality of the foregoing circumstances shows that petitioner’s acts of not informing
respondent and the DOLE of the suspension of its operations, failing to prove the bona fide
suspension of its business or undertaking, ignoring respondent’s follow-ups on a new
assignment, and belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it, were done to
make it appear as if respondent had not been dismissed. These acts, however, clearly
amounted to a dismissal, for which petitioner is liable.” (emphasis ours)
o Also, in the case of Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal (G.R. No. 174208, January 25,
2012), to wit:

“Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because “continued


employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion
in rank or a diminution in pay” and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may,
likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to
forego his continued employment.”
Who has the burden of proof?
o In the case of Lopez vs. Irvine Construction Corporation (G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014),
to wit:
“The paramount consideration should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that
compels it to put some of its employees temporarily out of work. This means that the
employer should be able to prove that it is faced with a clear and compelling economic
reason which reasonably forces it to temporarily shut down its business operations or a
particular undertaking, incidentally resulting to the temporary lay-off of its employees.
Due to the grim economic consequences to the employee, case law states that the employer
should also bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the employee
temporarily out of work can be assigned.” 

You might also like