GROUP 2; Law 4a - 2:30-3:30,TThS I. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLES Art. 59.

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRENTICE: (a) Be at least fourteen (14) years of age; *An apprenticeship agreement with a minor shall be signed in his behalf by his parent or guardian or, if the latter is not available, by an authorized representative of the Department of Labor. (b) Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests; *Vocational aptitude- the individual skills and characteristics needed for excellent performance of the jobs comprised in a specific profession. (c) Possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions. *Trade and Industry Associations may recommend to Sec. of Labor appropriate requirements. Art. 60. EMPLOYMENT OF APPRENTICES. > Only employers in the highly technical industries may employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. *Example of approved apprenticeable trade/occupation: aircraft technician, baker (hotel/restaurant), electrician, Manager (fast food services), power house operator SOURCE: http://www.dole.gov.ph/fndr/bong/files/DO%2052-03.pdf Art. 61. CONTENTS OF APPRENTICESHIP AGREEMENTS: Appr. agreements shall conform to rules issued by the Minister of Labor and Employment and shall include: (a) The nature, syllabus, timetable, and purpose of training; (b) The period of training depending on the approved occupational skills standards; (c) Training allowances (wage rates) which in no case shall start below 75 % of the applicable minimum wage; (d) A schedule of training allowance payment; (e) Training hours; (f) The process for the termination of apprenticeship; and (g) The general rights and obligations of both parties. SOURCE: http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1537838!.pdf The period of apprenticeship covers a minimum of 4 months and a maximum of 6 months. Appr. agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage (see letter C above) may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. *Apprenticeship Program is a training and employment program involving a contract between an apprentice and an employer on an approved apprenticeable occupation, and needs prior approval by the DOLE. If employed without a pre-approved apprenticeship program, the apprentice is not an apprentice but a regular employee. SOURCE: http://www.tesda.gov.ph/program.aspx?page_id=39 Art. 72. APPRENTICES WITHOUT COMPENSATION. > applies to apprentices whose training on the job is required by the school or training program curriculum or as a requisite for graduation or board examination. *There is no employer-employee relationship between student and schools, colleges, or universities.

GROUP 2; Law 4a - 2:30-3:30,TThS II. APPRENTICES, LEARNERS & HANDICAPPED WORKERS a. DEFINITIONS: Apprentice is trained in a skilled trade and upon successful completion will become a qualified tradesperson. Learner persons hired as trainees in semi-skilled occupations which are non-apprenticeable (i.e. vocational). Handicapped worker worker whose earning capacity is impaired by age, physical/mental deficiency or injury. b. COMPARISONS: Apprentice Vs. Learner 1. Similarities: * Apprenticeship and Learnership both mean training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be acquired through actual work and experience. * Both are not considered as regular employees. * Both may receive wages that are 25% lower than the applicable legal minimum wage. 2. Differences: * A learner trains in semi-skilled jobs while an apprentice trains in a highly-skilled job or in a job found in a highly-technical industry. * Learners train for less than 3 months; apprentices training period exceed 3 months. * Employer is committed to hire learner after training period; no such commitment exists in apprenticeship. * A learner is not an apprentice but an apprentice is, conceptually, also a learner. Handicapped Worker Vs. Regular Worker RA 7277, Sec. 5.Equal Opportunity for Employment. No disable person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person. RA7277 insures equal opportunities for disabled persons and prohibits discrimination against them. c. EXAMPLES LEARNERS A high school student involved in a COOP program. A participant in a government job creation program.

APPRENTICE A student participating in the apprenticeship programs of TESDA. A graduate of bachelor course in Marine Transportation joins in the Cadet apprenticeship Program. A student takes part of Shipboard Apprenticeship Training Program of FIL Mabuhay Hotel and Restaurant Training Services. Worker Apprenticeship Program (WAP) Texas Instruments

HANDICAP A man with balance disorder took the job as knowledge management officer in engender health. A girl with hearing impairment is the technical advisor, TB system strengthening in the management science for health.

D. CASE DIGEST: Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino, GR No. 187320, 26 January 2011(Brion)

GROUP 2; Law 4a - 2:30-3:30,TThS

Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino, GR No. 187320, 26 January 2011(Brion)

I. Facts Complainants Sebolino, Costales, Almoite, and Sagun, along with severalothers, filed complaints for illegal dismis sal, regularization, underpayment,nonpayment of wages, and other money claims against Altanta Industries, Inc.,which is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes. Thecomplainants allege that they were already regular employees of Atlanta evenbefore they entered into two separate, subsequent apprenticeship agreements with the said company. The first apprenticeship agreement was for a period of 5 months, after the expiration of which they entered into a second apprenticeship agreement with Atlanta for the training of a second skill. Now, they claim to have been illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship agreements expired. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal was indeed illegal and awarded the workers backwages, wage differentials, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. While the case was on appeal with the NLRC, Costales and Almoite, together with other workers allegedly entered into a compromise agreement wherein theworkers were to be paid by Atlanta a specified amount as settlement and toacknowledge them as regular employees. The NLRC approved the said compromise agreement, withdrew the finding of illegal dismissal with respect to Sebolino and Sagun, and denied all the other claims. The CA overturned the NLRC decision and found that the complainants werealready employees of Atlanta even before they entered into the apprenticeshipagreements; that the said apprenticeship agreements were executed in violation of the law and the rules; that the positions occupied by the complainants are usually necessary and desirable in the companys main business; and that the compromise agreement entered into by Costales and Almoite were not binding because they did not sign the agreement. II. Issues and Ruling 1. Whether or not a second apprenticeship agreement is valid. NO. Even if the companys need to train its employees through apprenticeship isrecognized, only the first apprenticeship agreement may be considered for thepurpose. With the expiration of the first agreement and the retention of theemployees, Atlanta had, to all intents and purposes, recognized the completion of their training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon themthe second apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not evenmentioned in the agreement itself, is a violation of the Labor Codes rules and regulations and is an act manifestly unfair to the employees, to say the least. 2.Whether or not complainants were illegally dismissed. YES. The fact that the complainants were already rendering service to the companywhen they were made to undergo apprenticeship renders the apprenticeshipagreements irrelevant. This reality is highlighted by the finding that thecomplainants occupied positions that are usually necessary and desirable inAtlanta s usual business or trade, which characterize them as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Thus, when they were dismissed without just or authorized cause, without notice, and without the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law. Petition denied for lack of merit. CA decision affirmed.