Samsung executives hit harassment by manpower firm

MANILA, Philippines –  Employees of Samsung Electronics Phils. Corp. (SEPCO) recently filed their counter-affidavits before the Department of Justice (DOJ) stating that the charges of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage, estafa and theft filed by manpower agency Temps & Staffers Inc. (TSI) are baseless and just meant to harass them. 

There is no truth to the charge of illegal recruitment because SEPCO is engaged in the marketing and distribution of Samsung brand electronic products and is not in the business of manpower recruitment of promo-merchandisers, they said.

The SEPCO employees also said they did not induce the promo-merchandisers of TSI to transfer to other manpower agencies engaged by SEPCO.

The contracts between TSI and its promo-merchandisers are co-terminus with TSI’s contract with SEPCO, they added.

Given this, the affected promo-merchandisers decided on their own whether to wait for a new job contract from TSI or seek employment elsewhere, they said.

There is also no truth to the charge of estafa and theft because there is nothing that indicates that money or property of TSI was voluntarily given to or involuntarily taken by SEPCO, they added. Instead, TSI alleged that its promo-merchandisers and its business process were pirated or taken from it.

Firstly, TSI’s treatment of its employees as its property is flawed and anti-labor. Laborers are not the property or chattels of their employers. They are not slaves and they have inherent dignity and inalienable rights.

TSI claimed that it has invested time and resources to train the promo-merchandisers, thus they were indebted to TSI, where in fact, new promo-merchandisers only undergo a one-time company orientation seminar conducted by TSI.

SEPCO, for its part, conducts one to two training sessions per month for promoters to equip them with effective selling techniques and boost their knowledge of Samsung products they are supposed to sell.

Secondly, business process is not a personal property. It is a collection of activities designed to produce a specific output for a particular customer or market.

Moreover, business process cannot be patented or copyrighted and hence, is not considered as an intellectual property. In short, it is a mere concept or idea, which cannot be appropriated in the context of criminal law defining and punishing theft.

TSI also alleged that there existed a silent agreement between SEPCO and TSI that SEPCO would pay a premium or a fee should it absorb TSI’s employees.

However, section 15 of the contract of service between the two parties stated that the agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the client and contractor shall repeal all previous agreements and undertaking between the parties whether oral or written with respect to the subject matter hereof.

SEPCO also had no intention of absorbing TSI’s promo-merchandisers given that it relies on manpower agencies to provide that service.

The employees of SEPCO are optimistic that the DOJ would find no merit and move for the junking of the complaint as well as lift the watchlist order issued against the 12 local employees.  

Samsung Electronics said it is committed to acting as a responsible corporate citizen in the Philippines, adding that it conducts its operations in accordance with international labor standards and maintains a rigorous compliance program.