GMA talents are not independent contractors

Unlike a talent with flexible time, GMA talents’ work schedules were dictated by GMA.

MANILA — The Court distinguished the TAG case from Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. by highlighting several critical differences.

In the Sonza v. ABS-CBN, the Supreme Court declared that Sonza is an independent contractor and not an employee of ABS-CBN.

In 1996, Jose “Jay” Sonza, a radio and TV personality filed a complaint against ABS-CBN for unpaid salaries and benefits, claiming he was an employee. The courts did not agree.

The SC decision on the TAG case pointed out several key differences between GMA talents and Sonza. 

In the Sonza case, the Court found that he was an independent contractor because he possessed the freedom to discuss his own thoughts on the shows he handled. In contrast, the Labor Arbiter in the TAG case discerned that GMA talents did not have such freedom.

As to the means and methods, Sonza remained in control of the manner of his delivery. However, for GMA talents, the Court found that GMA reserved all creative, editorial, and administrative control, and the talents were required to defer to the network’s judgment on all aspects of production.

Unlike a talent with flexible time, GMA talents’ work schedules were dictated by GMA, and the network had the power to require their physical presence at specific times and locations.

The Court took note that while Sonza was engaged specifically for his “peculiar skills” as a broadcaster and his celebrity status, the GMA talents held indispensable roles such as producers, researchers, writers, and cameramen. 

The SC also pointed out a “staggering difference” in compensation.

In 1994, Sonza received at least P300,000 monthly ($11,500 in 1996 rates) , whereas the respondents in 2015 earned between P13,000 ($286) and P84,000 ($1,845 in 2015 rates).

The Court maintained that in Sonza, a high talent fee justified an exclusivity clause as a means to protect the network’s investment.

In the TAG’s case, the Court found no showing that respondents received higher fees that would justify such a restrictive imposition.

The Court also said that Sonza, as a celebrity, had the power to bargain with the network as more or less an equal while TAG members had no indication of bargaining power.

The “Talent Agreements” were prepared entirely by GMA for their signature.

The Court noted that GMA provided the respondents with equipment, facilities, and even cash advances to perform their duties.

This further indicated an employer-employee relationship rather than an independent contractor arrangement where the contractor typically provides their own tools. (JDS)

The post GMA talents are not independent contractors appeared first on Bulatlat.