What every media worker should know about the SC decision on the GMA talents case

The talent system, a euphemism for contractual employment, is not limited to GMA but a widespread practice in the multi-billion peso TV industry.

Sidebar: GMA talents are not independent contractors

MANILA — In a recent court victory, talents of giant broadcast company GMA Network won an 11-year battle for regularization. 

In a 33-page decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ motion declaring members of the Talents Association of GMA as regular employees, and modified the CA’s decision on the dismissal of 15 TAG members.

Read: ‘Plain as day, GMA talents are regular employees’ – SC

The talent system, a euphemism for contractual employment, is not limited to GMA but a widespread practice in the multi-billion peso TV industry.

Different companies use different names but these all mean flexible labor, a scheme to prevent regularization and cut costs.  

Read: Talent? | How can you be considered a regular employee

The SC decision on GMA vs Cabaluna et al sets a good precedent for media workers in similar situations.

That TAG declared this court win as “a gift to the next generation” is not an understatement.

“We believed that since the beginning, and now there is jurisprudence to protect the next generation of media workers in the Philippines,” the statement read.

At the heart of the decision is the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, using the four-fold test, which consists of the following concurrent factors: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.

Among these, the power of control — by setting work schedules and requiring physical attendance, for example — is considered the most significant.

Read: New contract, same ‘exploitative’ terms

Below is the Court’s specific application of these factors to the TAG case: 

1. Selection and engagement of the employee

The Court found that GMA exercised significant discretion in selecting the respondents through a Revised Talent Engagement Process.

This involved a battery of tests to ascertain mental abilities and skills, requirement of documents such as updated résumés with references, ID photos, and official clearances (NBI, police, and barangay), mandatory pre-engagement medical examinations and drug tests, and explicitly acknowledging candidates for engagement as “applicants.”

2. Payment of wages

The Court noted that GMA mandated talents to open bank accounts for the payment of their “talent fees,” which were paid twice a month subject to tax withholding.

The General Terms of their agreements also admitted that these fees were remuneration for all services rendered by the talent, which the Court viewed as wages.

3. Power to dismiss

The Court determined that GMA possessed the power to discipline and terminate talents as evidenced by the established disciplinary procedures involving reprimand, suspension, and termination for contract breaches and the GMA Memorandum LAVP-2010-182 (Guidelines on Breach of Talent Agreement), which specifically classified different types of breaches and their corresponding penalties.

4. Power of control

As the “most significant” factor, the Court found that GMA controlled not just the result of the work, but also the means and methods used to achieve it. 

The Court noted that talents’ lack of freedom, as they had no autonomy in how they accomplished assigned tasks.

The Court said GMA exercised comprehensive oversight.

The company reserved “all creative, editorial, administrative, financial, and legal control over the program(s) and talents.”

GMA had the power to set production schedules and require the talent’s physical presence, negating the claim that they worked flexible hours.

Moreover, GMA demanded exclusivity. Talents were prohibited from rendering services to other networks without GMA’s written consent.

The Court also mentioned the economic dependence test as another touchstone, assessing how integral the services performed were to the employer’s business. In this case, GMA itself admitted the respondents were indispensable, stating that “without them, there would be no program to air.”

If at all, the TAG case is a reminder that journalists and media workers are workers too who are entitled to labor rights. (JDS)

The post What every media worker should know about the SC decision on the GMA talents case appeared first on Bulatlat.