CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW

hmmm paano na yung na suprise na????

WE HAVE ALREADY THE OPINION OF CSC ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOW LBPEA'S TURN TO DO THE NEXT APPROPRIATE MOVES. The opinion is very clear that LBP's internal rule on Forced Leave is viewed by CSC to be not in accordance with what is provided in the law and the existing civil service policies. In fact, this issue should have not reached CSC in the first place because it is very elementary that terms and conditions of employment that are fixed by law could not be a subject of employment as provided in EO 180 - leave privileges one of them. We cannot just ignore this matter because there are brothers and sisters in the branches who have been complaining on this leave privilege.

Certainly, CSC is the authority on matters concerning the promulgation of rules governing the civil service which we are part of. This is so because under EO 297 or the "Administrative Code of 1987", it states that: "The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters". Moreover, the same EO CHAPTER 3, ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, it is provided under Section 12 that:

Section 12. Powers and Functions. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

(2) Prescribe, amend and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws;
(3) Promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for the Civil Service and adopt plans and programs to promote economical, efficient and effective personnel administration in the government;
(5) Render opinion and rulings on all personnel and other Civil Service matters which shall be binding on all heads of departments, offices and agencies and which may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari;

Sec 12.5. is the basis of Madam Sonia in her personal initiative, may I repeat, in her initiative because of the strong belief that the internal rule of the institution on this matter is not in accordance with the law and CSC Rules. As I have said earlier, the CSC opinion is already there and it is LBPEA's officers to do the next appropriate actions....

hello good evening.... ONE THING I CAN SAY IS THAT..... LANDBANKERS ARE VERY MUCH OBEDIENT AND VERY SUBMISSIVE..... AND THINKING THAT WHATEVER EOs and MEMOs COMING FROM THE BRIGHT IDEAS OF OUR P, SVP, EVP, AVP, VP, RH AT KUNG ANO ANO PANG POSITION AY TRUE AND CORRECT AND OF COURSE LEGAL..... HINDI LANG ANG ISSUE OF THE PVL...... YONG OVERTIME ISSUE, MY GOLLY, DAPAT MA RESOLVE RESOLVE NA RIN.....We are very much grateful to Atty James and Ms Sonia for the MOVES..... Kudos for the 2 of you guys....God bless

Hmm... bakit nga ba di implement ng management ang suprise leave???


na may program vacation leave na pala as a suprise leave...



sorry di ko kasi ma gets bakit nagkandarapa ang management na magkaroon ng suprise leave...

was it for Internal Purpose or just to follow CSC rules on progran vacation leave...

di ko rin magets.. " ano ba pinagkaiba ng PVL at Suprise leave???"

yong PVL nga in previous YEARSSSSSS, ginawa na ng MANAGEMENT as SURPRISE LEAVE para sa RANK AND FILE....EH KASI WALANG UMAALMA AT WALANG NAG LILIDER PARA DEBATEHEN ang MANAGEMENT NA MALAKING MALI PALA YONG GINAWA NILA SA ATIN... huhuhuhuhu

For Noroshi:

PVL or programmed vacation leave refers to the mandatory 5-day forced leave covered by EO 1077 of the Civil Service Commission the purpose of which is to allow employees to take time out for themselves, enjoy and be rejuvenated, so that when they return to work, they can be more effecient workers. The scheduling of this leave depends on the employee.

While, the Surprise Leave refers to the 5-day unannounced/unscheduled leave policy of the bank for the employees performing cashiering functions chargeable to the PVL or mandatory forced leave under EO 1077. The supervisor makes the schedule without consent of the employee. The rationale of which is for audit purposes.

Civil Service Commission in its reply to our inquiry stated that the Surprise Leave is not in accordance with what is provided in the law and existing civil service policies.

Since there is a law governing the 5-day mandatory leave which is EO 1077 it cannot be subject to negotiation. It cannot be changed, amended or altered by any government agency to suit its purpose. Hence, the CNA provision on programmed leave violates the existing law - EO 1077.

I hope you are enlightened by the above explanation and thank you for your query Noroshi.

good pm ms sonia, how about the cross-posting of employees to other branches for six(6) months without any request coming from the employees for the re-assignment, are they entitled to traveling and per diems? and is it covered by Civil Service Law? ty

For jamor:

I admit my inadequacy to address your query on cross-posting but I will try to inform you at the soonest time that I would be able to gather info about it.

But I will dwell on it a little. Cross-posting is the temporary reassignment of an employee to another unit with a fixed duration like 6-months this is practice particularly in the case of cashiers. Your query is whether an employee on cross-posting is entitled to travelling allowance and per diems. We have COA guidelines as the authority on claims for travelling and per diems which enumerated employees entitled to claim and under what circumstances but it never mentioned employees on cross-posting.

I will give you additional info on this...thank you for your query jamor!

Thank you very much ms sonia.. The cross-posting of employees to other branches will entail additional expenses like traveling, meals, house rentals on the part of the employees considering our much awaited salary increase is not yet approved. Hoping for your next feed back.

.......exactly DAGDAG GASTOS TALAGA.... ok lang yong mga CODs kasi meron silang RATA.... what about and how about the Tellers NAC & DE ???? Dapat matuunan at mabigyan ng kaukolang pansin while HINDI PA NANGYARI yong CROSSPOSTING AND YOUNG LATEST HOT ISSUE - THE SURPRISE LEAVE.......

A fellow R&F started today her 5-days surprise leave here in Mindanao area, on top of her 5-days programmed leave, to be deducted from her accumulated leave credits. It seems that management does not agree with the March 24, 2011 position-letter of the CSC. The management has the prerogative to require an employee to leave immediately for audit purposes (the purported reason for the policy), much like a preventive-suspension. But even without a prima-facie evidence of wrong doing? And at the expense of the employee? Isn't this reduction of benefits? Isn't this an abuse of discretion? If management wants to exercise its power to audit, why at the expense of the employee? Admittedly, this policy is important to those R&F who handles cash, considering the nature of their work. But is this applicable to all in LBP? I heard that this is consistent with a BSP policy, but maybe that BSP policy is being pushed a little too far. Other banks does not have this "surprised leave" except cash dept. personnel. May we please ask LBPEA to discuss this matter with management ASAP and stop the practice? And what about those who were already "surprised", don't you think they are entitled to remuneration or restoration of the 5-days already deducted from the accumulated leave credits?

Onyok wrote:

A fellow R&F started today her 5-days surprise leave here in Mindanao area, on top of her 5-days programmed leave, to be deducted from her accumulated leave credits. It seems that management does not agree with the March 24, 2011 position-letter of the CSC. The management has the prerogative to require an employee to leave immediately for audit purposes (the purported reason for the policy), much like a preventive-suspension. But even without a prima-facie evidence of wrong doing? And at the expense of the employee? Isn't this reduction of benefits? Isn't this an abuse of discretion? If management wants to exercise its power to audit, why at the expense of the employee? Admittedly, this policy is important to those R&F who handles cash, considering the nature of their work. But is this applicable to all in LBP? I heard that this is consistent with a BSP policy, but maybe that BSP policy is being pushed a little too far. Other banks does not have this "surprised leave" except cash dept. personnel. May we please ask LBPEA to discuss this matter with management ASAP and stop the practice? And what about those who were already "surprised", don't you think they are entitled to remuneration or restoration of the 5-days already deducted from the accumulated leave credits?

For Onyok:
The provision on Surprise Leave is part of our approved and existing 3rd CNA. The employee under the CNA has an option to refuse the surprise leave but may be reassigned to other branch for 5 days.

The suspension of surprise leave will be deliberated upon during the renewal of our CNA this June or July. We could only apply prospectively the provisions on the 4th CNA from time of approval. However, I dont see the possibility of retroactive application on the suspension of surprise leave. Those who were affected already would perhaps bear its burden.

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I just hope that the 4th CNA will limit the surprise leave to those with cases where preventive suspension is called for, consistent with Civil Service Law.

As to temporary re-assignment of 5 days, it should be covered by a Travel Order with attendant per diem and transportation costs.

On the issue of pier diems, I hope LBPEA can negotiate for an increase in the amount. At present, lodging costs require the employees to cover a bigger portion of the expense. And the Intramuros Training Center needs upgrading.

Onyok wrote:

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I just hope that the 4th CNA will limit the surprise leave to those with cases where preventive suspension is called for, consistent with Civil Service Law.

As to temporary re-assignment of 5 days, it should be covered by a Travel Order with attendant per diem and transportation costs.

On the issue of pier diems, I hope LBPEA can negotiate for an increase in the amount. At present, lodging costs require the employees to cover a bigger portion of the expense. And the Intramuros Training Center needs upgrading.

;;;;;;;; DAPAT BLACK AND WHITE TAYO IF EVER MERON RE-ASSIGNMENT OF 5 DAYS.... I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE COVERED BY A T.O. PER DIEM AND TRANSPO COST..... Ms. Sonia, Ano ba talaga ang SCENARIO if there is a RE-ASSIGNMENT OF 5 DAYS AS A RESULT OF SURPRISE LEAVE???? just asking and looking for an answer po.... tnx

Just another thought on this issue...

I think it is not enough to say that LBPEA will negotiate with management on this matter. The policy on surprise leave is a reduction of benefits which is contrary to law and LBPEA should not give an inch on this issue. This is simply a case of denial of benefits. This is one of the issues that should shake LBPEA, because LBPEA was created to protect and promote R&F's interests. To just negotiate for this is a weak action to take because leave credits, like existing salary levels, are non-negotiables. If LBPEA will let go of this one, what will our "creative" management think of next? LBPEA needs to be more vigilant.

To Sonia and the rest of LBPEA leadership, what about going to court to get a temporary restraining order (TRO) and eventually a permanent injunction against this policy?

"NO TO SURPRISE LEAVE"

Management is always floating trial balloons and observe our actions. We should file a test case in court to regain control of our privileges. We should not take this issue sitting down. Namimihasa na ang management.