Log inLog in  LBPEA PublicationsLBPEA Publications  PORTAL VIEWPORTAL VIEW  HomeHome  RegisterRegister  
2018-2022 LBPEA PRESIDENT IS NANETTE LATI
SFAL PF HF RELEASE
December 15
Latest topics
» LBPEA NEB ATTENDS APPRECIATIVE LEADERSHIP SEMINAR
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:36 am by sonia

» HMO ENROLLMENT FOR 2018
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:24 am by sonia

» A message from LBPEA Visayas Director SONIA D. BROTARLO
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:30 am by sonia

A message from LBPEA Visayas Director SONIA D. BROTARLO
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:30 am by sonia
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Sonia10

It has been two (2) years and six (6) months that this website was closed.  Many were disappointed with the closure but we have to keep up with the fast changing technology - facebook and twitter, among others.  
 
With the remaining one month and a half of my stint as Director for Visayas, I have been ruminative as to the manner of my “consummatum est” in LBPEA.  Thus  here I am re-opening the website pro hac vice for my grand exit. 
 
This is the medium where you first knew me and this is where I want to personally reach out to you to express my deepest and heartfelt “THANK YOU” for all the years that you trusted me. 
 


[ Full reading ]
Comments: 0
NEWS LINKS

 

 CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW

Go down 
AuthorMessage
sonia
Admin


Number of posts : 1428
Registration date : 2008-12-16

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:15 pm

https://i.servimg.com/u/f29/13/39/03/76/csc110.jpg
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Csc110
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Csc211
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Csc310

I am extending my gratitude to ATTY. JAMES who made this inquiry on Surprise Leave possible with his legal expertise.


Last edited by sonia on Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:53 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
https://lbpea.forumotion.net
xanxan

xanxan

Number of posts : 252
Age : 35
Registration date : 2010-03-19

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:15 pm



hmmm paano na yung na suprise na????
Back to top Go down
semaj501



Number of posts : 280
Registration date : 2010-09-15

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:31 pm

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....
Back to top Go down
renzz

renzz

Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-03-13

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:45 pm

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
Back to top Go down
xanxan

xanxan

Number of posts : 252
Age : 35
Registration date : 2010-03-19

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:59 pm

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???"

Back to top Go down
renzz

renzz

Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-03-13

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:06 pm

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
Back to top Go down
sonia
Admin


Number of posts : 1428
Registration date : 2008-12-16

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:41 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
https://lbpea.forumotion.net
jamor



Number of posts : 51
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-06-28

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:40 pm

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
Back to top Go down
sonia
Admin


Number of posts : 1428
Registration date : 2008-12-16

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:28 am

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!
Back to top Go down
https://lbpea.forumotion.net
jamor



Number of posts : 51
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-06-28

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:35 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
renzz

renzz

Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-03-13

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:44 pm

.......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.......
Back to top Go down
Onyok



Number of posts : 24
Registration date : 2011-05-09

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Mon May 09, 2011 5:22 pm

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?
Back to top Go down
sonia
Admin


Number of posts : 1428
Registration date : 2008-12-16

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Mon May 09, 2011 6:26 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
https://lbpea.forumotion.net
Onyok



Number of posts : 24
Registration date : 2011-05-09

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Mon May 09, 2011 7:00 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
renzz

renzz

Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Registration date : 2010-03-13

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Mon May 09, 2011 11:24 pm

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
Back to top Go down
Onyok



Number of posts : 24
Registration date : 2011-05-09

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Wed May 25, 2011 9:58 am

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?
Back to top Go down
JOTAGS

JOTAGS

Number of posts : 57
Age : 46
Registration date : 2011-05-25

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Wed May 25, 2011 6:11 pm

"NO TO SURPRISE LEAVE"
Back to top Go down
Rodolfo



Number of posts : 16
Registration date : 2010-10-31

CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1Thu May 26, 2011 9:39 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Empty
PostSubject: Re: CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW   CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Icon_minitime1

Back to top Go down
 
CSC: SURPRISE LEAVE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LBPEA Visayas :: NEWS ARCHIVE :: LBPEA NEWS :: UPDATE ON BENEFITS-
Jump to: