Extended work probation proposal

 EDITORIAL

The House of Representatives has proposed to extend the maximum probationary period for employment.

House Bill (HB) 4802, filed by Probinsyano Ako party-list Rep. Jose “Bonito” Singson Jr., seeks to amend the Labor Code to extend the maximum prescribed period of probationary employment from six months to 24 months.

In filing the bill, Singson argued the current prescribed probationary period “limits the right of the employer to secure quality employees.”

“Considering the advent of technological advances in various industries, the probationary employees must undergo a series of developmental training and assessment to ascertain their ability to do the job,” he said.

“In every stage of the development, the probationary employee must satisfy a set of standards to qualify. These processes demand more time, which in a lot of cases take more than six months,” Singson added.

He said the longer probationary period would give workers “a better chance to improve their performance, meet their targets and learn new skills that will allow them to meet the required standards set by the employer. This measure will also provide an opportunity for the probationary employees to have continuous employment for more than six months, which will enable them to qualify for some of the mandatory benefits under existing laws.”

Some Senators however aired on media they did not agree. Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said, “I will oppose its passage. If the House passes it, consider it DoA (dead on arrival) in the Senate.”

Senate President Vicente Sotto 3rd said “It practically goes against the move to remove contractualization. It needs a considerable amount of study.”

The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) has also condemned the proposal, describing it as a means for employers to avoid recent moves to limit, if not entirely eliminate, labor contractualization.

Singson’s bill may have good intentions, according to some senators who said it may create more problems than it solves.

The six-month limit on probationary employment is already largely unnecessary, legislators said, although some jobs do require a longer acclimatization period for employees and employers. Some said a 90-day probation period is considered sufficient and is practiced by majority of Philippine employers.

Even though the arguments for and against HB 4802 focus on employees, extending the probationary period limit to two years may present problems for employers who do not intend to use it as a means of avoiding regularizing workers.

A probationary period adds extra processing to an employee’s records in any event; under a 90-day regime, some requirements can be delayed until the term expires, but some could not be if the probationary period is extended to two years.

Those against the proposal said in seeking to extend the probationary period, the proposed law removes it from labor relations. It is no wonder some legislators are pushing more study on the matter.