The example often illustrated is the case where an employee is employed for a fixed-term of only five months and, after the expiration of the period, successive new five-month contracts are given to the same employee and ended again after each period. This proposed “fix” to the endo problem of prohibiting or voiding fixed-term contracts, however, will greatly constrict businesses that legitimately need to augment, for a temporary or defined period, their workforce. There is no need to invalidate fixed-term contracts to end endo because protections are already in place for employees with fixed-term contracts. There is no need to fix the endo problem by prohibiting fixed-term contracts (which may be good for the economy and help in the employment of labor). The Supreme Court has already given employees the power to void fixed-term contracts intended to circumvent their right to security of tenure.

Source: Manila Times May 09, 2018 16:30 UTC