EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
UNIVERSAL LEAF PHILIPPINES
Burley farmers in Western Isabela

Agricultural Labor Practices Program

March/April 2017

Assessment

Table of Content
Executive summary .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4Market and company background .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 71. Implementation of the ALP Program .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 91.1. Commitment to the ALP Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2. Strategy and objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.1. Dedicated organizational structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.2. Roles and responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.3. Training and knowledge of the ALP Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2.4. Internal communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3. Communication of the ALP Code requirements to farmers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.1. Communication strategy and tactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.2. Farmers’ responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4. Internal monitoring: data collection, accuracy, and addressing issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.1. Socio-economic data: Farm Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.2. Systematic monitoring: situations not meeting the ALP Code standards. . . . . . . . 20
1.4.3. Prompt Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.4. Data management and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.4.5. Improvement plans for individual farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.5 Address systemic and/or widespread issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Farm-level assessment of working conditions regarding the ALP Code Standards .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24
2.1. ALP Code Principle 1: Child labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.1. Children working and activities performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2. ALP Code Principle 2: Income and work hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1. Payment of workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2. Payment schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.3. Work hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.4. Legal benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

External Assessment

2.3. ALP Code Principle 3: Fair treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1. Treatment of workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.2. Support mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4. ALP Code Principle 4: Forced labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.1. Involuntary labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.2. Direct payment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.3. End of harvest payment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5. ALP Code Principle 5: Safe work environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.5.1. Training and awareness of GTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.5.2. Training and handling of CPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.5.3. Clean drinking and washing water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5.4. Workers accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.6. ALP Code Principle 6: Freedom of association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.6.1. Workers’ right to freedom of association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7. ALP Code Principle 7: Compliance with the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7.1. Information on legal rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3. ALP Program: feedback from farmers, workers, and other stakeholders .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 35
Appendices.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 37
Appendix I – Universal Leaf Philippine’s Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix II – Scope and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix III – Legal information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix IV – Communication materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Appendix V – Prompt Action Reporting and Verification forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix VIII – Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3

Executive summary

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

Philip Morris International (PMI) requested Control
Union (CU) to conduct an external assessment of the
Burley tobacco growing operations of its supplier
Universal Leaf Philippines (ULPI) in Western Isabela,Philippines in March/April 2017. The assessment
evaluated the labor practices at contracted farms,
and whether these were meeting the standardsof the Agricultural Labor Practices (ALP) Code. 1
CU also evaluated ULPI’s internal capacity to
implement the ALP Program, their understandingof farm practices, and how they identified, recorded
and addressed ALP-related issues.
For this assessment CU interviewed 27 ULPI
employees, 10 farmer-leaders, and several external
stakeholders including four teachers of the Rangayan Elementary School and a local community
judge. Over a two-week period CU visited 55 farms
throughout Western Isabela2, interviewing a total of
55 farmers, 52 family members and 34 contracted
workers. All farm visits were unannounced with justone exception.

a client requirement that had to be met, whereas
others showed personal involvement and interest in
the topic.
Following a 2012 PMI risk assessment, ULPI
focused its communication and reporting efforts
on two ALP Code Principles, namely elimination ofchild labor and safe work environment (in particular,
reducing exposure to chemicals and green tobacco).
As a result of these efforts, knowledge among both
employees and farmers was relatively good for these
two topics. Nonetheless, it was found that both fieldtechnicians and farmers were not fully aware of thehazardous nature of some tasks (handling green
tobacco and sticking, in particular). Furthermore,their legal knowledge, particularly with regard toworkers’ rights and benefits, was found to be very
limited.

ULPI started with the ALP Program in 2012. Most of
their farmers were smallholders, who grew tobacco
on two hectares or less. In most cases the farm land
was rented.

Two unique aspects were identified in ULPI’s
company structure. First, many tasks that areusually allocated to field technicians were
outsourced to so-called “farmer-leaders”, whowere respected local community members andfarmers themselves. Second, ULPI had an internal
audit team that operated relatively independently
and was responsible for conducting unannounced
farm visits. Whereas the position of farmer-leaders
proved to be a challenge for ALP reporting andimplementation (due to their reluctance to reporton their fellow farmers), the internal audit teamoffered a promising framework for monitoring
and follow-up. However, to make full use of its
possibilities, this team has to be better integrated
into ALP monitoring and reporting processes.

As a supplier to PMI, ULPI had incorporated the
ALP Program in its processes and procedures.
ULPI’s international parent company, Universal
Leaf Tobacco (ULT) had global policies on ALP and
Corporate Social Responsibility, to which ULPI was
also committed. Commitment of ULPI staff to ALP
varied: some interviewees merely considered it

Prompt Actions were generally understood as abreach of the ALP Code. ULPI had classified thedifferent types of breaches into four severity levels,
each with different consequences and follow-up.
However, the only Prompt Actions monitored andreported were related to child labor and safe work
environment.

An
information
triangulation
methodology
was used to evaluate farm practices. The threesources included interviews, documentation, andobservation, together with a “Five Whys Analysis”
problem analysis. The “Plan, Do, Check, Act” cycle
was adopted for analyzing ULPI’s management
approach.

1.

2.

The main goal of the ALP Code is to eliminate child labor and other labor abuses progressively where they are found,and to achieve safe and fair working conditions on all farms from which PMI sources tobacco. For more informationon the background of the ALP Program see https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/good-agricultural-practices/
upholding-labor-rights-on-the-farms.
The minimum sample size was 48 farms, which is the square root of the total number of farms within the scope (2,240
at the time of the assessment).
5External Assessment

Regular meetings were held between all teams
involved in ALP, and ALP-related issues werediscussed when necessary. Field technicians
generally had a good understanding of the working
conditions on the farms, but rarely reported on
situations not meeting the standards. Instead, theirmain action in these situations was to remind andeducate farmers about the correct practices. Root
causes were not investigated and improvement
plans were not tailored to individual farms. The
guidance provided by the ALP team resulted
mainly in short-term solutions, rather than taking
corrective actions to prevent issues from happening
in the future. Hence, monitoring, reporting andfollow-up are important areas for improvement
within ULPI.
Farmers were informed about the ALP Code during
farm visits conducted by field technicians andfarmer-leaders. In addition, regular orientation
meetings were organized for farmers before eachmajor crop stage to provide training on the ALP
Code. Furthermore, several written communicationmaterials on ALP were provided to the farmers.
Despite these efforts, farmers’ awareness on the
ALP Code was low, in particular with regard to ALP
Code Principles other than child labor and safe work
environment (ULPI’s focus areas).
Socio-economic data for Farm Profiles wascollected once a year, at the time when farmers
were contracted for the new season. Farm Profiles
were not updated during the season, which resulted
in discrepancies in accuracy between data and field.
The field staff was still getting used to the new online
system for monitoring, which had been introduced
in January 2017.

school program, in particular, was considered a very
effective initiative by most stakeholders. Threeother initiatives focused on safe work environment,by retrieving used CPA containers and providing
farmers with two different sets of equipment for
reducing health hazards. Since most of the situations
not meeting the standard were related to unsafe
work practices, there is still room for improvement.
The main findings from the farm visits were related
to two ALP Code Principles: income and work hours,
and safe work environment. It was found that noneof the workers received the legal minimum wage;
instead they were paid a (lower) wage agreed among
the farmers of the local community (barangay).
Furthermore, the use of personal protective
equipment was low among farmers and workers,
despite ULPI’s efforts to improve this. As for childlabor, CU observed only few cases where children
were helping their parents at the family farm,demonstrating that ULPI’s efforts in this area (e.g.,
the summer school program) were having an effect.
Feedback received from farmers and workers
noted that fewer children were involved in tobacco
production since the start of the ALP Program andthat work safety with regard to the use of CPA
had improved. However, some resistance among
farmers to the ALP program was identified, as the
ALP Code was considered a higher standard than
the requirements for other crops in the area.
The outcome of this assessment can be used asa tool to facilitate management with continuous
improvement. CU acknowledges ULPI’s commitment
to addressing the issues identified and defining
areas of improvement through the implementationof an action plan (see Appendix I).

Although the ALP team members had extensive
experience in the tobacco sector, and used thisexperience to address issues, an in-depth root
cause analysis was lacking. Based on their risk
assessment, ULPI launched several initiatives toaddress widespread and systemic issues. Two ofthese initiatives focused on addressing child labor,
by providing free school supplies and summer school
options to elementary school children. The summer

6Market and company background

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

The main types of tobacco grown in the Philippines
are Flue-Cured Virginia and Burley, which accountfor approximately 85% of the national tobacco
production. While Flue-Cured Virginia is mainly
grown in Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Abra and La Union,
Burley is mainly grown in Pangasinan, La Union,
Abra, Isabela, Cagayan, Tarlac, and Occidental
Mindoro. The Philippine tobacco industry provides
a livelihood to around 44,000 farmers and theirfamilies, as well as to around 1.56 million industry
workers and dependents.3
Universal Leaf Philippines (ULPI) sources FlueCured Virginia, Dark Air-cured, Burley, andConnecticut Shade Wrapper in Ilocos (Region I)
and Cagayan (Region II). In 2016 ULPI’s farmers
produced 28.7 million kilos of tobacco, which
accounted for 53% of the total market share in thePhilippines. While this percentage is projected toincrease to 55% in 2017, total tobacco production is
projected to be 44% lower compared to 2014.4 Thisdecrease is mainly due to the exceptional rainfall at
the start of the 2017 growing season, caused by the“La Niña” effect, which delayed transplanting andgrowing operations. 5

3.
4.
5.
6.

ULPI was established in the Philippines in 1964 andcurrently employs 575 permanent staff, as well as
853 contractual/project staff and 1,535 seasonal
staff. Tobacco trade in the Philippines used to be
based on a system of middlemen between tobacco
farmers and buyers. In the course of implementing
the integrated production system ULPI has
eliminated this system of middlemen and instead
makes use of so-called “farmer-leaders”. These arerespected and influential farmers and members of
the “barangays”6, who help ULPI with contracting
farmers and delivering inputs, and who serve as‘model’ farmers by teaching good agricultural
practices.
For the 2017 crop season ULPI had direct growing
contracts with over 16,400 farmers, all of whomwere smallholders growing less than one hectare of
tobacco on average. Most of them had been engaged
with ULPI for several years already. In 2017 ULPI’s
farmers were supported by 137 field technicians(85 farm supervisors and 52 area coordinators), 14
internal audit team members, 17 agronomy field
personnel, 11 production managers, two senior
managers, and two directors.

NTA (National Tobacco Administration)
Data from ULPIPAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration)
Barangay is the Filipino word for the smallest administrative division, such as a village, community or city district.
8

Chapter 1

Implementation of the ALP Program

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

1.1. Commitment to the ALP Program
On their global website Universal Leaf Tobacco(ULT), the parent company of ULPI, committed
publicly to the elimination of child labor and theimprovement of working conditions in tobacco crop
production. The website provided information about
the company’s policy on sustainability and supply
chain integrity,7 their commitment to the ALP Code,8and their membership of the ECLT foundation,
which advocates the elimination of child labor.9
In addition, ULPI was committed to ULT’s internal
code of conduct covering work safety, Corporate
Social Responsibility, the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act (FCPA), and the Sustainable Tobacco Program(STP) which includes the ALP.
Commitment of ULPI’s staff to the ALP Program
varied; some interviewees primarily regarded ALP
as a client requirement that had to be fulfilled,
whereas others showed personal involvement andinterest in the topic. However, all considered the ALP
Program an important step forward in improving
labor conditions on the farms. Additional reasons
given included eliminating child labor, ensuring
the continuity of the tobacco business, improving
working conditions at the farms, and increasingawareness among farmers.

1.2. Strategy and objectives
At the time of the assessment, as agreed with PMI
Regional, ULPI focused its efforts on two ALP CodePrinciples: child labor and safe work environment.
A formal process for setting the strategy andobjectives for ALP implementation could not be
identified. However, a basic risk assessment androot cause analysis of the issues identified had
been conducted, based on guidelines provided byab.sustain10 and the experience of several membersof the Agronomy team and the Growing Operations
team. ULPI additionally conducted worker surveys
related to the ALP code, which was also taken into
account for the above mentioned analyses.

Based on their risk assessment, ULPI had prioritizedhigh risk issues. Risks classified as “unacceptable”(highest probability and highest severity) werechild employment and hazardous work. Several
other risks were classified as “tolerable” (highest
probability, second highest severity). With regard to
the latter, ULPI focused only on the lack of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for application of crop
protection agents (CPA). ULPI’s risk assessment did
not clarify why this issue was prioritized over otherrisks of the same severity and probability level,
which included Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS), CPA
storage, re-entry periods after CPA application, anda lacking support mechanism, as also identified by
CU. Additional high probability risks identified by
CU, but not by ULPI, were related to wages, payment
frequency and lack of awareness on legal aspects.
ULPI’s strategy for implementing the ALP Code at
the farm level merely focused on continuous training
and reminding the farmers of the correct practices.
The objectives set were as follows:• Elimination of child labor – no concrete deadline• Monitoring and Reporting on all ALP CodePrinciples – no concrete deadline• Delivery of PPE to 100% of the farmers – crop
season 2017
• Retrieval of 100% of (empty/used)
containers – crop season 2017

CPA

With regard to the issue of farmers’ children
involved in tobacco production, ULPI concluded
that the main root cause was that parents did nothave someone to look after their children during
the (summer) holidays and after school, and would
therefore take their children with them to the fields
or barns.
With regard to the lack of safety measures on
the farms, ULPI identified two main root causes:(1) PPE and harvesting clothes were considered

7. http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/Sustainability_and_Supply_Chain_Integrity_Policy.pdf
8. http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/ULT_ALP_CODE.pdf
9. http://www.universalcorp.com/Resources/Policies/ECLT_Foundation_Members_Pledge.pdf
10. An agricultural supply chain data specialist, conducting supply chain assessments for different industries.
10External Assessment

uncomfortable in high temperatures, and (2) farmers
wanted to save money by using their PPE sparingly;
this way the equipment would last for more than
one season.

Internal capacity

The abovementioned root causes identified by ULPI
are in line with CU’s findings, however, CU identified
additional underlying factors that increased thevarious risks (see Chapter 2). ULPI implemented
several initiatives to address the two prioritizedissues (see Chapter 1.6).

ULPI had set up an ALP team involving all
departments of the Country team (see graph below).
As the Senior Agronomy Manager served as ALP
Coordinator, her department (the Agronomy team)was relatively most involved. The field technicians,
who served as the link between the management
and the farmers, were also part of the internal
structure to implement the ALP Program. Although
farmer-leaders were not formally employed by
ULPI, they served as the farmers’ representatives
and helped out with various tasks (see 1.3.2).
ULPI worked in close contact with PMI Regional,
receiving regular guidance and financial support for
the implementation of the ALP Program.

ULPI’s response:“Comments from CU regarding prioritization of issues
over the other principles, identified high probability
risks and the strategies in addressing issues withtimeline […] will be considered in the Action Plans(AP) to be implemented.”

1.2.1. Dedicated organizational
structure

Internal structure for ALP implementation

Steering/
Management TeamCountry Team

Agronomy

President

Growing Operations(GO)

Executive, Senior& Vice Presidents

Agronomy

Field technicians(GO)

Corporate Affairs andComplianceFarmer Leader

ULT - Regional

Legal/Internal Audit
Farmer/Worker

PMI - Regional

Information Technology
ALP Coordinator

Worker11

External Assessment

The current ALP Coordinator was appointed in2016. She participated in the first ALP training in2011 and was therefore selected as a successor
to the previous ALP Coordinator who was also
Compliance Manager.

1.2.2. Roles and responsibilities
The steering committee, consisting of theupper management team located in Manila, wasresponsible for communicating ALP updates andprojects to PMI, and approving and supporting local
projects for ALP implementation.
In addition to her tasks for the Agronomy
department, the ALP Coordinator was responsible
for the implementation and continuous developmentof the ALP Program. Her first tasks were to adapt
the ALP guidance documents (provided by PMI)
to the local field situation in the Philippines.
Furthermore, she was involved in conducting therisk assessment, drafting the quarterly reports for
PMI Regional, preparing, conducting, and evaluating
training of the field staff, 11 keeping track of reported
Prompt Actions12 and their follow-up, and keeping
ULPI staff up-to-date on developments within the
ALP Program. At the time of the assessment the
ALP Coordinator had only recently been appointed
to this position and was still developing ideas on
how to improve ALP implementation. Neither she
nor any other ULPI staff had specific ALP-related
responsibilities in their job description, but all were
informed about their tasks.
The ALP/country team consisted of several teams
with different tasks. Overall responsibilities
included:• Rolling out the ALP Code and collecting up-todate farm-data;• Creating and analyzing documentation forfarm monitoring, including the creation andimplementation of action plans where necessary;• Updating the risk assessment at least annually;• Implementing and/or supporting projects andinitiatives approved by the management team.
Field technicians were in charge of training thefarmers (which mostly took place during groupmeetings held before each important crop stage) andwere also responsible for visiting and monitoring
the farms throughout the season. They had one
key performance indicator (KPI) related to ALP,
namely the retrieval of 100% of (empty/used) 13 CPA
containers from the farms.
Several tasks were outsourced to the farmer-leaders,
including: (i) recruiting new farmers; (ii) gathering
farm data for field technicians to complete the FarmProfiles; (iii) visiting farmers to provide production
support throughout the season and training themon ALP; (iv) requesting cash advances from ULPI
for the farmers; and (v) delivering inputs from ULPI
to the farms. Additionally, farmer-leaders were
tasked with monitoring farms and reporting Prompt
Actions. However, as ULPI’s payment for their work
was based on the amount and quality of the tobaccodelivered by the farmers under their responsibility,
farmer-leaders lacked a clear incentive to focus
much on ALP-related tasks. Also, farmer-leaders
were reluctant to report on their fellow farmers,
not only because they were neighbours, but also
because reporting could lead to blacklisting14,
resulting in less income for the blacklisted farmers
as well as the farmer-leaders themselves. Therefore
CU identified the system with farmer-leaders as
being not very effective for obtaining ALP-related
data from the field.

• Verifying field technicians’ and farmers’
knowledge and capabilities through written
tests;
11. The concept used was ”train the trainers“ – the ALP Coordinator trained the staff that would then train the farmers
in the field.
12. A Prompt Action is a situation in which workers’ physical or mental well-being might be at risk, children or a vulnerable
group – pregnant women, the elderly - are in danger, or workers might not be free to leave their job
13. Also non-empty containers were collected if farmers wanted to get rid of them.
14. See Chapter 1.5.3, Prompt Actions
12External Assessment

The internal audit team, which was created in 2003,
also played a special role in ALP implementation.
This team was responsible for visiting at least 10%of all farmers in unannounced visits during thegrowing season, to check on several agricultural
aspects. Their audits mostly focused on non-ALPrelated questions, however, since the introductionof ALP a tick-box had been added to their checklist
to report if children were observed working and/or
helping on the farm. Additional tasks of the audit
team were to follow-up on reported Prompt Actions
and to conduct background checks on potential
farmer-leaders. As the latter were in a positionof authority over other farmers, ULPI wanted toensure that only respected and honorable membersof the community were given that position; hence,
the internal audit team would conduct at least
five interviews with important members of thecommunity and local farmers to find out if thecandidate in question was eligible.
The field technicians – and to a larger extent thefarmer-leaders – were in a difficult position, in thatthey had to support farmers and gain their trust, andat the same time had to serve the interests of ULPI
and report on issues which might have negative
consequences for the farmers. Therefore, the ideaof a relatively independent15 audit team was very
positively perceived by CU as an effective way
to reduce risks arising from conflicting interests.
However, to make better use of this uniquestructure, a greater involvement of the audit teamin ALP monitoring and implementation processes isneeded.

ULPI’s response:“The current job description of ALP Coordinatorand ULPI’s staff were reviewed. Human Resources
updates the current job descriptions to incorporate
the identified responsibilities related to ALP.”“For the next season, Farmer Leaders will beempowered in data collection (ensuring Complianceon Data Access and Usage as stated in the Contract
Growing Agreement) and reporting by providing 100
tablet units that has the capability to report ALP
issues as a pilot project. Reporting will be done bydaily update using ULPI’s on-line system. Intensive
trainings will be conducted to teach the Farmer
Leaders on the reporting structures with close
supervision and guidance from GO Personnel andAgronomy. RMG [formerly internal audit team] andAgronomy will conduct a parallel reporting to verify
the accuracy of Farmer Leaders’ data covering all 7
ALP principles.”“GO personnel will reiterate and ensure that Farmer
Leaders understand and agree with the provisions
stated in their contract [violations such as the
improper implementation of STP and ALP principles
committed by Farmer Leader would cause for thetermination of the Agreement] before signing andjoining ULPI’s future undertakings. Furthermore,
all contracts are translated in Filipino language forbetter understanding of all parties involved especiallythe Farmer Leaders.”

15. The audit team considered itself independent because they reported directly to the Director and were not involved
in local production politics.
13External Assessment

1.2.3. Training and knowledge of the
ALP Program

Assessment of field technicians’ knowledge of ALP
Code Principles:17

Members of the management team and country
team received guidance on ALP from PMI Regional.
One formal training session from PMI Regional had
been provided to ULPI in 2011. This training had also
been provided to personnel located in the growing
regions. Annual refresher trainings, organized by
the ALP Coordinator and her Agronomy team, hadsince been provided to field personnel before eachcrop season, including written exams. Management
staff had sufficient understanding of the main
purpose and content of the ALP Program.

1. Child labor: All field technicians were aware of
the meaning of this ALP Code Principle. Seven
field technicians (64%) did not know that 15
was the legal minimum working age for tobacco;most of them thought that 18 was the minimum
working age. Five field technicians (45%) did
not mention all three Measurable Standards,
however, only one of them actually gave wrong
numbers, whereas the others were giving
incomplete details. 18 All field technicians had an
overall understanding of hazardous work andcould provide several examples. However, nine(82%) were missing one or two important issues
such as handling sharp tools or handling green
tobacco. 19

For the written exam, participants were shown
pictures of field situations and asked whether
situations not meeting the standard could beobserved. This type of applied learning was aneffective way of testing participants’ understandingof ALP Principles. In addition, by posting the test
results in the entrance area of the office building,staff were encouraged to do well on the test. One
problem identified by CU, however, was that thesetests did not consider the handling of green tobacco
without protective clothing as a situation notmeeting the standard, and that this issue did nothave to be identified by participants to receive thefull score.
At all staff levels, Prompt Actions were defined as a(gross) violation of the ALP Code. These situations
were called ‘breach’. ULPI distinguished four
severity levels, each with a specific follow-up.16
All field technicians had been trained by the ALP
Coordinator and the Agronomy team, and all said
that they found the training useful and informative.
All except one had been accompanied to the fieldand shadowed by their supervisor.

2. Income and work hours: In general, fieldtechnicians had a good understanding of this ALP
Code Principle and knew the wages being paidin their barangays. Nine field technicians (82%)
were able to name the correct legal minimum
wage. All were aware of the allowed work hours,
but only three (27%) could name the correct
overtime payment. Knowledge on legal benefits
was limited.20 Seven field technicians (64%)
thought that agricultural workers were notentitled to benefits. Two field technicians (18%)
mentioned double payment for working duringholidays, one (9%) considered ‘no child labor’and maximum working hours as benefits, while
another one (9%) mentioned direct payment, gift
packs from the company, or assistance duringcalamities. Only one (9%) mentioned social
security, health insurance, and the housing fund.
3. Fair treatment: Most field technicians (10, or
91%) could provide an explanation of this ALP
Code Principle; namely, that workers should

16. See Chapter 1.5.3. for more details
17. For this assessment 11 field technicians were interviewed.
18. E.g. not mentioning one of the age groups.
19. In particular, the risks involved with sticking.
20. Benefits include social security, health insurance, parental leave, and the home development fund (see Appendix III).
14

External Assessment

be treated fairly and without discrimination.
However, none of them mentioned “no sexual,
verbal or physical abuse or harassment” as arequirement of fair treatment 21, nor that farmers
must make themselves available to workers whowant to discuss potential grievances.
4. Forced labor: None of the field technicians were
fully clear on the meaning of this ALP CodePrinciple. Four (36%) stated that workers should
not be forced, four (36%) mentioned only thatworkers should not be indebted to farmers, andthe remaining three (27%) mentioned topics
related to fair treatment, such as verbal, physicalor sexual abuse or harassment. None mentioned
indirect payments or retaining workers’ originalidentity documents.
5. Safe work environment: Only one field technician
provided a complete explanation. Five (45%)
only mentioned the use of PPE, mainly for CPA
or fertilizer application. Others also mentioned
the retrieval of CPA containers, the provisionof clean drinking water, and/or re-entry periods
after CPA application.
6. Freedom of association: All field technicians
had an adequate understanding of this ALP CodePrinciple.
7. Compliance with the law: Seven field technicians(64%) said that the local law should be followed,
without giving any further details as to whatthese laws included or required. The other four
mentioned following ULPI’s contracts or paying
minimum wage. None of them mentioned thatworkers should be informed about their rights.
Furthermore, their understanding of workers’
rights was also limited. Six field technicians (55%)
were not able to mention any rights, three (27%)
said that workers’ rights related to the right tobe paid, and the remaining two mentioned either
the right to leave the job in case of an emergency,
or the right to freedom of association.
Because of the significant role of farmer-leadersin visiting farms and training farmers, CU alsointerviewed ten farmer-leaders to assess theirunderstanding of the ALP Code. The results were as
follows:
1. Child labor: All farmer-leaders knew thatchildren were not supposed to work. Only one(10%) knew all the correct age specifications
according to the Measurable Standards. Five(50%) incorrectly identified 18 as the minimum
working age, while one mentioned 13-14 as theage allowed for light work. Three farmer-leaders(30%) knew that 15 was the minimum working
age, but failed to mention the restrictions on thetasks allowed for children aged 15 to 18. In eightcases (80%) hazardous work was defined only
as applying chemicals and carrying heavy loads;
only two farmer-leaders also mentioned sticking
or harvesting green tobacco leaves.
2. Income and work hours: Four farmer-leaders(40%) knew the legal minimum wage, while theothers only knew the wages agreed in theirbarangay. None named the correct overtime
payment rate. However, the majority (80%)
named the correct working hours per day.
Knowledge on legal benefits for workers was
non-existent.
3. Fair treatment: Six farmer-leaders (60%) were
not able to give any explanation of this Principle.
Two said fair treatment is when workers andfarmers eat the same meals, and two mentioned
no discrimination.
4. Forced labor: As was the case with the fieldtechnicians, none of the farmer-leaders were
fully clear on what this ALP Code Principle
is about. The majority (90%) only stated thatworkers “should not be forced”.
5. Safe work environment: With regard to thisPrinciple, eight farmer-leaders (80%) only
mentioned protection during work. One
additionally mentioned shade for the workers
and the avoidance of accidents, while one left
this question unanswered.

21. Three field technicians did mention these topics, but only in relation to forced labor, see next point
15

External Assessment

6. Freedom of association: All farmer-leaders had
an adequate understanding of this ALP CodePrinciple.

discussed when considered relevant. Informal
communication among colleagues took place on afrequent basis.

7. Compliance with the law: This principle was
explained either as following the national law or
adhering to the contract with ULPI.

The Steering Committee and PMI Regional held
quarterly meetings. For these meetings the ALP
Coordinator produced quarterly reports, including
an analysis of the progress on ALP implementation,
which were sent to PMI Regional after approval by
the management.

Based on this assessment, CU concludes that theknowledge of farmer-leaders is insufficient for
educating farmers on ALP. The lack of awarenessamong farmer leaders on ALP Principles, in
combination with the finding that they are reluctant
to report on their fellow farmers (see Chapter 1.3.2),
demonstrates that ULPI’s current system of relying
on farmer-leaders for important ALP-related tasks
is ineffective and results in unreliable farm data.

ULPI’s response:“Intensive trainings will be conducted in multiple
sessions to re-enforce GO personnel and Farmer
Leader’s understanding on all ALP principles. Different
scenarios (actual photos) and various training
methods (such as drama) will be used. Agronomy willconduct unannounced exams to the GO personnel and1.3. Communication of the ALP Coderequirements to farmers
1.3.1. Communication strategy andtacticsULPI started to communicate the ALP Code tofarmers in 2012. Communication efforts werefocused mainly on child labor and safe work
environment (in particular, the use of PPE for
CPA), as these were considered the most important
topics. Other situations not meeting the standard,such as payments below the legal minimum wage
or unawareness of GTS, did not receive adequate
attention.

Farmer Leaders meeting (bi-monthly) to assess theirknowledge. The ALP principles will be uploaded in thetablets which can be accessed through the Universal
Leaf Integrated Information System (ULIIS) interface
anytime as necessary. Results of technical exams will
be summarized at the end of Crop 2018 to determine
the GO personnel and Farmer Leaders’ strengths
and weaknesses. Future trainings (Crop 2019) will
focus on weak areas that have been be identified.
Handling green tobacco without proper PPE, whichis considered not meeting the standard, would be
included and emphasized during these trainings.”

1.2.4. Internal communication
The ALP Coordinator held monthly meetings withthe field technicians, in which ALP-related topics
were discussed and documented. Furthermore,
weekly meetings were held between project
managers and field technicians, as well as by theinternal audit team. ALP-related topics wereULPI developed several communication methods.
Two of these were based on direct communicationand training. First, regular orientation meetings with
farmers were organized at the barangay hall, before
each crop stage. On average, the last 30 minutesof these meetings were dedicated to ALP topics,
including written tests. In practice, the farmers
did not always attend these meetings; sometimes
their wives went instead. An identified problem
was that attention levels of most attendees tended
to drop towards the end of the meeting (when
ALP topics were discussed). As a second method
to communicate ALP, ULPI had tasked the farmerleaders and field technicians with communicating
the ALP Code during every farm visit. However, due
to the limited understanding of the farmer-leadersregarding ALP, their communication with farmers
often consisted of simply mentioning the ALP Code,
without applying it to the local farm situation. At thetime of the assessment, the average field technician
to farmer ratio was 1 to 204, (ranging from 71 to16

External Assessment

486 farmers per field technician), while, on average,
there were six farmer-leaders per field technician,and 31 farmers per farmer-leader.
To further improve farmers’ understanding of ALP,in 2013 ULPI started interviewing and training
farmers at the end of the cropping season, when
they delivered their tobacco. In addition, in 2015
ULPI started testing farmers’ knowledge on ALP
through a written exam; the results of these exams
were discussed with the farmers at the time of
tobacco delivery.
Several written communication materials were used.
Each farmer received a “technoguide”: a booklet
with all relevant agronomic aspects of growing
tobacco, including the re-entry periods after CPA
application. This booklet also included all seven ALP
Code Principles in Tagalog.22 The growing contract,which all farmers had to sign at the beginning ofeach crop season, also included all seven principles
in Tagalog. Finally, posters listing the sevenprinciples were put up in front of the barangay halls
and at the buying stations. CU observed, however,that all written materials contained far more text
than pictures; although the booklet and poster did
include a picture for each principle, 23 these pictures
were not self-explanatory. Furthermore, none of thecommunication materials mentioned the farmers’
responsibility to inform workers about their legal
rights. In addition, no information was provided
on the legal minimum wage, maximum work hours,
legal overtime rate, or basic worker entitlements.
The following table shows the level of awarenessamong the interviewed farmers, family members
and external workers with regard to the ALP CodePrinciples. In line with ULPI’s focused communication
efforts, the highest levels of awareness were
found for the topics of child labor and safe work
environment, closely followed by income and work
hours. Awareness of other ALP-related topics wasvery low or completely absent, which is in line withthe communication gaps identified above.

Level of awareness of ALP Code Principles*
Farmers (55)Family members (52)External workers (34)Child labor

51 (75%)26 (50%)15 (44%)

Income and work hours

25 (45%)15 (29%)6 (18%)

Fair treatment

4 (7%)

00Forced labor

7 (13%)

1 (2%)

0

Safe work environment

34 (62%)18 (35%)7 (21%)

Freedom of association

3 (5%)

00Compliance with the law

5 (9%)

2 (4%)

0* Note that these data only show whether the interviewees remembered the principles, and not whether they fully understoodtheir meaning.

22. Tagalog is the general Filipino language, while the local dialect in Isabella is Ilocano. Most farmers and workers
understood Tagalog and were literate.
23. See Appendix V.
17

External Assessment

Interviewees who were aware of (at least some aspects of) the ALP code were also asked how they learned
about it. As the table below shows, verbal communication efforts were generally more effective thanwritten materials.

Means of communication through which the ALP Code was received
Farmers (41)Family members and workers (86)Group meetings/trainings

36 (88%)3 (3%)

During regular visit by field technician

31 (76%)19 (22%)

Verbally from the farmer leader

3 (7%)

17 (20%)Technoguide12 (29%)4 (5%)

Flyer/Poster

9 (22%)

4 (5%)

Discussion with other farmers/workers

2 (5%)

7 (8%)

Verbally from the farmer0

18 (21%)ULPI also had an online-system for communicatingwith the farmers through text messages. All text
messages with inquiries sent to ULPI by farmers
were answered directly if possible, or forwarded to
the respective department, and saved in the online
system for further reference and analysis. As far
as CU could identify, this communication was not
linked to the Farm Profiles. Also, this system was
not really used for ALP communication.

To re-enforce STP Training, which includes ALP, ULPI
is going to use a specialized truck (STP-MOBILE
Training) to visit all the Farmer Leaders and mostof the farmers on an annual basis. These trainings
will be done in the fields, basically going throughall the details during the growing cycle – seedbeds,
transplanting, vegetative, harvesting and market
preparation.

The trainers will have intensive

knowledge on ALP & STP. Our objective is to have
ULPI’s response:“The written materials/techno guides will be revised

STP-MOBILE visit the different areas at least 4 times
annually in the field.

using pictures (like comics style). Also, a video clip

Agronomy will determine the ALP principles as towill be installed on GO personnel/RMG/Agronomy

when it is applicable based on current field activities.

tablets to be shown and discussed with the farmers

The Mobile Assistant (hotline number) will be used toduring trainings. The same information will be given

communicate various messages to remind farmers on

to farmers in CD’s. The video clip will be posted in

ALP principles. Messages will be translated in Filipino

a public website to be created by ULPI that can be

and/or local dialect for better communication andviewed by farmers who have Internet access.

understanding by the farmers.”

18External Assessment

1.3.2. Farmers’ responsibilities
At the beginning of each crop season, farmers
signed a growing contract with ULPI which included
all seven ALP Code Principles. A breach24 of thoseprinciples could lead to blacklisting 25 in the next
season, making compliance with the ALP Code partof the farmers’ responsibility. However, both farmers
and field technicians commented that farmers
barely read the terms of the contract. ULPI did notprovide positive incentives to farmers to encourage
good performance in relation to the ALP Code. It
was identified that in practice, poor performance
only had severe consequences (blacklisting) if childlabor was involved. All other cases (e.g., not using
PPE) resulted in a report, for which the farmer had
to sign a form (see Chapter 1.5.3).

1.4. Internal monitoring: data collection,accuracy, and addressing issues
At the time of the assessment, ULPI was collecting
three types of ALP-related data from the farms:
socio-economic information (Farm Profiles);situations not meeting the standard; and Prompt
Actions. A new online system called “Universal Leaf
Farm System” (ULFS) was introduced in January
2017. The ALP Coordinator regularly generated
reports from this system to evaluate ALP-related
issues. The collected data was compiled and added
to a quarterly report shared with PMI Regional.
Data collection, especially for Prompt Actions, wasfound to be unreliable at the time of the assessment.
The main reason was that field technicians did not
visit the farmers regularly but shared this task withthe farmer-leaders, who did not have access to thecompany’s data system and did hardly any reporting
to begin with. While the field technicians wererequired to fill in the online system after each farm
visit, many of them (55%) reported that they did nothave sufficient time to fill in the monitoring forms.

ULPI’s response:“ULPI will review and simplify all monitoring forms
and reports [to improve time for reporting].”

1.4.1. Socio-economic data: FarmProfilesThe socio-economic information for Farm Profiles
was collected once a year during the contracting
period. In general, farmer-leaders were responsible
for providing farm data to the field technicians,
who completed the farm profiles in ULPI’s online
system. About half of the field technicians reported
that they would go to the farms to verify the data
provided by the farmer-leaders, while the other half
just trusted the data given to them. Farm Profiles
were completed at the beginning of the season andwere not updated during the season. Of the 55 FarmProfiles checked by CU, only 40 (73%) had been
updated for the current season. When comparing
the data reported in these profiles to actual farmsituations, CU found that 19 (48%) were incomplete,lacking information if training had been provided to
the farmer, while 18 (45%) contained inaccuratedata, mostly with regard to the size of the planted
tobacco or the number of workers contracted26. In
one case a migrant worker was not accounted for in
the profile.
ULPI’s response:“To address the issue [of inaccuracy] the system willautomatically update the GPS area in the Farm Profile
once the data is uploaded in the checklist. Also, thenumber of hired workers […] will be recorded during
the growing season for better accuracy and will belinked to the Farm Profile.”“ULPI will create a software to incorporate [farmers
training] within the Farm Profile annually.”

24. ULPI had classified breaches according to four severity levels (see Chapter 1.5.3).
25. A blacklisted farmer would not be contracted for the next season. As ULPI was the only company buying Burley in
Isabela, blacklisting would have a strong impact on the farmer.
26. For farms where workers are hired on a daily basis, it is practically impossible to keep the Farm Profile up to date interms of the exact number of workers.
19External Assessment

1.4.2. Systematic monitoring: situations
not meeting the ALP Code standards

to Farm Workers; Fair Treatment; Forced Labor;
Freedom of Association and Compliance with the

ULPI’s online system for farm monitoring included
a form for situations not meeting the standard,
which had to be filled in after each farm visit. For
each ALP Code Principle, the possible answer waseither “yes - compliant” or “no – not compliant”; thisformat did not allow to add comments or explain
the situation. Some Measurable Standards were
missing, e.g. there was no option to report “handlinggreen tobacco without PPE”.
After ticking the box “No - not compliant” for asituation not meeting the standard, the online
system would automatically show the required
action for follow-up with the farmer in question.
The system did not take into account the frequencyof the situation being reported, and usually only
required to remind and educate the farmer about
the correct practices. Furthermore, at the timeof the assessment ULPI only monitored andreported on two principles (child labor and safe
work environment). Hence, situations not meetingthe standard with regard to the other ALP CodePrinciples were not monitored accurately.
ULPI’s response:“ULPI will improve monitoring and documenting theother 5 ALP Principles (Income, Work Hours & Benefit

Law)”“The ALP monitoring tools [online system] were
deployed early this year and will be fully implemented/
used for CY 18 by GO and Farmer Leaders
All GO Personnel, RMG and Agronomy will be using
the [newly purchased, customized] tablets for thiscoming season to record real time issues; including the
100 Farmer Leaders within the Pilot Project.”

1.4.3. Prompt Actions
Field personnel made no distinction between
situations not meeting the standard and Prompt
Actions; all were considered a ‘breach’ with the
ALP Code. As shown in the Table below, ULPI
distinguished four categories of breaches (light,
severe, moderate and extreme), each with adifferent follow-up. For each category except the‘light’ breaches, a certain number of incidents would
lead to blacklisting for the next tobacco season. 27
However, the main action for all incidents (except‘extreme’ breaches) was to remind and re-educate
the farmer about the correct practices. The maindifference between the categories related to who
was responsible for the follow-up:

Severity ofincident

Responsible for follow-up

Number of violations
leading to blacklistingLight

Field technician (possibly also a member of the Agronomy-

Department or the internal audit team)Moderate

Field technician, Project Manager, Agronomy Department, or

Fourinternal audit teamSevereField technician, Project Manager, Agronomy Department, orTwointernal audit team
Extreme

Project Manager, Agronomy Department, or internal audit

One

team

27. In Region II no farmers had been blacklisted so far, but in Region I there had been two reported cases.
20External Assessment

The overview of breaches provided by ULPI was
exhaustive and covered most Prompt Actions as
defined by PMI e.g. on fair treatment, forced labor
and re-entry periods. Only a few Prompt Actions
were missing, for example unsafe CPA storage,reuse of CPA containers, sexual harassment, 28
and children working in extreme temperatures,at heights, or after dark. However, only a limited
number of breaches were actually monitored andreported: child labor, and not using PPE for CPA or
fertilizer application.
The Prompt Action reporting procedure involved
two types of documents. The first one was the“Corrective and Preventive Action Report” (CAPA)
describing the Prompt Action observed and theaction taken to address the issue with the farmer.
Generally, this action was limited to reminding thefarmer of the correct ALP practices; root causes
were not investigated and no corrective action toaddress root causes was taken. The second report
related to the follow-up. After a Prompt Action
had been reported and entered into ULPI’s online
system, an unannounced follow-up visit was to be
conducted within ten days, to check whether theissue was solved. As described in the table above,
this was carried out by different people, dependingon the severity of the breach. The document used
for this follow-up visit was the “Prompt Action
Verification Report” (PAV), which described thePrompt Action identified and whether or not theincident was recurring. If the incident was notobserved during this visit the Prompt Action wasmarked as “resolved” in the document and the casewas closed in the online system. If recurrence wasobserved this was marked in the report. In thatcase, the farmer would be reminded again of thecorrect practices, and the follow-up visits would be
repeated until the Prompt Action could be closed.
Both the CAPA and PAV had to be signed by thefarmer, stating that he or she acknowledged theoccurrence of the incident and the follow-up. The
reports provided to CU by ULPI did not show if avisit had taken place without resolving the Prompt

Action, only when the Prompt Action had beenclosed.
As mentioned in Chapter 1.3.2, farmer-leaders were
tasked with reporting Prompt Actions but lacked
incentives to do so. Consequently, none of themhad reported any Prompt Actions. As for the fieldtechnicians, until shortly before the assessment
they tended not to report Prompt Actions: in caseof an incident they would just talk to the farmer,
but not file a report. At the time of the assessment,
field technicians had been explicitly instructed toformally report Prompt Actions in ULPI’s online
system; nevertheless, they declared to CU not do
so in all cases. As a result, the number of reported
Prompt Actions was low.
None of the farms included in CU’s regular farm
sample had a reported Prompt Action. Therefore,on the last day of the assessment CU visited six
farms selected specifically for their reported
Prompt Actions, in order to verify and understandthe procedure including the follow-up, and to checkif farmers were aware.29 The six farmers in question
all had a reported Prompt Action on child labor, andall understood its meaning. In all cases the Prompt
Action had been marked as resolved. In two cases
the information in the report did not match thedescription provided by the farmer. In one of thesecases the farmer disagreed with the Prompt Action
and claimed he did not have children working on
his farm. On two other farms 30 child labor was stilltaking place (despite the fact that the issue had
been marked as resolved). At these two farms,
CU observed a total of four child family members
younger than thirteen who were helping withsticking, which is a hazardous activity. The children
in question were aged four, eight, twelve and twelve.
ULPI’s response:“Lists of Prompt Actions Issues (PA) and situations
not meeting the standard will be provided to all GO
Personnel. The PA identified by CU and ULPI will bemonitored during every farmer’s visit.”

28. As opposed to sexual abuse, which was included.
29. For these visits the methodology was different than for the “regular” field visits (see Appendix II).
30. These farms were actually located outside the geographical scope of this assessment, but were nevertheless included
for reasons explained in Appendix II.
21

External Assessment

1.4.4. Data management and analysis
Field technicians were responsible for completingthe monitoring reports in the ULFS after each visit.
Prompt Action Reports could be downloaded bystaff members responsible for the follow-up, suchas the ALP Coordinator and the internal audit team.

1.4.5. Improvement plans for individual
farms
The Prompt Actions and situations not meetingthe standard as reported through the “CAPA” form
resulted in an improvement plan agreed between thefield technician and farmer in question. However,as mentioned in Chapter 1.5.3, the majority of theaction plans listed on this form simply focused onreminding and educating the farmer about thecorrect practices, rather than analyzing the root
causes and developing corrective actions to addressthese causes. Follow-up was supposed to take place
within ten days.

1.5 Address systemic and/or widespread
issuesBased on the risks and issues identified (see Chapter
1.2), PMI’s leaf tobacco suppliers are expected toaddress systemic and/or widespread issues throughoperational initiatives, community programs (which
may be supported by a financial contribution fromPMI) and engagement with key stakeholders.
At the time of the assessment, ULPI had implemented
the following operational initiatives:• “Let’s P.L.A.Y.” – summer school programs(Promote
Learning
Activities
fortheYouth): Together with the non-governmentalorganization(NGO)
AmericanChamberFoundation Philippines, 31 and with financial aid
from PMI, ULPI launched the Let’s PLAY initiativein 2014. This program offered farmers andworkers the option to send their children (age7-12, elementary school) to schooling activities
during summer holidays, thereby reducing therisk of child labor. The participating children
could do sports, be part of a marching band, doarts, or read books. A food program was also
involved, providing meals in the morning and theafternoon. According to a 2016 report by ULPI,
1,493 children benefited from this program.
Of the farmers visited by CU, only three farmers(5%) had sent one or more children to thesummer school.32 All of them were happy withthe program and would recommend it to otherfarmers. Field studies, conducted and provided
by ULPI, showed that, during summer holidays,
fewer child labor incidents occurred in areas
offering summer school than in areas outside
the scope of this initiative. Based on CU’s
experience, the Let’s Play initiative is one of thebest programs seen in the Philippines so far for
reducing the risk of child labor.
• Adopt a school – free school supplies: To
encourage school attendance and reduce farmers
costs for school supplies ULPI also sponsoredschool supplies for children at 32 schools. Seven
farmers (13%) had benefitted from this initiative;
all of them liked it and would participate again
as it saved them money. However, five of theseseven farmers (71%) reported that this initiative
had not had a direct impact on their farm.
• CPA container retrieval: Together with its CPA
suppliers, ULPI launched an initiative to retrieve
empty, used or full CPA containers during andafter the tobacco season to avoid unsafe disposal
and/or unsafe reuse of CPA containers. Farmers
could deliver their containers to their farmer
leader, who would store them until they were
picked up (which happened on a regular basis).
Farmers participating in the CPA container
retrieval program automatically participated in araffle, in which they could win prizes at the end

31. http://www.amchamfoundation.com/home
32. Most farmers did not have children in the age group of 7-12 and therefore could not participate. Other reasons for
not participating were that farmers were not aware of the program or did not live near a school that offered theprogram.
22

External Assessmentof the season. In addition, there was a penalty for
not participating in the program: farmers who
did not participate would have a certain amountof their income deducted by ULPI. These two
incentives were showing effect: 98% (49) of the
farmers were participating in this initiative. The
one non-participating farmer told CU that hewas just keeping and storing the CPA containers
on his farm, and that he did not know about theinitiative. Of the farmers asked, 95% (43) foundthis initiative useful, mainly because it reduced
the risk of children playing with empty CPA
containers, and also because they liked the raffle.
All of the farmers participating would participate
again. An environmental study presented to CU
by ULPI showed that rivers were less polluted
since the launch of the CPA container retrieval
program . However, CU found that some farmers
did not return all their empty containers, andthat therefore the risks continued to exist.
• PPE for CPA: PPE was distributed to the farmers
at the beginning of each crop season. In the past,
the cost of PPE was partly subsidized by ULPI,
but at the time of the assessment farmers had to
pay the full cost. Of the farmers visited, 53 (98%)
had been provided with a complete set of PPE
consisting of a dust mask, goggles, plastic gloves,
an apron, and gum boots. The majority of the
farmers asked (46, i.e. 92%) found this initiative
useful and would participate again. All statedthat PPE was for their safety and protection.
However, CU found that only few farmers or
their workers would wear the complete set.33
Reasons given by the farmers for not wearing
all PPE were mostly related to the discomfort
of wearing PPE in high temperatures. Also, CU
found that the dust masks were not appropriate
for spraying, as they did not sufficiently protectfrom health hazards.

• Cotton gloves for harvesting: To protect farmers
and workers from GTS, in 2017 ULPI started with
providing cotton gloves for harvesting. At thetime of the assessment, 44 farmers (80%) hadreceived gloves. Of the farmers asked about this,29 (71%) said they found this initiative useful
because it provided protection, whereas 12
farmers (29%) did not find the initiative usefulmostly because they had received the gloves only
very recently and were not yet used to wearing
them. Several farmers reported that they wereusing the gloves for sticking and classifying
but not for harvesting, as they felt that the
gloves affected the quality of the leaves during
harvesting. Of the farmers who were asked ifthey would participate again, 26 (83%) said yes.
Five (17%) said they would not participate again,as they were not using the provided gloves anddid not want the costs to be deducted from their
payment. As this initiative started only recently it
is too early to determine its impact on the farms,
but several farmers already reported a reductionof health issues. However, CU found that, on
many farms, the gloves were not worn for alltasks, or only on one hand. In addition, the cotton
gloves were also not considered appropriate, as
they were thin and not impermeable.

33. See chapter 2.5.
23

Chapter 2

Farm-level assessment of working
conditions regarding the ALP Code Standards

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

This chapter describes CU’s assessment of theworking conditions on farms with regard to the
ALP Code Principles and Measurable Standards.
ALP Code Principles are short statements designed
to guide farmers on specific practices, resulting insafe and fair working conditions. A Measurable
Standard defines a good practice and over time canbe objectively monitored to determine whether, andto what extent, the labor conditions and practices
on a tobacco farm are in line with each ALP CodePrinciple.34

2. Children wanted to help in order to earn somepocket money for snacks.

2.1. ALP Code Principle 1: Child labor

4. Many farmers did not know the specific age
regulations for helping in tobacco-related
activities.

There shall be no child labor.

Main findings and challenges

2.1.1. Children working and activities
performed
No evidence was found of children below 15 yearsof age being employed at the farms or helping withtobacco at their family farm. 35 CU did observe twochild family members aged 16 and 17 who, after
school, were helping with sticking, which is not
permitted as this is a hazardous activity.
In addition to the regular farm visits, CU conducted
six Prompt Action checks. During these checks, on
two farms (33%) a total of four children below theage of 13 were found to be helping with sticking.
Their ages were four, eight, twelve, and twelve.

Underlying factors that increase risk
Control Union identified four underlying factorsthat increased the risk of child labor:
1. Children helping on the farms was a common
practice. Since parents often did not havesomeone to look after their children during the(summer) holidays or after school, they took
their children with them to the fields or barns.

3. Farmers were unaware of some types ofhazardous work. They tent to define “hazardous
tasks” as “heavy” tasks. For them, this referredto handling sharp tools or machinery, as well as
CPA application. However, they did not consider
handling green tobacco or sticking (which wasdone with sharp metal pins) as hazardous. This
unawareness increased the risk of people below
18 being involved in hazardous tasks.

Analysis and priorities
Elimination of child labor is one of the main focus
areas of ULPI, and they implemented several
initiatives to address this issue. Child labor also
was the most important ALP topic in ULPI’s
communication efforts and in the reporting by
field technicians and the internal audit team. CU
found only few cases where children were helping
with farm work, and most farmers were aware that
their children should not work in tobacco. Hence,ULPI’s efforts seem to be effective. However, lack ofawareness among farmers about the ALP Code age
specifications and the definition of hazardous tasks
presents a continued risk that child family members
are involved in tasks not suitable for their age
group. Additional efforts are required from ULPI toaddress this issue.
ULPI’s response:“ULPI will intensify its trainings through the “STPMOBILE” to create awareness among farmers andworkers regarding age specifications and the type ofwork allowed per age group. Hazardous tasks will
be defined and explained. The Mobile Assistant will
be utilized to blast text messages throughout thegrowing season to remind farmers and ensure better
understanding on Child Labor principles. ULPI will

34. The scope and methodology of the assessment are described in Appendix II.
35. The legal minimum age for employment in tobacco is 15 (See Appendix III for more detailed legal
25

External Assessment

Main findings and challenges

continue to be proactive in reporting issues, identify
the various root causes and implement projects to

2.2.1. Payment of workers

address the issues such as the Summer School andAfter-School Programs. Also, ULPI will continue toNone of the workers was paid at least the legal
minimum wage. Instead, farmers paid their workers
an amount agreed at the barangay level, which inall cases was lower than the legal minimum wage.36
One farmer paid less than the wage agreed in hisbaranguay.

monitor childrens’ attendance in public elementary
schools found in growing areas to determine if theabsenteeism is due to tobacco related activities.”

2.2. ALP Code Principle 2: Income andwork hours

All farmers calculated the salaries based on thedaily rate agreed in their barangay (see table below).
Three farmers paid different wages for different
tasks, for example, paying 150 Philippine Pesos(PHP) per day for lighter work such as classifying
or sticking, and 200 PHP per day for heavier work
such as harvesting37. In most cases, the workers
who were paid either 150 or 200 PHP per day also
received lunch and two small meals in the morningand in the afternoon. 38

Income earned during a pay period or
growing season shall always be enoughto meet workers’ basic needs and shallbe of a sufficient level to enable thegeneration of discretionary income.
Workers shall not work excessive orillegal work hours.

Breakdown of calculated salaries39
SalaryNumber of farms

Salary range

0-150

151-200

201-250(PHP/day)(PHP/day)(PHP/day)

4 (9%)

41 (91%)

3 (7%)

While these figures are lower than the legal minimum
wage, they do not reflect any in-kind payment
received by the worker. However, in-kind payments
must be approved by both the Department of Laborand Employment (DOLE) and the workers must
authorize the in-kind payment in writing, which was
not the practice on any of the farms visited.

Minimum (PHP/day)73

Maximum (PHP/day)

250

Five (11%) of the farmers in the table above paid
an additional piece rate for sticking, of 1-2 PHP
per finished stick. On average, workers were able
to complete between 50 and 75 sticks per day.
However, workers typically did not do a full day ofsticking; for example, they would spend half a dayon harvesting or other tasks (for which they would

36. The legal minimum wage for Isabela was 280 Philippine Pesos (PHP) per day (See Appendix III for more detailed legal
information).
37. For this reason the numbers do not add up to 100%, those farmers are listed twice
38. The meals were valued to represent a value of 30-50 PHP per day by the local CU auditors. However, only a maximumof 70% of the value of in-kind payment can de beducted from the wage and it has to be approved by the DOLE, see
Appendix III for more detailed information.
39. Workers also received the full daily wage if they finished their work within less than eight hours, as they are available
the entire day and cannot plan in advance how long the tasks will need lower working hours do not result in theoption to work somewhere else and are therefore not taken into account (see Chapter 2.2.3 work hours).
26

External Assessment

be paid 50% of the daily wage agreed), and then do
sticking in the afternoon (for which they would be
paid piece rate).
One farmer (2%) additionally to daily workers,
employed a migrant worker40 who stayed on his
farm for a period of eight months. This worker
received a total of 15,000 PHP plus all food andaccommodation. 41 Taking the common six-dayworking week, his daily salary in cash was 73 PHP,
which is around a quarter of the legal minimum
wage42.
Two farmers (4%) worked as a sharecropper, forwhich they received ten percent of the net farmincome, after deduction of all costs. These costs
included workers’ wages and inputs, which were
paid by the landowners and deducted later. It was
not possible to determine whether the income ofthese farmers themselves would meet the legal
minimum wage as this depended on the net farmincome. However, as both sharecroppers werefarming the land of close relatives (their mother andgrandmother, respectively) and claimed to have agood relationship with them, the risk of them being
underpaid was considered small by CU.

2.2.2. Payment schedule
The majority of the farmers (31, or 69%) paid theirworkers regularly and in accordance with the law,43
and mostly on a daily basis. Twelve farmers (29%)
paid as soon as they had the cash available, whichsometimes led to a delay in payment. Two farmers(4%) paid some of their workers only at the end of
the season. One of them calculated the total wage
based on the agreed daily wage and the number ofdays worked, paying his worker the entire sum assoon as he had received the money from the tobaccodelivery (if the workers agreed to this arrangement).
The other farmer had agreed a fixed wage for theentire season with one of his workers (this was thecase with the migrant worker mentioned in 2.2.1).

2.2.3. Work hours
No evidence was found of farmers disrespecting thelegal work hours on a regular basis. In most cases,
there was no scheduled workweek as workers hadjobs on several farms at the same time. Rather thandetermining exact hours, farmers and workers
agreed upon the tasks to be completed. This practice
resulted in workers occasionally working more thaneight hours per day, but mostly the work hours wereless than eight hours.
None of the workers who did work longer than theregular hours were paid the legal overtime rate. 44
The reason for this was that most of them received
a fixed daily wage regardless of the amount of hours
worked. Four farmers did pay extra for overtime
hours, but not at the legal rate. In most cases
neither farmers nor workers were aware of the legal
overtime rate.
At three farms (10%) workers did not always receive
one resting day per week, as during the harvest
peak they were asked to work seven or eight daysin a row. However, this had happened only once or
twice. As most workers worked on different farms
across the season, they were able to plan their own
resting days in between jobs.

2.2.4. Legal benefits
None of the farmers provided their workers with theadditional basic benefits required by law.45 The main
reason for this was that workers had verbal rather

40. The worker was Filipino, but from a different region and could not go home every day. He was part of an indigenous
minority.
41. As explained above, in-kind payment cannot be applied to the wage.
42. The value of accommodation could not be quantified, but also here the law limiting in-kind payment applies.
43. Philippine law states that wages shall be paid at least once every 2 weeks or twice a month at intervals not exceeding
16 days (See Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
44. Overtime pay must be equal to the employee’s regular pay plus at least 25%.
45. In addition to one day of rest per week (Sundays), workers are entitled to receive social security, health insurance,home development fund, holiday pay, parental leave, and several other benefits (see Appendix III for more detailed
legal information).
27

External Assessment

than written contracts, and that both farmers andworkers were unaware of the legal requirements
regarding workers’ benefits.

Underlying factors that increase risk

ULPI’s response:“ULPI will continue to educate the farmers on existinglaws regarding minimum wage and payment of wages.
They will be informed on the different modes of

In addition to the underlying reasons mentioned
above, the level of awareness among farmers andworkers regarding the legal minimum wage wasrelatively low; 14 farmers (26%) did not know thelegal minimum wage, and three farmers believedthat the locally agreed wage (for their barangay)
was the legal minimum wage. Furthermore, several
farmers claimed that they did not have enoughmoney to pay more than the amount agreed intheir barangay, or that the cash advances by ULPI
were too late or insufficient to pay higher wages.
However, CU also found that some farmers also
used the cash advances for household expenses andnon-tobacco related activities, which demonstrates
inefficient financial management on their side.

employment, obligations as employer and the rights

Analysis and priorities

information based on work hours and overtimeof laborers/workers. In case the farmers need support
for proper documentation in engaging the services of
their laborers, ULPI will provide a template document
stating the employment details of the laborer.
Compliance with existing labor laws on minimum
wage and proper payment of wages will form part of
the field validation activities.”“In order to promote awareness ULPI’s writtenmaterials will be revised to include the necessary
details of this principle which will be distributed
to farmers and workers. Farmers’ compliance will
be monitored through the online reporting system(ULIIS).
The revised written materials will elaborate thepayment. Messages and reminders will be blasted

The ALP Code Principle of Income and work
hours is not a focus area for ULPI. However, CU’sfindings demonstrate that many farm practices
are not meeting the standards of this principle.
Lack of awareness among farmers and workers
about relevant legal aspects – such as the legal
minimum wage, overtime rate and legal benefits –demonstrate the need to increase communication
efforts for this topic.

through ULPI’s Mobile Assistant to farmers during thegrowing cycle.
ULPI will gather information through the online
system to better establish the current situation
covering 100% of farmers and a bigger survey
coverage with the workers. ULPI will also continue to
conduct the survey using PMI’s SOP4CoP for the past
3 years to record labor hours for each activity.
ULPI will conduct an intensive orientation tofarmers and their permanent workers regarding their
obligations about legal benefits.”

28

External Assessment

2.3. ALP Code Principle 3: Fair treatment

Farmers shall ensure fair treatment ofworkers. There shall be no harassment,
discrimination, physical or mental
punishment, or any other forms of abuse.
Main findings and challenges

2.3.1. Treatment of workers
No evidence was found of verbal, sexual, or physicalabuse on the farms. 46 In addition, CU did not identify
any discriminatory practices, although it can beargued that the migrant worker, who was from anindigenous minority, was discriminated because
his total seasonal income was much lower than forother workers. However, the worker in question
had been given the option to work as a freelancer
with higher daily wages (like the other workers), but
had decided in favor of the security of a seasonal
contract, including a fixed seasonal wage andaccommodation.
In some areas the workers were extended family,
friends or neighbor farmers who worked on one
another’s farms, which reduced the risk of unfair
treatment. Also, in some other areas, there wasa scarcity of workers, which meant that farmers
had to treat their workers well to ensure that theywould keep working for them.

2.3.2. Support mechanism
Support mechanisms facilitate workers’ access to
information, assist workers in difficult situations,and mediate disputes between farmers and workers.
PMI’s leaf tobacco suppliers are expected to ensurethat farmers and workers have access to such amechanism.
For tobacco farmers and workers in the Isabela
region no independent support or grievancemechanism was available. ULPI did offer a support
mechanism in the form of a telephone number(linked to ULPI’s online system) to which farmers
and workers could send text messages. This number
was posted on tarps in the barangay halls. However,none of the messages sent through this system
related to ALP issues. This was most likely due tothe fact that the grievance support mechanism was
not independent and not anonymous. If workers or
farmers had a labor-related issue they did not want
their boss or ULPI to know about, there was nosystem in place to contact. Instead, some workers
had discussed issues such as delays in payment
with their community judge. However, the latter
person did not have any ALP training, nor was he ina position to take up these issues with the company.
In addition to a formal support mechanism, the ALP
Code requires that farmers should make themselves
available to their workers to discuss potential
grievances before they escalate. No cases wereidentified were farmers were unavailable to theirworkers, as most of the workers were relatives,
friends or neighbors.

Analysis and priorities
Neither farmers nor workers had used the companyrun support mechanism to report ALP-related
grievances. An independent grievance mechanismthat allows anonymous calls is needed, especiallywhen considering the low awareness among farmers
and workers about legal aspects and workers’ rights.
Migrant workers from other regions, in particular,
would benefit from such a mechanism, as they do
not always have access to the community judge.
ULPI’s response:“ULPI is in search of a Non-Government Organization(NGO) that will be contracted to annually visit
barangays to inquire and evaluate ALP related issues
from any ULPI farmers and workers. Part of the
NGO’s responsibility will be to train the Barangay
Officials on ALP.”

46. See Appendix III for legal details on fair treatment.
29External Assessment

2.4. ALP Code Principle 4: Forced labor
All farm labor must be voluntary. There
shall be no forced labor.

Main findings and challenges

2.4.1. Involuntary labor
No evidence was found of workers being unable toleave their employment or working against theirwill, or of contracted prison labor. Also, no evidence
was found of workers being obliged to hand overtheir original identity documents or pay a financial
deposit.47

Analysis and priorities
CU did not find evidence for widespread issues
related to this ALP Code Principle. This is mainly
due to the fact that most workers were relatives,
friends or neighbors. Nevertheless, two cases
were found where workers were paid only at theend of the harvest, which is not in accordance withthe law and poses a risk of forced labor, especiallywhen migrant workers are involved. The low levelof awareness among field technicians and farmerleaders regarding this topic limits their ability todetect such risks. It is crucial that these situations
are closely monitored and addressed if needed.

ULPI’s response:“ULPI conducted follow-up visits for those workers

2.4.2. Direct payment
No evidence was found of workers not being paid
directly by the farmer.

2.4.3. End of harvest payment
Two farmers (4%) paid some of their workers
only at the end of the harvest. This represented apotential risk of forced labor, as these workers had
to wait until the end of the harvest to receive their
payment. This risk was even greater for the migrant
worker (see Chapter 2.2.1), who was not sure if hewould get paid if he would leave his job before theend of the harvest. This meant that he had to stayon the farm waiting to be paid, without being able
to earn money working elsewhere. However, as
described in Chapter 2.3.1, the worker in question
had been given the option to work for a daily wage,
but had opted for a fixed seasonal wage including
accommodation.

who receive payment at the end of the season tovalidate whether they receive the agreed payment.
Agronomy has been doing this validation for the past
3 years and will continue.
The written materials/techno guides will be revised toinclude the Forced Labor standards. Mobile Assistantwill be used to remind farmers during the growing
cycle. Trainings will be done in different crop stages
through the “STP-MOBILE” to improve GO personnel,
farmer leaders, farmers and workers’ awareness.”

47. The Philippine Constitution proscribes involuntary servitude in any form, except as punishment for a crime for whicha party has been duly convicted. See Appendix III for more detailed legal information.
30

External Assessment

2.5. ALP Code Principle 5: Safe work
environment
Farmers shall provide a safe work
environment to prevent accidents andinjury and to minimize health risks.
Accommodation, where provided, shallbe clean, safe and meet the basic needsof the workers.
Main findings and challenges

2.5.1. Training and awareness of GTS

GTS.48 Seven farmers had not received any training,in some cases because their wives instead, had
attended the group meetings and trainings provided
by ULPI. At the remaining 25 farms, family members
and/or workers had not been trained by the farmer.
Furthermore, 28 farmers (49%) were unaware of theexistence of GTS and/or how to avoid it. As a result,these farmers either did not think it necessary to
train their workers, or were unable to train them.
However, in general, farmers and workers were
aware of the need to wear (at least) long sleevesduring harvesting. Only on two farms (4%) no
protective clothing was used at all when handlinggreen tobacco (see Table below). On one farm apregnant woman was observed sticking, an activity
which poses a health risk to the unborn child.

At 32 farms (65%) people responsible for handlinggreen tobacco were not trained on the avoidance of

Use of protective clothing during harvesting

Number of farms

No protective clothing

2 (4%)All protective clothing (Long sleeves, long pants, gloves, and shoes)

11 (22%)

Long sleeves, gloves, long pants

1 (2%)Long sleeves, long pants, shoes

1 (2%)Long sleeves, long pants

10 (20%)Long sleeves, gloves

4 (8%)

Only long sleeves

21 (42%)2.5.2. Training and handling of CPA
Handling CPA proved to be a challenge at all farms visited. Half of the farmers (23, i.e. 53%) did not store
their CPA safely. The main reason was that farmers did not have a CPA cabinet (in 12 cases). Ten farmers did
have a cabinet but no lock. In one cabinet a chicken was found brooding on the shelf next to the chemicals.
Also, on seven farms (empty) CPA containers were observed lying around outside the storage area. In someof these cases, children, including infants, were found playing right next to these containers. Several farmers
reported that they had only been informed to build a CPA cabinet in the weeks before CU’s assessment,
and in some cases the dedicated cash advance from ULPI had not yet arrived.
48. Each employer is required to give complete job safety instructions. See Appendix III for more detailed legal
information, .
31

External Assessment

At 34 farms (65%) people handling CPA were not properly trained on PPE usage. Nineteen farmers claimed
they had not been trained on this topic themselves, only on CPA mixing and application. The majorityof farmers (28, or 54%) were unaware of the necessity to train their workers on safe handling of CPA.
However, on all farms visited, the CPA application equipment was in good condition and free from leaks.
At 43 farms (88%) people responsible for CPA application did not use the complete set of PPE. The main
reason identified by CU was that the PPE (goggles, in particular) was considered uncomfortable to wear
in hot weather. In addition, the mask was described as being too tight and the boots did not fit very wellin several cases. One farmer was found wearing a big plastic bag instead of an apron, and another farmer
was observed using an empty fertilizer bag for the same purpose. Another reason was the general lack ofawareness on the necessity to wear PPE.

Use of PPE for CPA application

Number of farms

All PPE (Apron, Mask, Boots, Gloves, Goggles)

6 (12%)

Apron, Mask, Boots, Gloves (no Goggles)

6 (12%)

Apron, Mask, Gloves, Goggles (no Boots)

1 (2%)

Apron, Mask, Boots, Goggles (no Gloves)

1 (2%)

Apron, Mask, Gloves (no Boots or Goggles)

2 (4%)

Apron, Mask, Goggles (no Boots or Gloves)

1 (2%)

Apron, Boots, Gloves (no Mask or Goggles)

1 (2%)

Mask, Gloves, Goggles (no Apron or Boots)

1 (2%)

Only two of the items above

13 (27%)

Only one of the items above

4 (8%)No PPE at all

13 (27%)

At 31 farms (74%) people did not use gloves during application of fertilizer. Twenty-four farmers reported
that wearing plastic gloves was uncomfortable in the heat. Furthermore, at 12 farms, the farmers and/or workers lacked awareness on the necessity to wear gloves. Some farmers also reported that fertilizer
would stick to their gloves and be wasted, and that they therefore did not use gloves.
The majority of the farmers (36, or 71%) did not take measures to ensure that no one would enter theirfields after recent CPA application. Thirty-one farmers did not know the specific re-entry periods for thedifferent CPAs used. Seventeen farmers were not aware of the necessity to post a warning sign, and ten
farmers said their family members and workers “just knew” not to enter a field after CPA application.

32

External Assessment

During CU’s farm visits, only 13 farmers were able
to present a warning sign that they would put up
after CPA application.
Forty-nine farmers (98%) participated in the CPA
container retrieval program organized by ULPI (seeChapter 1.6). As ULPI did not require the farmers
to triple rinse and pierce CPA containers before
returning them, none of the farmers did so.

2.5.3. Clean drinking and washing waterNo evidence was found of farmers not providing
clean drinking water to family members andworkers. At 13 farms (27%) washing water and/or
soap were not available to the workers; however,in these cases workers generally went home during
lunch break, and washed up there.

2.5.4. Workers accommodation
Of all the farmers visited, only one had a worker
staying on his farm (see Chapter 2.2.1). The
accommodation for this worker was found adequate
and – although very basic – of the same standard as
the accommodation of the farmer. In all other cases,
the workers would go to their own homes afterwork.

Underlying factors that increase risk
Farmers generally considered their farms too
small to take formal measures for a safe work
environment. At 21 farms (54%) farming tools werelying around or were not stored properly. None of
the farmers interviewed had received a first-aid
training, owned a first-aid kit, or had resources toact in case of fire. Four (11%) farmers had resourcesto act in case of emergency, which consisted of aphone number of the local hospital or had means oftransportation to take an injured person to hospital.
Sanitary facilities were available only at the farmer’shouse; none were available in the fields, when thesewere located farther away from the farm house.

Analysis and priorities
Safe work environment, in particular the use of
PPE for CPA application, is one of the two ALP
Code Principles focused on by ULPI. CU’s findings
confirm the relevance of this strategy. However,the fact that awareness and understanding of theneed for safety measures is still low among both
farmers and workers demonstrates that ULPI’s
communication efforts on this topic need to be
improved. Furthermore, while ULPI distributed
PPE and implemented a CPA container retrieval
program, these initiatives have not yet resulted in
the desired change of behavior. As farmers are used
to unsafe practices, they are unlikely to change their
behaviour immediately. Therefore, it is important tounderstand the reasons underlying these practices
and set targets that refer to actual change of
behavior, rather than setting targets for the numberof distributed PPE or collected CPA containers.
ULPI’s response:“To address the issues observed, ULPI will re-enforce
trainings starting with the GO personnel, Seedling
Growers, Farmer Leaders, farmers & their workers. It
will also be included in the “STP MOBILE” training to
be conducted throughout the growing cycle.
ULPI will provide an approved CPA Lock-up storage
to all farmers. GO will verify if the storage is being
used properly to be documented through the ULFS.
A proper PPE - gloves (CPA, fertilizer & Suckercide,
Green Tobacco – suckering and harvesting), boots,mask, goggles & apron that is acceptable and can beused under current field conditions will be provided tofarmers annually.
ULPI will evaluate different types of gloves that arewater-resistant and not too thin for GTS avoidance.
ULPI will provide re-entry signage to farmers to ensurethat people are properly warned about entering thefield/crop. The same will be included in ULPI trainings
to promote awareness.

33

External Assessment

ULPI will not accept return of empty CPAs that are
not triple rinsed/punctured from the farmers. The
importance of this endeavor will be explained indetails during farmers’ trainings and through “STP
MOBILE”. Farmers will be reminded by blast messages

ULPI’s response:“ULPI will include this topic during trainings forfarmers’ and workers’ awareness. Also, this will bemonitored through the online system.”through the Mobile Assistant.
ULPI’s Environment, Health, Safety & Security (EHSS)
group will conduct a “Train the Trainers Training”

2.7. ALP Code Principle 7: Compliancewith the law

on first-aid to Field Personnel (GO & Agronomy) to
be rolled out to Seedling Growers, Farmer Leaders,
Farmers & Workers. This topic will also be part of “STP
MOBILE” training. ULPI will provide First Aid Kit toFarmers shall comply with all laws of
their country relating to employment.

farmers annually as part of their cost of production.”

Main findings and challenges

2.6. ALP Code Principle 6: Freedom of
association
Farmers shall recognize and respect
workers’ rights to freedom of association
bargain collectively.

Main findings and challenges

2.6.1. Workers’ right to freedom of
association
No evidence was found of farmers disrespecting
their workers’ right to freedom of association49.
There were no active labor unions in the region of
the assessment. Farmers allowed their workers to
discuss common work goals and interests.

Analysis and priorities
This ALP Code Principle was not a focus area for
ULPI, which is understandable because the risk ofviolation of workers’ right to freedom of association
appeared to be low. Additionally, field technicians
had an adequate knowledge of this topic.

2.7.1. Information on legal rights
Typically, farmers informed their workers about thebasic employment conditions at their farm, such as
the wage they would receive, the hours they needed
to work, their tasks, and payment conditions. 50
However, none of the farmers fully informed theirworkers about their rights in terms of legal benefits,
the legal minimum wage or the legal minimum rate
for overtime hours. This was found to be due to two
reasons: (1) farmers lacked the legal knowledge
to inform their workers properly, and (2) farmers
were unaware of their responsibility to provide thisinformation to their workers.

Analysis and priorities
While field technicians show a limited understandingof this topic, farmers are even less aware of the legal
rights of workers. They do not understand that it istheir responsibility to inform workers about theirlegal rights. ULPI also does not provide informationon legal aspects to farmers (see Chapter 1.4.1).
Clearly, the knowledge of field technicians andfarmers on this ALP Code Principle needs to be
improved. In particular, more attention should begiven to the farmer’s obligation to inform workersof their legal rights.

49. The Philippine Constitution protects the freedom of workers to form and join unions for purposes which are notcontrary to law. See Appendix III for more detailed legal information.
50. Written employment contracts are not required under Philippine law. Agreements are verbal and workers will only
be informed about the working conditions verbally (See Appendix III for more detailed legal information).
34

External Assessment

ULPI’s response:“Compliance with the Law standard will be
included in the revised written materials and will be
communicated to farmers through the “STP MOBILE”
training. Farmer’s obligation of informing the workersof their legal rights will be reiterated. GO personnel
will be given exams bi-monthly to improve theirknowledge. This principle will be monitored throughthe online system.”

35

Chapter 3

ALP Program: feedback from farmers,
workers, and other stakeholders

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

Control Union asked farmers, family members andworkers what had changed on their farms since thestart of the ALP Program. The general feeling wasthat the number of children working in tobacco
production had decreased and that farmers andworkers were better protected when working
with chemicals. Three farmers reported that they
were not motivated to implement ALP, because
their financial situation was insufficient to follow
the standard and other crops in the region did not
require the same standards. Some farmers also
reported that they were originally unaware that the
inputs and PPE provided to them by ULPI would be
deducted from the payment for their tobacco, andthat they were not free to choose whether or notthey wanted to receive these inputs.51
In addition to farmers, family members and workers,
CU also interviewed two other stakeholders: (1)a group of four teachers from a local elementary
school who participated in the Let’s PLAY and
Adopt a School initiatives; and (2) a local community
judge52 who acted as a mediator for labor issues
between workers and farmers. The teachers, whotaught children about the risks of child labor andhelped ULPI in monitoring school attendance, were
full of praise for the Let’s PLAY program and the help
from ULPI in both initiatives. They had noticed thatthe number of child labor incidents had decreased
due to the efforts of ULPI. The community judge
did not have any connections with ULPI. He would
be present during the salary discussions between
the farmers in his barangay and act as a mediator
between farmers and workers, but had a limited
understanding of ALP.

Field technicians received feedback from farmers
as well as workers and family members during
their farm visits . They would discuss their findings
during meetings with their supervisors. However,there was no structured process for reporting thesefindings to the ALP team. Meeting minutes onlyreflected the topics that had been discussed, but
did not record any feedback from the field or details
about the discussions.
Farmers could send feedback to ULPI through the
ULFS. These messages were being forwarded to therelevant department or person who would respondand file the feedback. However, farmers were notspecifically encouraged to provide feedback throughthis system, resulting in few feedback messages.
None of the messages viewed by CU related to ALP.
Furthermore, ULPI talked with farmers during
tobacco delivery to obtain their feedback. This
information was then reviewed and dealt withaccordingly. However, also in this case there wasno structured process for reporting (ALP-related)
feedback to the ALP team.

51. Which was done in order to ensure only approved materials would be applied and used.
52. Locally referred to as the lupong tagapaya
37

Chapter 4

Appendices

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Universal Leaf Philippines

External Assessment

Appendix I – Universal Leaf Philippine’s Action PlanULPI’s Response and Actions Plans on ALP

2. Strategy and Objectives

Universal Leaf Philippines’, Inc. (ULPI) appreciates
Control Union’s (CU) dedication and efforts in
conducting an ALP assessments regarding its
implementation within ULPI’s operations.
We
considered it as an important process in determining
different areas for improvement and very helpful inestablishing Action Plans to further enhance theimplementation of ALP.

As commented by CU, a formal process forsetting the strategy and objectives for ALP
implementation could not be identified; however, it
was acknowledged that a Risk Assessment and root
cause analysis was conducted. Other commentsfrom CU regarding prioritization of issues over theother principles, identified high probability risks
and the strategies in addressing issues with timeline
were highly appreciated and noted. ULPI assured
that it will be considered in the Action Plans (AP) tobe implemented.

ULPI realized that it has still a long way to go –from educating the Growing Operations (GO)personnel, Farmer Leaders, Farmers and Workers.
ULPI is committed to address and show continuous
improvement for a sustainable production involving
its farmers and workers. ALP implementation is agreat challenge due to our farmers’ culture. ULPI isdetermined to indoctrinate ALP within our farmer
base to demonstrate that it is the right thing to do as
a company, industry and for their family members.

Implementation of the ALP Program
1. Commitment to the ALP Program
ULPI will continue to exert effort in educating
the GO personnel, farmers and workers in theimplementation and observance of ALP principles
throughout the season in the growing areas. Our
goal is to ensure that fair labor practices are
executed and problems are resolved. Aside fromChild Labor and Safe Working Environment whichwere identified as priorities, ULPI will improvemonitoring and documenting the other 5 ALP
Principles (Income, Work Hours & Benefit to Farm
Workers; Fair Treatment; Forced Labor; Freedom of
Association and Compliance with the Law).

Using PPE during CPA handling and application
were prioritized due to farmers’ exposure withthe different CPA’s and the degree of injury, notonly during tobacco growing season, but year
round, doing the same activity to their other crops
unprotected. Also, breaking the farmers’ habits
take time, but “educating” the farmer on why it isnecessary for themselves and their workers to use
the PPEs is much better than “telling or requiring”
the farmer without any reason behind the PPE
usage. Once the farmer or worker requests that a
PPE is needed to accomplish the task at hand, themessage has been successfully understood by allparties.
ULPI has been conducting a “Worker Survey”
annually since CY 14 which is surveying the farmers’
workers on different ALP measurable standards.
The results were used as a basis in determining
priorities. A Grievance Mechanism hotline wasestablished in CY 15 and known by both farmers
and workers. Farmers used the hotline to reporttheir concerns. Also, during the survey interviews,
workers said that they will use the hotline to reportissues.

39

External Assessment

Farmers usually pay the workers’ wages the amountthat is prevailing in the Barangays. The amount
was set and agreed by different sectors (Barangay
Officials and citizens including farmers). Payment
frequency is included in the Worker Survey and theresults showed that it met the Barangay standard.
ULPI will continue to educate the farmers on
existing laws regarding minimum wage and paymentof wages. They will be informed on the different
modes of employment, obligations as employer andthe rights of laborers/workers. In case the farmers
need support for proper documentation in engaging
the services of their laborers, ULPI will provide atemplate document stating the employment detailsof the laborer. Compliance with existing labor laws
on minimum wage and proper payment of wages will
form part of the field validation activities. Recurring
violations will form part of prompt action and may besubjected to the corresponding corrective actions.
ULPI will gather data for CY 2018. Information onsalaries and wages will be used as baseline numbers
to determine the level of compliance by ULPI
registered farmers. Action plans will be devised for
implementation on succeeding crop seasons. ULPI
will also continue to conduct the survey using PMI’s
SOP4CoP for the past 3 years to record labor hours
for each activity.
There are also few farmers who were engaged in“End of Season Payment” which was agreed by theworkers before their services were rendered. In thiscase, ULPI re-visited the workers once the farmer
delivered their tobacco crop to verify if the farmer
had paid them as agreed. In all cases, the workers
were paid as promised/contracted.
Data collection, monitoring and reporting of ALP
principles, including child labor starts during
seedling production through baling (preparing the
tobacco for receiving).
3. ULPI’s Internal Capacity for ALP Implementationa) Organizational Structure, Roles &Responsibilities
ULPI’s ALP structure is composed of different
departments – each with its key roles and functions
to perform. Since ALP is an integral part of

Sustainable Tobacco Program (STP) which is the“People Pillar”, the same Team is responsible in
the program’s implementation. Each department
consists of Directors, Managers and Staff from thedifferent Regions. ULPI’s Upper Management andULT Regional serve as advisers, participating during
meetings and audits. They also approve and provide
resources for the implementation of various
projects/programs.
The STP/ALP Coordinator leads the Agronomy Team,
who has indirect involvement with the farmers andhas vast knowledge on STP including ALP. They
work closely with the GO personnel in conducting
trainings and are very familiar with farmers’
practices. Their expertise make them suitable in
conducting unannounced visits to ensure that Best
Practices (BP) are adaptable to farmers and applied/
documented throughout the tobacco season fora sustainable production. The Risk Management
Group (formerly Internal Audit Team) that CU
identified as unique in ULPI’s structure, operates
independently and also responsible for conducting
unannounced farm visits to verify complex issues
including Child Labor.
Other Departments
involved in ALP implementation are Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR), Legal, Information
Technology (IT) for system development, and the
System Standards & Development Group (SSDG)
responsible in generating reports thru the Universal
Leaf Farm System (ULFS).
CU also observed that there were no specific ALPrelated responsibilities in the job description of
ALP Coordinator and ULPI Staff (GO/Agronomy/
RMG); however, everybody were informed about
their tasks. Few weeks after CU’s Closing Meeting,
the Country Team met to discuss their findings.
The current job description of ALP Coordinatorand ULPI’s staff were reviewed. Human Resources
updates the current job descriptions to incorporate
the identified responsibilities related to ALP for thefollowing group:• GO Production Manager– – Supervise,monitorand
implement
Agricultural Labor Practices (ALP) to Farmer,
40

External Assessment

Farmer Leader, Farm Supervisor and Area
Coordinator;–– Train, monitor and implement Sustainable
Tobacco Program (STP) covering Governance,
Crop, Environment and People (ALP) Pillars.
• GO Area Coordinator–– Conduct farmers’ meeting and orientation
seminar on Package of Technology (POT)
and other significant topics such as NTRM,
Tobacco Moisture, Agricultural Labor
Practices (ALP) and recruitment;–– Train Farm Supervisors, Farmers and Farmer
Leaders on the Principles of ALP–– Train, monitor and implement Sustainable
Tobacco Program (STP) covering Governance,
Crop, Environment and People (ALP) Pillars;–– Report, monitor and follow up with Action
Plans from Prompt Action Issues identified
for ALP, NTRM, Moisture, CPAs and etc.
–– Monitor farmer’s performance throughregular farm visits at every production stage
to ensure that they meet the company’s
requirements and recommend adjustments if
necessary including ALP related matters.
• GO Farm Supervisor–– Train, monitor and implement Sustainable
Tobacco Program (STP) covering Governance,
Crop, Environment and People (ALP) Pillars;–– Train the Farmers and Farmer Leaders on ALP
principles;–– Report Prompt Action Issues for ALP, NTRM,
Moisture, CPAs and etc.
–– Reportany
farmers’
violations
andrecommends mitigation measures including
ALP related matters;–– Regularly visit the farms and accomplish
monitoring tools for NTRM and ALP related
in the tobacco plantation.

• Agronomy Coordinators & Supervisors– – Roll out the ALP code to farmer leaders,farmers and workers through trainings incooperation with GO personnel;– – Conduct unannounced visits to farmers,
report prompt action issues and violations on
the ALP principles if there is any;
– – Conduct parallel data collection throughworkers’ interview verifying GO’s data toestablish accuracy;– – Attend GO’s bi-monthly meetings to keepthem up-to-date on STP/ALP related matters;– – Assist the STP/ALP Coordinator in various
works such as creation of pamphlets, techno
guides, etc.;– – Give support to STP/ALP Coordinator during
trainings and the execution of technicalexams;– – Conducts GO re-orientation on electronic
data collection.
• Risk Management GroupInternal Audit Team)(RMG)(formerly– – Incorporate all ALP principles (7) not justChild Labor during their unannounced visits;– – Conduct parallel data collection throughsampling (with Agronomy Team);– – Conduct unannounced visits to farmers with
ALP violations to verify recurrence of issues
if there is any.
The
STP/ALP
Coordinator’s
responsibilities
mentioned in CU’s report will be included in the job
description accordingly.
It was also noted in CU’s report that the Field Staff/
GO had one Key Performance Indicator (KPI) related
to ALP which was the 100% retrieval of empty/used
CPA containers from the farms. GO’s KPI’s werealso reviewed. The revised KPI’s has 55% related to
the whole STP including ALP (20.5%) - Farm Profile,41

External Assessment

ALP trainings, CPA Storage, PPE and Empty CPA
retrieval are identified indicators to be included in
the upcoming crop season. As mentioned earlier, aparallel audit sampling will be conducted by RMG
and Agronomy to establish the accuracy of GO
reports.
ULPI considers the Farmer Leaders as valuable
partners in its operations. However, CU identified
the Farmer Leaders’ system not being very effective
in obtaining ALP-related data from the field due
to various reasons as stated in the report. ULPI
appreciated CU’s observations. This insight will assist
ULPI formulate the appropriate steps in finding theright solutions. For the next season, Farmer Leaders
will be empowered in data collection (ensuring
Compliance on Data Access and Usage as stated in
the Contract Growing Agreement) and reporting by
providing 100 tablet units that has the capability toreport ALP issues as a pilot project. Reporting will
be done by daily update using ULPI’s on-line system.
Intensive trainings will be conducted to teach theFarmer Leaders on the reporting structures withclose supervision and guidance from GO Personnel
and Agronomy. RMG and Agronomy will conduct aparallel reporting to verify the accuracy of Farmer
Leaders’ data covering all 7 ALP principles. If thisproject produces reliable and effective results, theprogram will be expanded and implemented to theother Farmer Leaders in 2019.
Also, it is the Farmer Leaders’ obligation to
implement all government laws and ULPI policies
including the ALP principles as stated in theirrespective contracts. Any violations such as the
improper implementation of STP and ALP principles
committed by Farmer Leader would cause forthe termination of the agreement. GO personnel
will reiterate and ensure that Farmer Leaders
understand and agree with the provisions statedin their respective contracts before signing andjoining ULPI’s future undertakings. Furthermore,
all contracts are translated in Filipino language
for better understanding of all parties involved
especially the Farmer Leaders.

b) Training and Communication of the ALP
ProgramIntensive trainings will be conducted in multiple
sessions to re-enforce GO personnel and Farmer
Leader’s understanding on all ALP principles.
Different scenarios (actual photos) and various
training methods (such as drama) will be used.
Agronomy will conduct unannounced exams to
the GO personnel and Farmer Leaders meeting(bi-monthly) to assess their knowledge. The ALP
principles will be uploaded in the tablets which
can be accessed thru the Universal Leaf Integrated
Information System (ULIIS) interface anytime
as necessary. Results of technical exams will besummarized at the end of Crop 2018 to determine
the GO personnel and Farmer Leaders’ strengths
and weaknesses. Future trainings (Crop 2019) will
focus on weak areas that have been be identified.
Handling green tobacco without proper PPE, whichis considered not meeting the standard, would be
included and emphasized during these trainings.
The written materials/techno guides will be revisedusing pictures (like comics style). This will help
farmers to understand better the 7 ALP principles.
Also, a video clip will be installed on GO personnel/
RMG/Agronomy tablets to be shown and discussedwith the farmers during trainings. The same
information will be given to farmers in CD’s. The
video clip will be posted in a public website to becreated by ULPI that can be viewed by farmers who
have Internet access.
To re-enforce STP Training, which includes ALP,ULPI is going to use a specialized truck (STPMOBILE Training) to visit all the Farmer Leadersand most of the farmers on an annual basis. These
trainings will be done in the fields, basically going
through all the details during the growing cycle –seedbeds, transplanting, vegetative, harvesting andmarket preparation. The trainers will have intensive
knowledge on ALP & STP. Our objective is to have
STP-MOBILE visit the different areas at least 4
times annually in the field.

42

External Assessment

Agronomy will determine the ALP principles as to when it is applicable based on current field activities.
The Mobile Assistant (hotline number) will be used to communicate various messages to remind farmers
on ALP principles. Messages will be translated in Filipino and/or local dialect for better communication andunderstanding by the farmers.
ULPI will continue to train GO personnel, farmers and workers in various stages throughout the growing
cycle. Below is the updated training for CY17.

c) Farm Monitoring, Data Collection andAddressing Issues
It was mentioned in CU’s report that GO personnel
did not have sufficient time in filling up the monitoring
forms. With this feedback, ULPI will review andsimplify all monitoring forms and reports. Manual
data collection was done in the past and encoded
in a simple Excel Sheet used as a data base. Using
this system, collected data was not analyzed in atimely manner and addressing any Prompt Action
Issues were somewhat delayed. Also, information
gathered annually were changing as ALP evolves and
ULPI realized the importance of having an internal
on-line system for data collection. The survey
questionnaires were developed in the Universal
Leaf Integrated Information System (ULIIS) installedin GO personnel’s laptops. Farm Profiles and Good
Agricultural Practices (GAP) Technical Checklists
were already system based since CY 14. The ALP

monitoring tools were deployed early this year andwill be fully implemented/used for CY 18 by GO andFarmer Leaders.
To further assist the GO Personnel, ULPI purchased
customized tablet units that are more user-friendly
compared to laptops used for the past 7 years. All
GO Personnel, RMG and Agronomy will be using thetablets for this coming season to record real timeissue, including the 100 Farmer Leaders within the
Pilot Project.
ULPI has established satellite offices close to themain growing areas equipped with Internet tofacilitate speedy reporting. Once the GO personnel
upload reports in the ULPI main server, theUniversal Leaf Farm System (ULFS) managed by the
SSDG generates a summary report (dashboard) for43

External Assessment

the STP/ALP Team. The same report can be viewed
by GO and ULPI’s Upper Management. The quick
availability of reports will be a great help for ULPI
to ensure that issues are addressed promptly with a
pro-active management approach.
In the past, data collection was done at different crop
stages. Farm Profile was accomplished annuallyduring recruitment. Farmers’ personal information
including their family members was done once –usually at the beginning of the growing season orcontract signing. Existing information from theprevious crop year were stored in GO personnel
laptop and it could be amended or reviewed once thefarmer signs their new contract. Common examples
are inclusion (newborn) or deletion (deceased)of family members or changes in status. Ages areautomatically computed by the system based on thebirth dates.
Other information captured is the “registered area”(area that the farmer and ULPI is assuming to betransplanted for the upcoming crop). This figure
didn’t change so when CU made their assessment,
it was perceived that the data in the Farm Profile
was inaccurate because it was different from the“declared adjusted area” by the farmer. Farmer’s
actual area planted is measured by GO personnel
or FL with a GPS device 10 to 14 days after
transplanting. This new “adjusted area” is recorded
in several reports such as the Farmer Checklist

and the Farm Plan, Budget and Requisition screen
within the ULFS. To address the issue noted by
CU, the system will automatically update the GPS
area in the Farm Profile once the data is uploadedin the checklist. Also, the number of hired workers
recorded in the Farm Profile was an estimatednumber declared by the farmer at contracting. This
information will be recorded during the growing
season for better accuracy and will be linked to theFarm Profile.
ALP is incorporated in all farmer’s trainings done atdifferent crop stages and currently not linked with
the Farm Profile. Similar to the other information
mentioned above, ULPI will create a software toincorporate this information within the Farm Profile
annually.
Lists of Prompt Actions Issues (PAI) and situations
not meeting the standard will be provided to all
GO Personnel. The PAI identified by CU and ULPI
will be monitored during every farmer’s visit.
Each PAI are categorized into - Moderate, Severeand Extreme Breaches depending on severity. To
discourage farmer in committing such violations,the below standard was implemented on the
recently concluded crop season. Other issues notmeeting the standard will be addressed by the GO
Management – root causes will be identified andan Action Plan will be implemented to resolve theissues.

Once all issues (including not meeting the standard) are reported in the system by GO personnel, RMG
and Agronomy, the ALP Coordinator is automatically informed. For any PAI, GO are not involved in theverification thru unannounced visit to eliminate any conflict of interest within ULPI organization. Followup visits and reports will then be assigned to the responsible person.
If Agronomy and RMG also report any issues that they observed during their random farmers’ visits, it isimperative that the unannounced visit would be handled by RMG or vice versa. If a farmer committed any
44External Assessment

moderate PAI in the current year once, the counting will be continued in the upcoming season (see below
Farmer A). In the below example, both Farmers A & B will not be contracted in CY’18.

Process Flow of Reporting & Addressing Issues:
Not meeting the standard - these are activities that can be resolved with a mutual agreement between
ULPI and farmer through an action plan. Trainings or orientations by either GO/RMG/Agronomy will begiven immediately

45

External Assessment

Moderate - these are activities that maybe time consuming and can affect health. Trainings or orientations
by either GO/RMG/Agronomy will be given immediately. Root cause analysis and action plans must be
done.

46

External Assessment

Severe - these are activities that require vigorous effort and energy. It greatly affects the health and mental
capacity of an individual.

47

External Assessment

Extreme Breaches – these activities are difficult to observe as they are illegal and likely to be hidden. The
severity of these issues means that they cannot be dealt with by the GO personnel as part of their normal
engagement process or as part of a continuous improvement cycle, instead, this requires careful handlingby the Legal Department. These are issues that ULPI could not tolerate and need immediate action whenobserved.

48

External Assessment

4. Farm Level Assessment of Working
Conditions
a. Child LaborULPI will intensify its trainings through the “STPMOBILE” to create awareness among farmers andworkers regarding age specifications and the typeof work allowed per age group. Hazardous tasks will
be defined and explained. The Mobile Assistant will
be utilized to blast text messages throughout thegrowing season to remind farmers and ensure better
understanding on Child Labor principles. ULPI willcontinue to be proactive in reporting issues, identify
the various root causes and implement projects toaddress the issues such as the Summer School andAfter-School Programs. As mentioned and basedon CU’s experience, the Summer School initiative is
one of the best programs seen in the Philippines so
far for reducing the risk of child labor. Also, ULPI
will continue to monitor children’s attendance inpublic elementary schools found in growing areas
to determine if the absenteeism is due to tobacco
related activities.
b. Income, Work Hours & Benefits to Farm Workers
It was mentioned in CU’s findings that the level ofawareness among farmers and workers regarding
the legal minimum wage was relatively low. In orderto promote awareness, ULPI’s written materials will
be revised to include the necessary details of thisprinciple which will be distributed to farmers andworkers. Farmers’ compliance will be monitored
thru the on-line reporting system (ULIIS).
ULPI will gather information thru the on-line system
to better establish the current situation covering
100% of farmers and a bigger survey coverage withthe workers. Questions include the wage rate andother benefits provided by the farmers such as lunch
and snacks. With these information, ULPI could
establish a better scenario and validate farmers’
payment to workers and to determine whether the
existing barangay ordinances are fair to all parties
involve (farmers & workers).

The revised written materials will elaborate theinformation based on work hours and overtime
payment. Messages and reminders will be blasted
through ULPI’s Mobile Assistant to farmers during
the growing cycle.
ULPI will conduct an intensive orientation tofarmers and their permanent workers regarding
their obligations about legal benefits. Farmers whohire temporary workers are not expected to givecertain mandatory benefits accorded to permanent
workers because a temporary worker usually justwork an average of 15-20 sporadic or intermittent
days with the same farmer throughout the growing
season.
c. Fair Treatment
No issue was found that violates Fair Treatment
principle nor reported since ALP was implemented
in CY 13. ULPI issued cellphone units to farmers
and encouraged them to report any concerns they
have through the Mobile Assistant. Workers when
asked said that they are willing to report any issues
that involves any ULPI personnel, farmer leadersand farmers. Most farmers are utilizing the Mobile
Assistant to follow up their requests and raise
concerns related to tobacco production, but none of
their texts received were related to ALP; however,
CU commented that this was most likely due tothe fact that the grievance support mechanism/
Mobile Assistant was not independent and notanonymous. To address this, ULPI is in search of a
Non-Government Organization (NGO) that will becontracted to annually visit barangays to inquire andevaluate ALP related issues from any ULPI farmers
and workers. Part of the NGO’s responsibility will beto train the Barangay Officials on ALP. This process
will create an open communication between the
NGO & Barangay officials related to any prevailing
ALP issues. In addition, Barangay Officials haveestablished process that any unresolved issues intheir barangays are elevated to the higher level(municipality).

49

External Assessment

d. Forced Labor
CU did not find evidence of widespread issues
related to the Forced Labor Principle. However,there were some cases where workers were paid
at the end of harvest which posed a risk of forcedlabor. Though farmer and worker both agreed withthis condition before any labor was done on the
farmer’s crop, ULPI conducted follow-up visits for
those workers who receive payment at the end of theseason to validate whether they receive the agreed
payment. Agronomy has been doing this validation
for the past 3 years and will continue. Agronomy
will conduct orientation annually to farmers andpermanent workers wherein “End of Season”
payment possibly occurs in order for the farmer
to understand his obligations such as payment oflegal benefits. Worker’s rights and benefits will betackled in details. It will be part of the orientation
to inform the farmers on the requirement of existinglaws on payment of wages. Further, they will be
educated on the different allowable acceptablemodes of employment, and on how they can comply
with existing Philippine Labor laws, regulation and
DOLE orders, memos or issuances.
The written materials/techno guides will be revised
to include the Forced Labor standards. Mobile
Assistant will be used to remind farmers during thegrowing cycle. Trainings will be done in different
crop stages thru the “STP-MOBILE” to improve GO
personnel, farmer leaders, farmers and workers’
awareness.
e. Safe Work Environment
CU observed several issues during the assessment.
These include lack of trainings for GTS and proper
CPA handling, Re-entry Interval and general safetymeasures. To address the issues observed, ULPI will
re-enforce trainings starting with the GO personnel,
Seedling Growers, Farmer Leaders, farmers &their workers. It will also be included in the “STP
MOBILE” training to be conducted throughout thegrowing cycle.

ULPI will provide an approved CPA Lock-up Storage
to all farmers. GO will verify if the storage is being
used properly to be documented thru the ULFS.
Different PPE’s were shown to farmers for theirevaluation in July. A proper PPE - gloves (CPA,
fertilizer & Suckercide, Green Tobacco – suckeringand harvesting), boots, mask, goggles & apron thatis acceptable and can be used under current field
conditions will be provided to farmers annually.
In the past, ULPI issued cotton gloves to farmers
intended for GTS avoidance. CU commented thatthe cotton gloves are inappropriate because thesewere thin and not waterproof. ULPI will evaluate
different types of gloves that are water-resistantand not too thin for GTS avoidance. The issue will
be whether the farmer will use these gloves because
it might be too uncomfortable and it would make it
difficult for the worker to stick the tobacco.
ULPI will provide REI signage to farmers to ensurethat people are properly warned about entering
the field/crop. The same will be included in ULPI
trainings to promote awareness.
Most farmers provide drinking water in the farm and/or working area. In several instances, workers also
bring their drinking water especially when the farmis distant from the farmers’ houses. Workers live inthe same villages with the farmers and they go totheir home every day. It is seldom that workers areaccommodated by the farmers. If accommodation
happens, the worker stay in the farmers’ houses and
ULPI will continue to document on their facilities toensure it meets the required standard.
ULPI’s existing written materials/techno guides
include the step-by-step procedure of triple rinsing
the empty CPA containers in Filipino language toeducate the farmers. Nevertheless and in mostcases, farmers do not meet this requirement. To
ensure that this is properly done in the future, ULPI
will not accept return of empty CPAs that are nottriple rinsed/punctured from the farmers. The

50

External Assessment

importance of this endeavor will be explained in details during farmers’ trainings and thru “STP MOBILE”.
Farmers will be reminded by blast messages through the Mobile Assistant.

ULPI will continue its empty CPA containers retrieval & disposal program with the active participationfrom the different CPA Manufacturers. For this past crop year, ULPI included retrieval of empty CPA’s usedin other crops.

51External Assessment

It was stated in CU’s report that awareness andunderstanding of the need for safety measures isstill low among ULPI’s farmers and workers. Also,none of the farmers interviewed had received
a first-aid training, owned a first-aid kit, or had
resources to act in case of fire. As a start, ULPI’s
Environment, Health, Safety & Security (EHSS)
group will conduct a “Train the Trainers Training”
on first-aid to Field Personnel (GO & Agronomy)
to be rolled out to Seedling Growers, Farmer
Leaders, Farmers & Workers. This topic will also bepart of “STP MOBILE” training. ULPI will provide
First Aid Kit to farmers annually as part of theircost of production. In addition, all villages in thePhilippines have Barangay Centers with a trained
Health Worker, accessible for farmers and workers
intended to cater people’ needs. In the future,through the NGO’s barangay visits, ULPI can verify
if there are any issues related to safety caused by
tobacco production, i.e. GTS, pesticides, etc.

f. Freedom of Association
There were no issues found in this principle.
Nevertheless, ULPI will still include this topic during
trainings for farmers and workers’ awareness. Also,
this will be monitored through the on-line system.
g. Compliance with the Law
Compliance with the Law standard will be includedin the revised written materials and will be
communicated to farmers thru the “STP MOBILE”
training. Farmer’s obligation of informing theworkers of their legal rights will be reiterated. GO
personnel will be given exams bi-monthly to improvetheir knowledge. This principle will be monitored
through the on-line system.

52

External Assessment

Appendix II – Scope and methodology
Assessment team
The team responsible for conducting this assessment
consisted of three Filipino auditors, one IlocanoFilipino translator, and two CU coordinatorsfrom Germany and Argentina.53 The auditors
conducted farm assessments and interviewed fieldtechnicians. The two coordinators interviewed
ULPI management and external stakeholders. The
auditors as well as the coordinators were trained
by Verité and Control Union.54 This qualification
process consisted of the following stages:• Selection of candidates by CU;• Webinars organized by CU to verify suitability ofcandidates;• Completion of online training provided by Verité;• Full week classroom training conducted by Verité
with CU;• Two-day refresher training by the CU coordinator
prior to starting the field visits; and• Shadowing during farm visits by CU coordinators.
The translator received one day’s training prior to thefield visits. This training focused on understanding
the ALP Code and the translator’s role during thefield visits. 55

Desk review
Prior to this assessment ULPI was requested tosend documentation to CU to give the assessment
team a better idea about the market characteristics
and the management systems that were in place.
PMFTC56 provided the legal information that was

relevant to the ALP Code (See Appendix III for moredetailed legal information). This was important toensure a thorough preparation of the assessment.

Opening meeting
On 22 March 2017, CU started the assessment with ameeting at ULPI’s head office in Manila, Philippines.
This meeting was attended by ULPI’s management
team (ULPI President, ALP Coordinator, Executive
Vice President, Sr. Vice President for Sales, Sr.
Vice President and Vice President for Growing
Operations, two Directors for Growing Operations,the Corporate Affairs & Compliance Manager andthe Regional Agronomist for Asia) as well as PMI
Regional. CU presented the objectives and approachof the assessment, while ULPI provided a brief
overview of the market and company background.

Methodology for ALP implementation
system review
The methodology used for evaluating ULPI’s
implementation of the ALP Program was based on
the widely used PDCA57 cycle, which is a management
method for the continuous improvement ofprocesses and products. As part of this evaluation,
CU spent one day (22 March 2017) at ULPI’s head
office and one and a half days (24-25 March 2017)at the local office for Region 2 in Reina Mercedes.
CU interviewed management staff, analyzed
documentation, and evaluated ULPI’s systems, tobetter understand how the implementation of the
ALP Program was organized. In total, CU interviewed
16 management personnel, 11 field personnel, andten farmer-leaders. Additionally, CU interviewed
two stakeholders: a group of four teachers from53. The coordinator from Argentina did not stay for the entire assessment, but only for the management assessment
and two field days.
54. Two of the auditors had already conducted an assessment in the Philippines in 2014, and had been trained in 2013.
The third auditor was trained in 2016.
55. The translator was requested to literally translate the conversation between auditors and the interviewees, in order
to avoid any type of interpretation.
56. See glossary
57. Plan, Do, Check, Act
53

External Assessment

a local elementary school involved in ULPI initiatives, and a local community judge. All interviews wereconducted individually, so that interviewees felt comfortable to speak freely and raise any issues.

Scope and farm sampling
Tobacco production in the Philippines is concentrated mainly on the islands of Luzon and Mindanao. At
the time of the assessment, ULPI mainly sourced tobacco from Region 1 and Region 2 on Luzon (see graphbelow).

ULPI Tobacco production in Isabela

To ensure a manageable sample size, the present assessment focused on ULPI-contracted Burley farmers
located in the Western Isabela region, namely the districts of Quezon, Mallig, Quirino, Roxas, Burgos andGamu (see graph below). The two municipalities San Mariano and Benito Soliven were excluded from thescope of the assessment because of local safety risks due to political instability. The number of farmers
contracted in these two municipalities was relatively small and their omission only reduced the required
sample size by one farm.
The majority of the farmers in the scope of this assessment (64%) grew tobacco on an area of less than one
hectare, while 34% grew an area of 1-2 hectares and 2% grew more than two hectares. The majority of the
farmers rented the land they farmed.

54

External Assessment

In 2017, ULPI had contracts with 2,287 Burley
farmers in Western Isabela. Excluding the twomunicipalities mentioned above, the total numberof farmers in the scope of this assessment was
2,240. These farmers were supported by four
production managers, 12 field technicians and 69
farmer-leaders. To constitute a meaningful sample,
CU needed to visit at least 48 farms, the square rootof the total population of farmers within the scope.
In total, CU visited 55 farmers, which were sampled
randomly or selected based on geographical spread.
Additionally, six farms with reported Prompt
Actions were visited. These visits were shorter andfocused only on the reported incident.
Over a period of two weeks CU visited 9-12 farms
per day, where each field day was followed by areporting day.

The graphs below provide demographic information
about the farms visited.
Farm size (ha contracted by ULPI)
2%
9%

89%

0-1
1<-2
>2

55

External Assessment

Previously contracted by ULPI

Stage of tobacco production

5%
Growing

12

Topping95%

24

Harvesting

39

Curing38

Yes
No

Classifying

Land ownership of farms
contracted by ULPI

6

Delivery of
tobacco

4% 2%
9%

1

0

10

20

30

40

Number of farms

Type of farm
2%
85%

4%

16%
Owned
Leased9%

Sharecropping*Owned and Leased*Sharecropping: in this assessment, two farmers werefarming the land of close relatives (their mother andgrandmother, respectively), for which they received ten
percent of the net farm income, after deduction of all costs.

69%

Family farm with only family
members working
Farm with only local workers(no family members)
Farm with family members andlocal workers
Farm with family members andlocal and migrant workers
Sharecropping farm with family
members and local workers

56External Assessment

Thanks to the openness and collaboration of ULPI,
CU managed to conduct the majority (98%) of the
farm visits unannounced. 58 This meant that thefarmers had not been informed about the visit andits objectives prior to CU’s arrival. ULPI did inform
farmers in the weeks before the assessment that avisit could take place within a certain period, but said
nothing in the days prior to the visits. The first days
CU informed ULPI about the names of the selected
field technicians the day before their visit would
take place. On the last two days of field visits theselected field technicians had only been informed
the same morning. The names of the farmers were
provided on the day of the visit in the car, and only
for the next farmer. The reason for this is that CU
wanted to obtain a realistic picture of the farm
practices, which was most likely to be seen whenarriving unannounced.

Methodology for ALP farm practices
review
The methodology used during the farm visits was
based on triangulation of information. Auditors
were instructed to seek at least two, preferably
three, sources of information. They used theirfindings to draw conclusions about whether farm
practices were meeting the standard of the ALP
Code. These sources could be interviews with
farmers, family members, or workers. Sources
could also include documentation and visualobservation of the farm area, field, storage facility,
and curing barns. This methodology was also
used to investigate the underlying factors that
increase the risk of not meeting the standard. In
addition to information triangulation CU also used
the “Five Whys” methodology, a commonly usedtechnique to obtain an understanding of problems,
to investigate the reasons behind certain issues.
Before every interview CU explained the objectiveof the assessment and assured interviewees that all
information would be kept completely anonymous.
Next to assessing labor practices, CU also verified

the impact of ULPI’s management systems and the
ALP Program, to see how this was perceived by fieldtechnicians, farmers, family members, and workers.

People interviewed
Whenever possible, interviews with workers andfamily members were conducted individually andwithout the farmer, to avoid undue bias. For thesame reason, all interviews with farmers wereconducted without the field technicians. In total,
141 people were interviewed by CU.
Interviewees

100%
24%
75%

37%
50%

25%
39%
0%
External workers
Family members
Farmers

Demographic information on the 86 family members
and external workers interviewed:
Ninety-eight percent of the external workers
interviewed were adults. Two of the family members
interviewed were in the age of 15-17.

58. In one case the farmer reported to have received a text message from the farmer-leader that it might be possiblethat he would be visited.
57

External Assessment

Prompt Action checks

Gender

100%

43%

75%

50%

57%

25%

0%
Male
FemaleDuration employment(only external workers, t=34)
3%

On the last day of the assessment, CU visited
six farms selected specifically for their reported
Prompt Actions. These visits (known as “Prompt
Actions checks”) differed from the general farm
visits, in that they focused on the reported
incident (the farmers were asked only about thereported Prompt Action, and not about other labor
issues). Instead of going with field technicians, CU
conducted these visits together with members of
ULPI’s internal audit team, to gain insight into theirrole in the follow-up process for reported Prompt
Actions. Since the members of the internal audit
team covered different geographical areas than
the field technicians, the list given to CU covered
Prompt Actions not only in Western Isabela but in allof Region II. As there were only few Prompt Actions
reported for Western Isabela, CU decided to include
three Prompt Actions checks with Burley farmers inCentral Isabela. Although these three farm visitswere outside the geographical scope of the present
assessment, they were still within the general scope(Isabela Burley farmers) and contributed to theobjective of assessing internal processes and data
management within ULPI.

Closing meeting

6%
15%

76%
Less than 1 month
1-3 months
9-12 months
Permanent

On 4 May 2017 a closing meeting was held at
ULPI’s head office in Manila, Philippines. Similar
to the opening meeting, this meeting was attended
by ULPI’s management team and PMI Regional.
Additional attendees were the Verité consultant
for Asia and management staff of Universal Leaf
Regional. After CU presented their initial findings,
ULPI requested clarification of some items, which
was followed by a constructive discussion on several
topics. Overall, CU’s findings were considered auseful base for taking action to improve ULPI’s
implementation of the ALP Program.

58

External Assessment

Reporting procedure
During the assessment, auditors reported after eachfield day to the coordinator. This person monitored
the auditors’ findings, and provided feedback
whenever necessary. The coordinator compiled all
findings and combined these with the findings fromthe management assessment. Public release of CU’s
assessment report demonstrates PMI’s commitment
to transparency, which is an important componentof the ALP Program. CU authored the final report,
which was evaluated by Verité. PMI reviewed thereport to ensure consistency of the presentationof CU’s findings worldwide. Finally, ULPI reviewed
the report to verify that all the information wascorrect, and to finalize their action plan based on
this report.59

59. Leaf tobacco suppliers can start drafting their action plans after the closing meeting, as initial findings usually do notdiffer much from the final report.
59

External Assessment

Appendix III – Legal information
The information below has been provided to CU
before the assessment by PMFTC and approved by
ULPI. CU reviewed this information to ensure that itwas clear and complete so that it could be used forthe assessment.

Child Protection Act, Section 13 (as amended by An
Act Providing for the Elimination of the Worst Forms ofChild Labor and Affording Stronger Protection for theWorking Child, Republic Act No. 9231) (“Child LaborAct”), Section 4)

Principle 1 – Child Labor

1.3 Age (or ages) limit for compulsory schooling

1.1 Minimum age for employment (in tobacco)

As quoted above, for a child ages 13 to below 15
years, a parent or guardian shall provide him/herwith the prescribed elementary and/or high school
education. (The Labor Code, Article 139)

The minimum age for working in tobacco is 15 years
old. (The Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended (“Labor Code”), Article
139, Implementing Rules and Regulations Implementing
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (“Labor CodeIRR”), Book III, Rule XII, Section 3(2))
1.2 Requirements applying to farmers’ own children
or other family members such as nieces and nephews
helping on the farm
A child 13 to below 15 years of age may only help out
in his/her own family’s farm provided the following
conditions are complied with:
1. Works directly under the sole responsibility ofhis parents or guardian where only members of
his/her family are employed;
2. Work shall be light work only and non-hazardous(samples of hazardous work are those done inextreme heat/cold, long hours, at night, withdangerous equipment, and toxic substances);
3. Parent or guardian shall provide him/her withthe prescribed elementary and/or high school
education;
4. Work shall not be more than twenty (20) hours
a week, provided that it shall not be more thanfour (4) hours at any given day; and5. Work shall not be allowed between 8:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.
(The Labor Code, Article 139; Labor Code IRR, Book III,
Rule XII, Section 3 [2]/ Child Protection Act, Section
12-A(as amended by the Child Labor Act), Section 3,

1.4 Definitions of hazardous work (incl. agriculturalactivities that constitute hazardous work) as wellas any tasks that workers under 18 are specificallyprohibited from participating in by law
Exposing children to hazardous work is considered
as one of the worst forms of child labor; andis described as work which, by nature or thecircumstances in which it is carried out, is hazardous
or is likely to be harmful to the health, safety or
morals of children, such that it:(i) Debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being;(ii) Exposes the child to physical, emotional orsexual abuse, or is found to be highly stressful
psychologically or may prejudice morals;(iii) Is performed underground, underwater or at
dangerous heights;(iv) Involves the use of dangerous machinery,equipment and tools such as power-driven or
explosive power-actuated tools;(v) Exposes the child to physical danger such as, but
not limited to the dangerous feats of balancing,physical strength or contortion, or which
requires the manual transport of heavy loads;(vi) Is performed in an unhealthy environment
exposing the child to hazardous working
conditions, elements, substances, co-agents

60

External Assessment

or processes involving ionizing, radiation, fire,
flammable substances, noxious components
and the like, or to extreme temperatures, noiselevels, or vibrations;(vii) Is performed under particularly difficult
conditions;(viii) Exposes the child to biological agents suchas bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoans,nematodes and other parasites;(ix) Involves the manufacture or handling of
explosives and other pyrotechnic products.
(Child Protection Act, Section 12-D(4), as amended
by the Child Labor Act, Section 3)
Hazardous work has also been defined in general
as “work operations or practices performed
by a worker in the establishment or workplacein conjunction with or as an incident to suchoperations or practices and which expose theemployee to hazards likely to cause any disabling
injury, illness, death or physical or psychologicalharm.” (Technical Guidelines for Classifying Hazardous
and Non-Hazardous Establishments, Workplaces andWork Processes, Department of Labor and Employment
Memorandum Circular No. 02, Series of 1998, Section2(e))
Conversely, non-hazardous work is defined as“any work or activity in which the employee is not
exposed to any risk which constitutes an imminent
danger to his safety and health.” (Labor Code IRR,
Book III, Rule XII, Section 3 (2))
The Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”)
has specifically identified the kinds of work which
may be considered as hazardous for workers below
18 years of age60:
SECTION 6. Hazardous Work and Activities.
(DOLE 149-16 and DOLE 149-A-2017, Section 6).
[…] Work and activities under the following occupationalclassifications are declared hazardous to persons below
18 years of age:i. Farmers and Other Plant Growers
1. Preparatory and planting activities that involve
clearing of land, plowing, harrowing, irrigating,constructing paddy dike and cutting;
2. Plant propagation activating thatgrafting, budding and marcotting:involve

3. Tending activities that involve weeding, handling,
spraying and application of harmful fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic chemicals
and the loading and carrying of heavy loads
4. Harvesting activities such as cutting and picking,spreading for drying, hauling, topping, tumbling,
tuxying, stripping, burning of field, sticking andclassifying, threshing, loading and carting ofproduce
5. Post-harvesting activities such as de-husking,scooping, sacking of products, charcoal making,hauling of products as led by animal guide, loading
and unloading of packed farm products, coconut
kilning and de-meating of crops from shell or core,sealing and carting of produce for warehousing
and transport to market and all ancillary work
such as clearing, cleaning, and re-cycling of farm
waste in this preparation as animal food andother related processes […]1.5 Other restrictions or requirements on theemployment of workers under 18 years (e.g. limit on
work hours, work permits, etc.)
For children 15 to below 18 years of age, they
may be employed provided that the following arecomplied with:
1. Work shall be non-hazardous (samples ofhazardous work are those done in extreme
heat/cold, long hours, at night, with dangerous
equipment, and toxic substances);
2. Grower shall provide him/her with access toat least elementary or high school education,
including alternative learning systems;

60. Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 149 dated 12 January 2016 entitled “Guidelines in
Assessing and Determining Hazardous Work in the Employment of Persons Below 18 years of Age, Section 6
61

External Assessment

3. Work shall not be more than forty (40) hours
a week, provided that it shall not be more thaneight (8) hours at any given day;
4. Work shall not be allowed between 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.;
5. Grower shall submit to the Department of Laborand Employment (DOLE) a report of all children
employed by him; and6. Grower shall keep: (a) a register of all children
employed by him indicating the date of theirbirths; (b) a separate file of the written consent
to their employment given by their parents
or guardians; and (c) a separate file for theireducational and medical certificates.
(Child Protection Act, Section 12-A (as amended byChild Labor Act, Section 3)/ Child Protection Act,
Section 13 (as amended by An Act Providing for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor andAffording Stronger Protection for the Working Child),
Republic Act No. 9231 (“Child Labor Act”), Section 4;
see also Employment of Youth Aged 15 to less than 18
Years, DOLE Advisory No. 01-08 / Child Protection
Act, Section 15/ The Child and Youth Welfare Code,Presidential Decree No. 603 (“PD 603”), Article 108 &109)

2. Principle 2 – Income and Work Hours
2.1 Laws on regular and overtime hours (e.g.
maximum work hours)
The provisions of the Labor Code on Working
Conditions and Rest Periods (Labor Code, Articles 8296) shall apply to employees in all establishments
and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not
to government employees, managerial employees,
field personnel, members of the family of theemployer who are dependent on him for support,
domestic helpers, persons in the personal serviceof another, and workers who are paid by results asdetermined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate
regulations.

Under Article 83 of the Labor Code:Art. 83. Normal hours of work. The normal hours ofwork of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours
a day. (Labor Code)Art. 87. Overtime work. Work may be performed beyond
eight (8) hours a day provided that the employee is paid
for the overtime work, an additional compensationequivalent to his regular wage plus at least twentyfive percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond
eight (8) hours on a holiday or rest day shall be paid anadditional compensation equivalent to the rate of thefirst eight (8) hours on a holiday or rest day plus at least
thirty percent (30%) thereof.
“Managerial employees” refer to those whose
primary duty consists of the management of theestablishment in which they are employed or of adepartment or subdivision thereof, and to otherofficers or members of the managerial staff.
“Field personnel” shall refer to non-agricultural
employees who regularly perform their duties awayfrom the principal place of business or branch officeof the employer and whose actual hours of workin the field cannot be determined with reasonablecertainty. (Labor Code, Article 82)
2.2 Requirements that employers must meet torequest overtime from workers• Overtime work beyond 8 hours a day is allowed
provided that the employee is paid for theovertime work. (Labor Code, Article 87; Labor CodeIRR, Book III, Rule I, Section 8, Labor Code, Article
90; Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule III, Sections 1 to
8, Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule IV, Section 5)• Normal hours of work is eight (8) hours; any
excess is considered overtime work and subject
to overtime premium pay. However, there is no
maximum number of allowable overtime work
fixed by law.
• Maximum days of work is six (6) days per week.
A 24-hour rest day is required after every 6
consecutive normal work days. Work during an
employee’s rest day is subject to payment of rest
day premium pay.
62

External Assessment• Children below fifteen (15) years of age may beallowed to work for not more than twenty (20)hours a week provided, that the work shall not
be more than four (4) hours at any given day.
Children fifteen (15) years of age but below
eighteen (18) shall not be allowed to work formore than eight (8) hours a day, and in no casebeyond forty (40) hours a week. Lastly, children
below fifteen (15) years of age shall not beallowed to work between eight o’clock in theevening and six o’clock in the morning of thefollowing day and no child fifteen (15) years ofage but below eighteen (18) shall be allowed towork between ten o’clock in the evening and six
o’clock in the morning of the following day (Child
Labor Act, Section 3).
2.3 Laws on regular and overtime wages (e.g.
minimum wages, minimum wages agreed with
unions)• The minimum wage rates for agricultural andnon-agricultural employees and workers in eachand every region of the country shall be thoseprescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages andProductivity Boards. (Labor Code, Article 99)• Overtime work beyond 8 hours a day is allowed
provided that the employee is paid for theovertime work. Overtime pay is the employee’s
regular pay plus at least 25%. If the overtime
work was performed during an employee’s rest
day or during a non-working (regular or special)holiday, the overtime pay shall be the employee’s
rest day/holiday pay plus at least 30% of theapplicable pay.
An employee may be required by the employer toperform overtime work in any of the following cases:a) When the country is at war or when any othernational or local emergency has been declaredby the Philippine Congress or the President;b) When it is necessary to prevent loss of life
or property or in case of imminent danger topublic safety due to an actual or impending
emergency in the locality caused by serious

accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake,
epidemic, or other disaster or calamity;c) When there is urgent work to be performedon machines, installations, or equipment,in order to avoid serious loss or damage tothe employer or some other cause of similar
nature;d) When the work is necessary to prevent loss
or damage to perishable goods; ande) Where the completion or continuation of
the work started before the eighth hour isnecessary to prevent serious obstruction or
prejudice to the business of operations of theemployer.
Philippine labor laws do not provide for a noticerequirement for overtime work. The employer isonly required to pay the mandated overtime rate forworkers as provided above.
(Labor Code, Article 87; Labor Code IRR, Book III, RuleI, Section 8, Labor Code, Article 90; Labor Code IRR,
Book III, Rule III, Sections 1 to 8, Labor Code IRR, Book
III, Rule IV, Section 5)• Rest period of not less than 24 consecutive hours
after every 6 consecutive normal work days.
(Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule IV, Section 5)• Premium pay, holiday pay. (Labor Code, Article
93, Article 94, Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule IV,
Sections 4, 6, 7 & 8 )Premium pay refers to the additional payment
for work within 8 hours on rest days or specialdays– – Plus 30% of the daily basic rate or a total of
130% for work performed on rest day or
special day.
– – Plus 50% of the daily basic rate or a total of
150% for work performed on special day
falling on the employee’s rest day.
– – Plus 30% of the daily basic rate or a total of
260% for work performed on a regular holiday
falling on the employee’s rest day.

63External Assessment

Holiday pay refers to payment of the regular daily wage for any unworked regular holiday– – For any unworked regular holiday, 100% of the employee’s daily wage rate.
– – For work performed on a regular holiday, plus 100% or a total of 200% of the employee’s daily wagerate.
• The summary of the current regional daily minimum wage rates, non-agriculture, agriculture (In Pesos,
December 2016) 61.

RegionWage Order (WO) No. Date
Of Effectivity

Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
Plantation

Non-Plantation

NCR

WO 20 June 2, 2016

P 454.00 - 491.00

P 454.00

P 454.00

CAR

WO 17 June 29, 2015

265.00 - 285.00

255.00 - 285.00

255.00 - 285.00

I

WO 18 October 2, 2016

243.00 - 280.00

252.00243.00II

WO 17 May 14, 2016

300.00280.00280.00III

WO 19 January 1, 2016

313.00 - 364.00

298.00 - 334.00

298.00 - 334.00

IV-A

WO 17 July 1, 2016

285.00 - 378.50

275.00 - 353.50

275.00 - 333.50

IV-B

WO 07 July 3, 2015

235.00 - 285.00

235.00235.00V

WO 17 December 25, 2015

248.00 - 265.00

248.00248.00VI

WO 22 May 2, 2015

256.50 - 298.50

266.50256.50VII

WO 19 October 10, 2015

295.00 - 353.00

275.00 - 335.00

275.00 - 335.00

VIII

WO 18 March 30, 2015

260.00241.00235.00IX

WO 19 October 1, 2016

296.00271.00251.00X

WO 18 July 3, 2015

303.00 - 318.00

291.00 - 306.00

291.00 - 306.00

XI

WO 19 December 16, 2016

340.00335.00335.00XII

WO 19 October 9, 2016

295.00272.00272.00XIII

WO 14 July 1, 2016

280.00280.00280.00ARMM

WO 16 March 1, 2016

265.00

255.00

255.0061. http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/latest_wo.html (last accessed on 06 January 2016). http://www.
nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/latest_wo.html (last accessed on 06 January 2016).
64

External Assessment

2.4 Laws on basic entitlements to be paid to workers(e.g. social security, health care, holidays, otherleave entitlements etc.).

Regular Holidays
New Year’s Day- January 1

Employers are required to enroll their employees,
and make contributions on their behalf, with thefollowing:

Maundy Thursday- Moveable

Good Friday- Moveable

Araw ng Kagitingan- April 9• Social Security System – Both employer andemployee make contributions.
Membership

Labor Day

- May 1

Independence Day- June 12

National Heroes Day- Last Monday of August

Bonifacio Day- November 30

Christmas Day- December 25

Rizal Day- December 30

entitles employees to monetary benefits for
sickness, maternity, disability, retirement anddeath. Employees are likewise allowed to avail
themselves of loans, payable through salarydeduction.
• Philippine Health Insurance Corporation – Bothemployer and employee make contributions.
Membership entitles employees to medical
insurance.
• Home Development Mutual Fund – Bothemployer and employee make contributions.
Membership entitled employees to avail of
housing or other multi-purpose loans.

In addition, the Muslim holidays of Eid’l Fitr andEid’l Adha are also celebrated, the exact days on
which they fall to be announced by the Office of the
President of the Philippines.
Special (Non-Working) Days
Ninoy Aquino Day- August 21

All Saints’ Day- November 1• Also, employees are entitled to the following:
Additional Special (Non-Working) Day• Yearly service incentive leave of five (5) days withpay, for employees who have already rendered atleast one (1) year of service

Last Day of the Year

• Maternity leave of 60 days if by normal delivery,or 78 days if by cesarean delivery, for the first
four (4) deliveries/miscarriages

The employer may require an employee to workon a regular holiday but shall pay such employee
twice the regular pay. If the work is required on any
special day, the employee is entitled to an additional
30% of regular pay.

• Paternity leave of seven (7) days with pay for the
first four (4) deliveries/miscarriages• Solo Parents’ leave of seven (7) days with pay• Holiday pay. The Philippines observes thefollowing public holidays:- December 31• Additional compensation for work performed:(i) On an employee’s scheduled rest day (plus 30%
of regular pay);(ii) On Sundays and holidays (plus 30% of regularpay), if the nature of the work is such that there
are no regular work days and rest days;(iii) On a regular holiday which also falls on a restday (plus 30% of regular pay and 30% of the
100% regular pay due for working on a regularholiday, or a total of 60% of regular pay); and65

External Assessment(iv) On special days which also falls on theemployee’s scheduled rest day (50% of regularpay).
2.5 Wage and hours law specific to piece rate
workers, seasonal workers, and migrant workers
The minimum wage rates for the agriculture
employees are prescribed by the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Boards and from eachregion. (Labor Code, Article 99)
The Secretary of Labor shall regulate the paymentof wages by results, including pakyaw, pieceworkand other non-time work, in order to ensure
the payment of fair and reasonable wage rates,
preferably through time and motion studies or in
consultation with representatives of workers andemployer’s organizations (Labor Code, Article 101)
2.6 Laws on payment of wages relevant to thefrequency of payment in agriculture, for example,
laws on whether end-of-season one-time payments
are permissible

2.7 Laws on in-kind payment• Partial payment of wage or salaries in kind
may be allowed by granting “facilities” to one’s
employees. The minimum wages should not be
subject to deduction from whatever benefits orallowances. An employer may provide subsidized
meals and snacks to his employees provided thatthe subsidy shall not be less than 30% of the fairand reasonable value of such facilities. In suchcase, the employer may deduct from the wagesof the employees not more than 70% of the valueof meals and snacks enjoyed by the employees,
provided that such deduction is with the written
authorization of the employees concerned.
• Facilities are articles or services for the benefitof the employee or his family, which form partof wage and when furnished by the employer,
are deductible therefrom. 62 This way, because

No employer shall pay the wages of an employee
by means of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons,
tokens, tickets, chits, or any object other than legal
tender, even when expressly requested by theemployee.
Payment of wages by check or money order shall beallowed when such manner of payment is customary,or is necessary because of special circumstances as
specified in appropriate regulations to be issued by
the Secretary of Labor or as stipulated in a collective
bargaining agreement. (Labor Code, Article 102)
Wages shall be paid at least once every 2 weeks or
twice a month at intervals not exceeding 16 days.
If on account of force majeure or circumstances
beyond the employer’s control, payment of wages
on or within the time herein provided cannot be
made, the employer shall pay the wages immediately
after such force majeure or circumstances haveceased. No employer shall make payment with lessfrequency than once a month. (Labor Code, Article
103)

facilities form part of the wage received by an
employee, it may be argued that part of his wages
are paid “in kind.” Facilities include:
1. Meals;
2. Housing for dwelling purposes;
3. Fuel, including electricity, water, gas
furnished for non-commercial personal use of
the employee;
4. Transportation furnished to the employee
between his home and work where travel
time does not constitute hours of worked
compensable under the Labor Code and otherlaws;
5. School, recreation and sanitation when
operated exclusively for the benefit of theworker and his family;
6. Medical and dental services rendered to the
non-industrial cases; and7. Other articles and services given primarily
for the benefit of the worker or his family.

62. Section 5, Rule VII-A, Book III of the IRR of the Labor Code66

External Assessment• The fair and reasonable value of such facilities
furnished by the employer which shall be
deductible from the employee’s wage or salary
shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Departmentof Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) from time
to time in appropriate issuances. 63 This meansthat the portion of wage allotted for the grant offacilities may be limited by the fair and reasonablevalue thereof as determined by DOLE or the
Regional Tripartite Wage Productivity Boards,
as may be delegated.
• In determining what items qualify as facilities,
the following conditions must be complied withby the employer:
1. Proof that such facilities are regularly andcustomarily furnished by the trade, such as acompany policy providing for such facility;64
2. Written authorization by the employee as
proof of his/her voluntary acceptance of thesame; and3. The fair and reasonable value of the facilities
in compliance with the standards fixed by
DOLE. 65
• The valuation of facilities as furnished byan employer per establishment is now being
undertaken by the Regional Tripartite andProductivity Board in accordance with the new
guidelines for facility evaluation provided in
DOLE Department Order No. 126-13, series
2013. The procedure includes an actual evaluationof the meals offered and, in case of lodging/housing, an ocular inspection is conducted on thepremises provided to employees and his family.
Such evaluation may be requested by either theemployee or the employer or initiated by DOLERegional Office. After the evaluation, the labor
inspector then submits a report on his findings
and finally, a Facility Evaluation Order is issued.

The Order is valid for one year, after which,another evaluation may be conducted uponrequest.
• Employees of countryside and barangay businessenterprises may likewise be furnished facilities
which form part of their wage, subject tocompliance by their employers with the samerequirements above-discussed. 66
2.8 Legal requirements for migrant workers toensure they are legally permitted to work
Foreign nationals seeking admission into thePhilippines for the purposes of employment must
apply for the appropriate work visa. There areseveral work visa categories available, dependingon the corporate employer’s registration as a legal
entity and other special registrations. The mostcommon work visa pre-arranged employment
visa for a period longer than six (6) months. The
employer must file the prescribed application
with the Bureau of Immigration together withthe documentary requirements, which include
application forms and the employment agreement.
A pre-arranged employee must also first secure an
Alien Employment Permit from the DOLE.
Subject to certain exceptions, if a foreign national isalready in the Philippines as a tourist or a businessvisitor, he can file the appropriate petition to convert
his visa status to that of a pre-arranged employee
without having to leave the Philippines. After thevisa approval has been stamped on the employee’s
passport, the processing of the Alien Certificate ofRegistration Identification Card (ACR I-Card) will
start. The work visa can be renewed/extended prior
to its expiry. After expiry, a new application for awork visa must be submitted (Commonwealth Act No
613, An Act to Control and Regulate the Immigration of
Aliens into the Philippines (The Philippine Immigration
Act of 1940) sections 19 and 20).

63. Section 3, Rule VII-A, Book III of the IRR of the Labor Code.
64. Liduvino Millares vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122827, 29 March 1999
65. Norma Mabeza vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118506. 18 April 1997
66. Department Order No. 022-90, Guidelines for Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises (CBBEs), Section 567

External Assessment

All foreign nationals who intend to engage in
gainful employment in the Philippines must apply
for an Alien Employment Permit (AEP) (thoughcertain categories of foreign nationals are excluded
from this requirement) (Labor Code, Article 40;
Department Order No 97-09, Revised Rules for
the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign
Nationals, as amended by Department Order No
120-12, section 1). In this regard, only the following
categories of foreign nationals are exempt fromsecuring an AEP in order to work in the Philippines:

An approved AEP is required before a foreign
national can file an application for a work visa.

(i) All members of the diplomatic services andforeign government officials accredited by thePhilippine Government.

3. Principle 3 – Fair Treatment(ii) Officers and staff of international organizationsof which the Philippine Government is a cooperating member, and their legitimate spousedesiring to work in the Philippines.
(iii) Foreign nationals elected as members of thegoverning board who do not occupy any otherposition, but have only voting rights in thecorporation.
(iv) All foreign nationals granted exemption by
special laws and all other laws that may be
promulgated by the Congress.
(v) Owners and representatives of foreign
principals, whose companies are accreditedby the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), who come to thePhilippines for a limited period solely for the
purpose of interviewing Filipino applicants for
employment abroad.
(vi) Foreign nationals who come to the Philippines toteach, present and or conduct research studies
in universities and colleges as visiting, exchangeor adjunct professors under formal agreements
between the universities or colleges in thePhilippines and foreign universities and foreign
governments (provided that exemption is on areciprocal basis).
(vii) Permanent
resident
foreignnationals,
probationary or temporary resident visa
holders.

All applications for an AEP must be filed andprocessed at the DOLE Regional Office or Field
Office which has jurisdiction over the intended
place of work. In the case of foreign nationals to be
assigned in related companies, they can file theirapplication with the Regional Office which has
jurisdiction over any of the applicant’s intended
places of work.

3.1 Laws defining and prohibiting verbal,
psychological, physical punishment, and sexual
harassment and abuse
Philippine laws do not provide for specific rules
against physical punishment (or threat), verbal
abuse, etc. which are particularly applicable toworkers or employees.
In general, however, the Philippine Revised Penal
Code (RPC) declares the following acts as criminal
offenses and are equally applicable to workers or
employees:• Physical Injuries. Committed by any person
who, without intent to kill, shall inflict uponanother any physical injury. The penalty for thisoffense varies depending on the degree of injury
inflicted upon the aggrieved party/complainant,which are classified into serious physical injury,
less serious physical injury and slight physicalinjury. (Articles 263, 265, 266 (1), (2))• Maltreatment. Committed by any person who
shall ill-treat another by deed without causing
any injury. (Article 266 (3))• Coercion. The penalty for this offense varies
depending on: (i) the means used to coerce(violence, intimidation or intimidation), and (ii)the purpose of the coercion. (Articles 286 and287)• Unjust Vexation. Includes any human conduct
which although not productive of some physical68

External Assessment

or material harm would, however, unjustly annoy
or vex an innocent person. (Article 287 (2))• Threats. Committed by any person who shallthreaten another with the infliction upon the
person, honor or property of the latter or
his family of any wrong. The penalty for thisoffense varies depending: (i) whether the wrong
threatened amounts to a crime and if so, thecrime that he or she threatened to commit;(ii) whether the threat was made to impose or
demand a condition; (iii) the manner the threat
was made; and (iv) the prevailing circumstances
when the threat was made. (Articles 282, 283 and284)• Oral Defamation (Slander). (Article 358)
• Slander by Deed. Committed by any person who
shall perform an act, not constituting libel, whichshall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt uponanother person. (Article 359)
In addition, Section 10(a) of the Child Protection
Act prohibits any person from committing any
acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’sdevelopment.
• Section 9 of the Magna Carta of Women provides
the policy of the State to ensure that all womenare protected from all forms of violence, including
physical, sexual and psychological violenceoccurring within the general community, suchas rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment andintimidation at work. (Section 4 (k) (2))• Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Philippines(“Civil Code”) provides that for cases involving
defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, acivil action for damages, entirely separate anddistinct from the criminal action, may be broughtby the injured party.
• In relation, civil claims for damages against
employers may arise from violations of the“abuse of right” clauses, which particularly
provides that:–– Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act withjustice, give everyone his due, and observehonesty and good faith. (Article 19)– – Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently, causes damage to another, shallindemnify the latter for the same. (Article 20)– – Any person, who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary tomorals, good customs or public policy shallcompensate the latter for the damage. (Article
21)
3.2 Protection from Sexual Harassment• The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (Republic
Act No. 7877) protects employees from sexual
harassment which may be committed by an
employer or any other person having authority,
influence or moral ascendency over the employee
concerned in a work or employment-related
environment.
• Sexual harassment in a work/employmentrelated environment is committed when:– – The sexual favor is made as a condition in thehiring or in the employment, re-employment
or continued employment of said individual,
or in granting said individual favorable
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions,or privileges; or the refusal to grant thesexual favor results in limiting, segregating
or classifying the employee which in any
way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee.
– – The above acts would impair the employee’s
rights or privileges under existing labor laws.
– – The above acts would result in an intimidating,hostile, or offensive environment for theemployee.
• The employer or the head of the work/
employment-related environment or institution69External Assessment

has a duty to prevent or deter the commissionof acts of sexual harassment and to provide
the procedures for the resolution, settlement
or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment.
Towards this end, the employer or head of officeshall:– – Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations
in consultation with and jointly approved by
the employees, through their duly designatedrepresentatives, prescribing the procedure
for the investigation of sexual harassment
cases and the corresponding administrative
sanctions.
– – Create a committee on decorum andinvestigation of cases on sexual harassment.
The committee shall conduct meetings
with officers and employees to increase
understanding and prevent incidents ofsexual harassment. It shall also conduct theinvestigation of alleged cases constituting
sexual harassment.
• The employer or head of work/employmentrelated environment or institution shall besolidarily liable for damages arising from theacts of sexual harassment committed in theemployment environment if the employer orhead of work/employment-related environment
or institution is informed of such acts by theoffended party and no immediate action is taken
thereon.
3.3 Laws defining and prohibiting discrimination• Article 135 of the Labor Code of the Philippines(Labor Code) declared as unlawful for any
employer to discriminate against any woman
employee with respect to terms and conditionsof employment solely on account of her sex
and imposed criminal and civil liabilities for thecommission of acts of discrimination against
women. The same provision also identified thefollowing as acts of discrimination:–– Payment of a lesser compensation, including
wage, salary or other form of remunerationand fringe benefits, to a female employee
as against a male employee, for equal workvalue.
–– Favoring a male over a female employee withrespect to promotion, training opportunities,
study and scholarship grants solely on accountof their sexes.
–– All other acts determined by the Secretaryof Labor and Employment as a form of
discrimination of a woman employeewith respect to terms and conditions of
employment on account of her sex. (Book III,
Rule XI, Section 4 (c) of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code, as Amended)• In addition, Section 35 of the Magna Carta of
Women prohibits in general discrimination
against women, defined as “any gender-based
distinction, exclusion, or restriction which has
the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying
the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by
women, irrespective of their marital status, ona basis of equality of men and women, of humanrights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural, civil, or any otherfield.” (Section 4 (b) (1))• Article 140 of the Labor Code prohibits anemployer from discriminating any person in
respect to terms and conditions of employment
on account of his/her age.
• The Labor Code considers as unfair labor practicefor an employer to discriminate:– – In regard to wages, hours of work and otherterms and conditions of employment in orderto encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization. (Article 248 (e))– – An employee for having given or being about
to give testimony under the Labor Code.
(Article 248 (f))

70

External Assessment• Section 7 of the Solo Parents’ Welfare Act(Republic Act No. 8972) prohibits an employer
from discriminating a solo parent employee withrespect to terms and conditions of employment
on account of his or her status.
• Section 5 of the Magna Carta for Persons with
Disability (Republic Act No. 7277, as Amended)
provides that no persons with disabilities shallbe denied access to opportunities for suitable
employment. A qualified disabled employee
shall be subject to the same terms and conditionsof employment and the same compensation,privileges, benefits, incentives or allowances asa qualified able bodied person.
• In addition, Rule II, Section 1.2 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Magna Carta for
Persons with Disability provides that no individual
or entity, whether public or private, shalldiscriminate against a qualified disabled person
by reason of disability in regard to job application
procedures; the hiring, promotion, or discharge of
employees; employee compensation, job training,and other terms and conditions of employment.
The said also identified the following as acts of
discrimination:– – Limiting, segregating or classifying a disabled
job applicant in such manner that adversely
affects his work opportunities;– – Using qualification standards, employment
tests or other selection criteria that rule out
or tend to rule out a disabled person unlesssuch standards, tests or other selection
criteria are shown to be job-related for the
position in question and are consistent withbusiness necessity;– – Utilizing standards, criteria or methods ofadministration that:i. have the effect of discrimination on thebasis of disability.

–– Providing a lower compensation, salary, wage
or other forms of remuneration and fringe
benefits to a qualified disabled employee
by reason of his disability as compared to aworker performing the same type and amountof work but who is not disabled;–– Favoring a non-disabled employee over aqualified disabled employee with respect topromotion, training opportunities, study andscholarship grants, solely on account of thelatter’s disability;–– Re-assigning or transferring a disabled
employee to a job or position he cannot
perform by reason of his disability;–– Dismissing or terminating the services of adisabled employee by reason of his disability
unless the employer can prove that thesatisfactory performance of the work involved
is impaired by reason of the disability to theprejudice of the business entity; Provided,
however, that the employer has first exerted
effort to provide reasonable accommodations
for the disabled worker;–– Failing to select or administer in the mosteffective manner employment tests which
accurately reflect or measure the skills,
aptitude or positive traits of the disabledapplicant or employee rather than the
impaired sensory, manual or speaking
capabilities of such applicant or employee, ifany; and–– Excluding disabled persons from membershipin labor unions or similar organizations.
3.4 Laws on resource for victimized workers, if
applicable
Recourse may either be in the regular courts or
the National Labor Relations Commission which is
jurisdictional depending on the cause of action as
enumerated above.

ii. perpetuate the discrimination of others
who are subject to common administrative
control.
71External Assessment

4. Principle 4 – Forced Labor
4.1 Legislation on forced labor
Philippine laws provide for protection against
forced labor.
• Article III, Section 18 (1) of the Philippine
Constitution proscribes involuntary servitude in
any form, except as punishment for a crime forwhich a party has been duly convicted.
• In relation, the RPC provides for punishment forthe commission of the following crimes which
are tantamount to forced labor:– – Slavery. Committed by anyone who shallpurchase, sell, kidnap or detain a humanbeing for the purpose of enslaving him or her.
(Article 272)
– – Exploitation of child labor. Committed byanyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing
a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of a minor,
shall, against the latter’s will, retain suchminor in his or her service. (Article 273)
– – Services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt. Committed by any person
who, in order to require or enforce thepayment of a debt, shall compel the debtor towork for him or her, against the debtor’s will,
as a household servant or a farm worker.
• In addition, Section 3 of the Child Labor Act(enumerates forced or compulsory labor as
practices similar to slavery and considers it as
one of the worst forms of child labor.
4.2 Laws on prison labor
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof theparty shall have been duly convicted (Philippine
Constitution, Article III, Section 18 (2))

4.3 Legislation regulating the operation of labor
brokers and other third party recruiters
Article 106 to 109 of the Labor Code, DOLE
Department Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011 (DOLE
18-A) and DOLE Department Order No. 174 series of2017 (DOLE 174) are the current applicable laws andregulations.
Job contracting arrangements shall be legitimate if
the following conditions concur: 67a) The contractor must be registered with
the DOLE and carries on a distinct andindependent business;b) The contractor has substantial capital and/or
investment;c) The Service Agreement ensures compliancewith all the rights and benefits under Labor
Laws.
A third party workers service provider or job
contractor/sub-contractor must comply with thefollowing:– – Minimum capitalization requirement of atleast Php5Million fully paid up capital– – Proof of ownership or lease agreement on
tools, equipment, machineries and work
premises– – Payment of Php100,000.00 registration fee
with the DOLE
– – Proof of financial capacity to pay the wages
and benefits of the workers in every service
contract using the Net Financial Contracting
Capacity (NFCC) formula in government
procurement– – Control over the performance of the work of
the employee deployed or assigned to render
the contracted work or services– – Not engaged
arrangementinlabor-only

contracting

67. Sasan, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4th Division, G.R. No. 176240, 17 October 2008, cited in PolyfoamRGC International, Corporation, et al., v. Edgardo Concepcion, G.R. No. 172349, 13 June 2012; Section 8 of DOLE
174
72

External Assessment– – Not engaged in prohibited activities under
Section 6 of DOLE 174

5. Principle 5 – Safe Work Environment– – Observes the rights of its workers under
Section 10 of DOLE 174

5.1 Requirements for provision of medical
protection, such as availability of first aid kit, health& safety training, etc.

– – Observes the required
Section 11 of DOLE 174

under

Each employer covered by the provisions of the
OSHS shall:– – Not delisted from the registry of legitimate
contractor/subcontractor– – give complete job safety instructions to all
his workers, especially to those entering
the job for the first time, including those

DOLE 174 prohibit labor-only contracting.
Under Section 5 of DOLE 174, there is labor-only
contracting when:relating to the familiarization with their work
environment, hazards to which the workers
are exposed to and steps taken in case of
emergency;

contracts(i) The contractor does not have substantial capitalor(ii) Contractor does not have investments inthe form of tools, equipment, machineries,
supervision, work premises, among others, and(iii) The Contractor’s employees recruited andplaced are performing activities which are
directly related to the main business operationof the principal.
4.4 Laws relating to limits or prohibitions on
recruitment fees and deposits workers may berequired to pay– – comply with the requirements of OSHS.
(Occupational Safety and Health Standards(“OSHS”), Rule 1000, Section 1005)
All workers shall be thoroughly informed of thehealth hazards connected with their work andthe measures to be taken to protect themselves
therefrom. (OSHS, Rule 1090, Section 1093.12)
The employer shall provide his workers withnecessary protective clothing and equipment
maintained in good condition. (OSHS, Rule 1950,
Section 1955.03)

Unlawful to make any deduction from the wagesof any employee for the employer’s benefit, or his
representative or intermediary as consideration of apromise of employment or retention of employment(Labor Code, Article 117)

Workers exposed to prolonged contact with natural
fertilizers shall be subjected to regular medical
examination. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section 1955.03)

No employer shall require his worker to makedeposits from which deductions shall be madefor the reimbursement of loss or damage to tools,
maintenance, or equipment supplied by theemployer subject to exceptions (Labor Code, Article
114; Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule VIII, Section 14))a) Establish in his workplace occupational.
health services to provide a healthful place ofwork;

It shall be the duty of every employer to:b) Adopt and implement a comprehensive healthprogram for his workers;c) Enter into a contract with hospitals or
dental clinics, if these are not available in his
workplace; andd) Maintain a health record of his programs
and activities and submit an annual medical
report, using form DOLE/BWC/HSD/OH-

73

External Assessment

47, to the Regional Labor Office concerned,
copy furnished the DOLE Bureau of Working
Conditions on or before the last day of Marchof the year following the covered period.
(OSHS, Rule 1965, Section 1965.01)
5.2 Requirements to report accidents and injuries
Disability benefits may be claimed from the Social
Security System provided that the employee is acontributing member. (SSS Law)
OSHS, Rule 1053 provides for the reporting
obligations of the employer to report work accidents
or occupational illness in places of employment.
OSHS, Rule 1054 provides for the obligation of
employer to maintain and keep an accident andillness record. OSHS, Rule 1054 also provides thatthe employer shall accomplish an Annual Work
Accident/Illness Exposure Data Report in duplicate
using the prescribed form DOLE/BWC/HSD-IP-6b,
which shall be submitted to the DOLE’s Bureau ofworking conditions copy furnished the Regional
Labor Office or duly authorized representative
having jurisdiction on or before the 30th day of themonth following the end of each calendar year.
OSHS, Rule 1093, Section 1093.17 provides thatthe employer shall maintain accurate record of
employee exposure to potentially toxic materials
which are required to be measured or monitored.
This record shall be open to authorized agents andthe workers exposed to such hazards.
5.3 Requirements for personal protective equipment
needed for using, handling, storing, or disposingof crop protection agents (CPA). This might varydepending on the CPA in question• Workers handling pesticides and harmful
fertilizers shall be instructed not to eat, drinkor smoke unless: (a) they have removed theirprotective clothing; (b) they have washed theirhands and face; and (c) they are in the area foreating purposes. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section
1955.03)• All containers with hazardous substances shallbe properly labelled. (OSHS, Rule 1090, Section

1093.04)• Workers handling pesticides and harmful
fertilizers shall: (a) deposit their personal or
street clothing in rooms provided for the purpose;(b) remove all protective clothing and equipment
at the end of each day’s work and deposit them in
specified decontaminating containers provided
for the purpose; ad (c) wash hands, face and neckor take a shower if pesticides/harmful fertilizers
was used or handled. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section
1955.03)• Protective clothing shall be laundered orotherwise thoroughly cleaned at least once aweek or more frequently, depending upon the
degree of the contamination and the material
or substance used. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section
1955.03)• Workers shall thoroughly wash gloves after
every use. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section 1955.03)• Workers shall be provided with, and shall use
personal protective clothing and equipment inaccordance with the requirements of Rule 1080.
(OSHS, Rule, Section 1093.03(1))• Protective clothing, like boots, gloves, googles
and face shield shall be use in mixing, diluting,spraying or spreading toxic fertilizers (OSHS,
Rule 1950, Section 1955.01(4))• PPE shall also be used to supplement control
methods when such measures cannot adequately
eliminate the hazard or when other measures
are not possible. (OSHS, Rule 1090, Section
1093.03(2))
5.4 Restrictions on CPA use, handling, storing, ordisposing. Most countries will have restrictions onvulnerable populations interacting with CPA (orprohibit this outright), such as persons under 18,
pregnant women, nursing mothers, etc.
• When practicable, harmless substances shallbe substituted for hazardous substances or
the process shall be revised to reduce worker
exposure to the hazards. (OSHS, Rule 1090,
Section 1093.01)
74

External Assessment• Pesticides and fertilizers shall be handled andused only by persons thoroughly instructed intheir use handling hazards and the precautions
that shall be taken to avoid such hazards. (OSHS,
Rule 1950, Section 1953.01)• Persons working with pesticides and fertilizers
shall have pre-employment and periodic
examinations as provided under Rule 1960.
(OSHS, Rule 1950, Section 1953.02)• Persons handling pesticides and fertilizers which
react strongly to alcohol, shall abstain fromalcoholic drinks at least 10 hours before and at
least 12 hours after any work or operation wherethese substances are applied. (OSHS, Rule 1950,
Section 1953.03)• All personnel exposed to irritating or toxic
substances shall be provided with appropriate
protective clothing including head covering,which shall: (a) be removed before eating or
leaving the premises and kept in places provided
for the purpose; (b) not be taken out of thefactory by the users for any purpose; and (c) be
maintained in good condition and washed orcleaned at least once a week. (OSHS, Rule 1090,
Section 1093.10)
5.5 Restrictions on farm equipment (such as
maintenance and licensing for operators)
None.
5.6 Other legislation related to CPA, such as how
and where they may be stored or transported;
more explicit restrictions for specific CPA; weather
conditions under which CPA may or may not beapplied; and any other restrictions limiting contact
or exposure with CPA• All containers with hazardous substances shallbe properly labelled. (OSHS, Rule 1090, Section
1093.04)• Workers exposed to prolonged contact withnatural fertilizers shall be subjected to regular
medical examination. (OSHS, Rule 1950, Section
1955.03)• Persons working with pesticides and fertilizers
shall have pre-employment and periodic
examinations as provided under Rule 1960.
(OSHS, Rule 1950, Section 1953.02)• Persons handling pesticides and fertilizers which
react strongly to alcohol, shall abstain fromalcoholic drinks at least 10 hours before and at
least 12 hours after any work or operation wherethese substances are applied. (OSHS, Rule 1950,
Section 1953.03)• All personnel exposed to irritating or toxic
substances shall be provided with appropriate
protective clothing including head covering,which shall: (a) be removed before eating or
leaving the premises and kept in places provided
for the purpose; (b) not be taken out of thefactory by the users for any purpose; and (c) be
maintained in good condition and washed orcleaned at least once a week. (OSHS, Rule 1090,
Section 1093.10)• Pesticides or empty containers shall not be leftlying about in the fields, yards and other open
areas, and shall not be thrown into pods, streams
or drains OSHS, Rule 1950, Section 1957 (2)5.7 Guidelines for the Implementation of Global
Harmonized System in Chemical Safety in the
Workplace
The Guidelines for the Implementation of Global
Harmonised System (GHS) in Chemical Safety
Program in the Workplace was issued by the DOLE
in the Philippines on 28 February 2014 and cameinto force on 14 March 2014.
The DOLE has not published its own guidelines
or standards on chemical classification, labellingand safety data sheets. Instead, it directly refers
to chemical classification criteria and relevant
provisions on safety data sheets (SDSs) and labels in
the UN GHS Purple Book.
However, the DENR Environmental Management
Bureau published DENR DAO Order No. 2015-09
Guidance Manual setting chemical classification
criteria and requirements on the format and content
of SDSs and labels.
75

External Assessment

DENR will implement the GHS guidelines for
substances subject to Chemical Control Orders (CCO)
and substances on Priority Chemicals List (PCL) first.
DENR’s timelines for GHS implementation are as
follows:

Chemicals

Effectivity

Single substances and compounds

2016

covered under CCO and PCL
Chemicals initially listed
High volume toxic chemicals

2017

Toxic chemicals under the IATA
and IMDG list of dangerous goods

2018

Mixtures2019

Under DOLE DO 136-14, the employee shall:– – Comply with the chemical safety policy andprogram.
– – Take all reasonable steps to eliminate orminimize risk to themselves and to othersfrom the use of chemicals at work.
– – Observe proper use of all safeguards andsafety devices.
– – Report immediately to their supervisor any
situation which they believe could present arisk of chemicals– – Under DOLE DO 136-14, the storage
requirement and inventory are as follows:

5.8 Guidelines for the Implementation of the GHS
in Chemical Safety Program in the Workplace
Under DOLE DO 136-14, the employer shall:– – Ensure development, implementation andmonitoring of the Chemical safety policy andprogram– – Ensure that all chemicals are properly labeled
and Safety Data Sheets are provided inaccordance with GHS.
– – Provide the necessary control measures
including the appropriate personal protective
equipment;– – Ensure that workers are provided with theappropriate information, education andtraining on GHS and chemical safety;– – Establish and implement chemical emergency
response plan to mitigate accidents like
accidental exposure, inadvertent release, andfire or explosion.
– – Ensure that the Safety Officer is in charge ofthe overall responsibility for chemical safety
in the establishment.

– – Chemicals procured shall have GHS label andsafety data sheet;– – Have adequate, well-ventilated storage spacefor chemicals and proper segregation ofchemicals– – Chemicals classified to any GHS Health
Hazards Danger Category should be kept
under strict control.
– – Stored chemicals should be examined
periodically for replacement, deterioration,and container integrity. Storage temperature,humidity and ventilation requirements asstated in the SDS should be followed.
– – Quantities of chemicals to be stored shall be
kept to the minimum amount.
– – There should be adequate security of andaccess to chemical storage areas.
– – Periodic inventories shall be conducted
regularly
5.9 Requirements related to providing drinking
water and safe housing for workers
None.

76

External Assessment

5.10 Specific requirements if worker
accommodation is provided
Not applicable.

6. Principle 6 – Freedom of Association
6.1 Laws on organizing unions and their operation(workers’ rights and employers’ obligations)
The Philippine Constitution protects the freedomof workers to form and join unions for purposes
which are not contrary to law. (Article III, Section 8;
Article XIII, Section 3 (2)) The Philippine Constitution
also provides that “The State shall guarantee therights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations. Workers are also
granted the right to participate in policy anddecision-making processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law.” (Philippine
Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3 [2])The Labor Code considers as unfair labor practicefor any employer to: (a) Interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right toself-organization (Labor Code, Article 248(a)); (b)Require as a condition of employment that a person
or an employee shall not join a labor organizationor shall withdraw from one to which he or she
belongs (Labor Code, Article 248(b); (c) Contract
out services or functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right toself-organization (Labor Code, Article 248(c); and(d) Initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interferewith the formation or administration of any labororganization, including the giving of financial orother support to it or its organizers or supporters(Labor Code, Article 248(d)).
6.4 Requirements that worker representatives be inplace

In addition, Article 3 of the Labor Code declaresthat it is the policy of the State to assure the rightsof the workers to self-organization.

None.

6.2 Requirements for collective bargaining

7.1 Legal requirements to constitute a labor relation

All persons employed in commercial, industrial
and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical, or educational institutions,
whether operating or not shall have the right toself-organization and to form, join, or assist labororganizations of their own choosing for purposesof collective bargaining. (Article 243 of the Labor
Code) On the other hand, ambulant, intermittent
and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers
may form labor organizations for their mutual aid
and protection.

Article 243 of the Labor Code states that “allpersons employed in commercial, industrial andagricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable,
medical, or educational institutions, whether
operating for profit or not, shall have the right toself-organization and to form, join, or assist labororganizations of their own choosing for purposesof collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent
and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers
may form labor organizations for their mutual aid
and protection.”

6.3 Prohibitions on union discrimination andemployer interference in their operations

7.2 Laws and regulations on employment contracts(incl. necessity for written employment contracts,
and if is not what are the grounds to consider the
existence of a verbal employment agreement)

It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain,
coerce, discriminate against or unduly interferewith employees and workers in their exercise of theright to self-organization. (Labor Code, Article 246)

7. Principle 7 – Compliance with the law

It is not necessary to have a written employment
contract to prove that a person is an employee.
There is also no law specifically enumerating theterms that must be included in an employment
contract.
77External Assessment

Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
recognizes the freedom of the parties to stipulate
or establish the terms and conditions of a contract,provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy.

– – Regular employees by years of service, thatis, those who have rendered at least one yearof service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which they are
employed.

However, Article 1700 of the Civil Code classifies
labor contracts as contracts imbued with public
interest.

The primary standard to determine regular
employment is the reasonable connection between
the particular activity performed by the employee
in relation to the usual business or trade of theemployer. The test is whether the activity of theemployee is usually necessary or desirable in theusual business or trade of the employer.

Labor laws and statutory labor standards are
deemed to be written into all employment contracts,
and stipulated terms and conditions cannot fall
below the applicable labor standards provided by
the Labor Code. Any terms or conditions that violate
the applicable labor standards are null and void.
Employment contracts cannot be used by employers
to evade their responsibility for complying withlabor laws.
7.3 Required content for written employment
contracts
As mentioned above, there is also no law specificallyenumerating the terms that must be included in an
employment contract.
7.4 Deadline for conclusion of the contract (e.g. on
the date of hire or within 30 days of hire)
There is no specific requirement.
7.5 Requirements for various types of contracts(indefinite term, definite term, temporary workers,
probationary workers)
As mentioned above, generally, there are no specificrequirements. However, as a general reference, thefollowing are the types of employment arrangement
under Philippine jurisprudence and labor laws andregulations:a. Regular Employees
There are two kinds of regular employees (Labor
Code, Article 294):– – Regular employees by nature of work, that is,
those who are engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer.

A regular employee enjoys the benefit of security oftenure as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.
This means that the employee cannot simply beterminated, other than those just and authorized
causes as provided by law.
b. Probationary Employees
Article 295 of the Labor Code makes express
reference to probationary employment, which
provides a trial period, during which the employer
observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of aprobationer to decide whether he is qualified forpermanent employment, while the probationer
seeks to prove to the employer that he has thequalifications to meet the reasonable standards
for permanent employment. If the employee wasallegedly hired on a probationary basis, but was not
informed of the standards that would qualify him asa regular employee, he is deemed a regular employee
from the very start. Additionally, an employee who
is allowed to work beyond the probationary period
shall be deemed regular. This probationary period
is usually fixed at six months or less. However, theparties to an employment contract can agree to alonger period of probation (for example, when thesame is established by company policy or when
the same is required by the nature of work to be
performed by the employee).
c. Fixed-Term Employees
While not specifically mentioned in Article 294of the Labor Code, a fixed-term employment isrecognized under the Civil Code, pursuant to the78External Assessment

freedom of parties to fix the duration of the contract,whatever its object. These fixed-term employment
contracts are not limited to seasonal work or specificprojects with predetermined completion dates;
also contemplated are employment arrangements
whereby the parties have assigned a specific date of
termination.
For this employment arrangement to be considered
compliant with the employees’ right to security oftenure, it must:– – Be voluntarily and knowingly agreed uponby the parties, without any force, duress, or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon
the employee, absent any vices of consent.
– – Appear that the employer and employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms,
with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former over the latter.
d. Project Employees
A project employee is one whose employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking,the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time the employee is engaged(Labor Code, Article 294). It is not sufficient thatan employee is hired for a specific project or phaseof work. There must also be a determination of, or aclear agreement on, the completion or terminationof the project at the time the employee is engaged.
The services of project employees are coterminous
with the project. They can be terminated upon theend or completion of that project, or a phase of the
project, for which they were hired. The employer
has no obligation to pay them separation pay.
The predetermination of the duration of the periodof a project employment is important in resolving
if an employee is a project employee or not. For
example, in a previous case, the Court ruled thatwhile the employee was clearly hired for a specificproject, the absence of a definite period of the
project led the Court to the conclusion the employee
was regular.

e. Seasonal Employees
Seasonal workers perform work that is seasonal innature and are employed only for the duration of
one season (Labor Code, Article 294).
Seasonal workers who are rehired every working
season are considered to be regular employees. The
nature of their relationship with the employer issuch that during off season they are temporarily laidoff, but when their services are needed, they are reemployed. They are not, strictly speaking, separated
from the service but are merely considered as ona leave of absence without pay until they are reemployed. Their employment relationship is never
severed but only suspended. As a result, these
employees are considered to be in the regular
employment of the employer.
However, it is not sufficient that the work performed
is seasonal in nature. There must also be evidence
that the employee worked only for the durationof the season. For example, in a previous case, thefact that the employees repeatedly worked assugarcane workers for the employer for several
years established the regular employment.
f. Casual Employees
There is casual employment where an employee isengaged to perform a job, work or service which ismerely incidental to the business of the employer,
and that job, work or service is for a definite
period made known to the employee at the time ofengagement (Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,Book VI, Rule I, section 5(b)). A casual employee
is one whose work is neither regular, project orseasonal.
However, if a casual employee has worked for atleast one year (whether continuously or not) hebecomes a regular employee but only with respect
to the activity in which he is employed, and his
employment will continue while that activity exists.
Even though a casual employee, he is entitled to
all the rights and privileges, and is subject to thesame duties and obligations, as is granted by law toregular employees during the period of his actual
employment.
79External Assessment

7.6 Requirements for termination of employment(termination with or without cause, wrongfuldismissal, notice periods required to end
employment)
The right to security of tenure means that a regular
employee shall remain employed unless his or her
services are terminated for just or authorized cause
and after observance of procedural due process.
An employer may dismiss an employee on thefollowing just causes:a) serious misconduct;b) willful disobedience;c) gross and habitual neglect of duty;d) fraud or breach of trust;e) commission of a crime or offense against theemployer, his family or representative;f) other similar causes.
The other grounds are authorized causes:a) installation of labor-saving devices;b) redundancy;c) retrenchment to prevent losses;d) closure and cessation of business; ande) disease / illness
In termination for authorized causes, separation pay
is the amount given to an employee terminated due
to installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment, closure or cessation of business or
incurable disease.
Separation pay may also be granted to an illegallydismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement.

entitled to receive the equivalent of one month pay
or one-half month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher.
In case of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement,
the employee is entitled to receive the equivalent of
one month pay for every year of service.
An employer shall observe procedural due process
before terminating one’s employment. In atermination for just cause, due process involves thetwo-notice rule:a) A notice of intent to dismiss specifying the
ground for termination, and giving said
employee reasonable opportunity within
which to explain his or her side;b) A hearing or conference where the employee
is given opportunity to respond to the charge,
present evidence or rebut the evidence
presented against him or her;c) A notice of dismissal indicating that upondue consideration of all the circumstances,
grounds have been established to justify
termination.
In a termination for an authorized cause, due processmeans a written notice of dismissal to the employee
specifying the grounds at least 30 days before thedate of termination. A copy of the notice shall also
be furnished the Regional Office of the DOLE where
the employer is located.
For probationary employees, termination can bedone prior to their acquiring the status of regular
employees if they fail to meet the performancestandards required of their position, which
standards were made known to them at the start oftheir probationary employment.

In cases of installation of labor-saving devices orredundancy, the employee is entitled to receive theequivalent of one month pay or one month for every
year of service, whichever is higher.

For project or fixed-term employees, termination
can be done upon completion of the project or when
the fixed-term expires.

In cases of retrenchment, closure or cessationof business or incurable disease, the employee is

In cases of termination for just causes, the employee
is entitled to payment of indemnity or nominal
damages in a sum of not more than 30,000 pesos68;

68. Agabon vs. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573
80

External Assessment

in case of termination for authorized causes, 50,000
pesos69.
The legality of a dismissal may be questioned
before the Labor Arbiter of a Regional Arbitration
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC), through a complaint for illegal dismissal.
In establishments with a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), the dismissal may be questioned
through the grievance machinery established under
the CBA. If the complaint is not resolved at thislevel, it may be submitted to voluntary arbitration.
An employee may question his or her dismissal
based on substantive or procedural grounds.
The substantive aspect pertains to the absence ofa just or authorized cause supporting the dismissal.
The procedural aspect refers to the failure of theemployer to give the employee the opportunity to
explain his or her side.
An employee who is dismissed without just cause isentitled to any or all of the following:a) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights;b) in lieu of reinstatement, an employee may be
given separation pay of one month pay forevery year of service 70

work. When a Labor Arbiter rules for an illegal
dismissal, reinstatement is immediately executory
even pending appeal by the employer (Article 223 of
the Labor Code).
Reinstatement pending appeal may be actual or by
payroll, at the option of the employer.
Full backwages refer to all compensations, including
allowances and other benefits with monetaryequivalent that should have been earned by theemployee but was not collected by him or her
because of unjust dismissal. It includes all theamounts he or she could have earned starting fromthe date of dismissal up to the time of reinstatement.
7.7 Options for farmers to obtain legal assistanceabout their obligations (e.g. government department,
local labor office, farmers association etc.)
None.
7.8 Specific requirements for leaf growing contracts(government imposed templates, government
approval of contract, freedom to choose the termsof the contract)None.

c) full backwages, inclusive of allowances andother benefits or their monetary equivalentfrom the time compensation was withheld up
to the time of reinstatement;d) damages if the dismissal was done in bad
faith 71
Reinstatement means restoration of the employee
to the position from which he or she has been
unjustly removed. Reinstatement without lossof seniority rights means that the employee,
upon reinstatement, should be treated in matter
involving seniority and continuity of employment
as though he or she had not been dismissed from

69. Jaka Food Processing vs. Darwin Pacot, 454 SCRA 119
70. Golden Ace Builders, et. al vs. Jose Talde, May 5, 2010, GR No. 187200
71. Aurora Land Project Corp. vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 48
81

External Assessment

Appendix IV – Communication materials
1. Posters/Tarps in Barangays in Tagalog (’16) and English (’17)

82External Assessment

2. Posters in office in Reina Mercedes83External Assessment

84

External Assessment

Appendix V – Prompt Action Reporting and Verification forms
1. Internal Audit Report – checking on child labor

2. CAPA – Corrective and Preventive Action Report85External Assessment

3. Prompt Action Verification Report

4. Internal reporting (1 of several pages) system for Prompt Actions/Breaches

86External Assessment

Appendix VIII – Glossary

ALP Code Principle

Short statements that set expectations of how the farmer should
manage labor on his/her farm in seven focus areas

ALP Code

PMI’s Agricultural Labor Practices Code

ALP Program

Agricultural Labor Practices Program

ALP

Agricultural Labor Practices

Barangay

Village/Neighborhood/Community in the Philippines (smallest
administrative division like a village, community or district of a city)

CAPA Report

Corrective and Preventive Action Report

CPA

Crop Protection Agents

CU

Control Union

DOLE

Department of Labour and Employment

GAP

Good Agricultural Practices

GO

Growing Operations

GTS

Green Tobacco Sickness

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

Leaf tobacco supplierCompany that has a contract with PMI to supply tobacco but is not a
farmerMeasurable Standard

A Measurable Standard defines a good labor practice on a tobacco farmand helps determining to what extent the labor conditions and practices
on a tobacco farm are in line with the ALP Code Principles

Migrant labor

Labor coming from outside the farm’s immediate geographic areaNGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NTA

National Tobacco Administration (Department of Agriculture)

PAGASA

Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration

PAV

Prompt Action Verification Report

PHP

Philippine Peso

Piece rate

Payment at a fixed rate per unit of production/work87External Assessment

PMFTC

A corporate entity resulting from the business combination of Philip
Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc. (PMPMI) and Fortune Tobacco
Corporation (FTC) PMI Philip Morris International Inc.

PMI

Philip Morris International, Inc. or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries

PPE

Personal Protection Equipment

Prompt Action

A situation in which workers’ physical or mental well-being might be atrisk, children or a vulnerable group – pregnant women, the elderly - arein danger, or workers might not be free to leave their job

STP

Sustainable Tobacco Production

ULFS

Universal Leaf Farm System

ULPI

Universal Leaf Philippines

ULT

Universal Leaf Tobacco, ULPI’s parent company

88