Preventive Maintenance: An Approach To Regulatory Compliance.
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
7 recomendaciones•1,165 vistas
"Preventive Maintenance: An Approach To Regulatory Compliance." Talk Delivered By Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang July 24, 2015 Asian Institute of Management Makati City
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Preventive Maintenance: An Approach To Regulatory Compliance.
Similar a Preventive Maintenance: An Approach To Regulatory Compliance. (6)
Más de PoL Sangalang
Más de PoL Sangalang (20)
Último
Último (20)
Preventive Maintenance: An Approach To Regulatory Compliance.
- 1. Regulatory Compliance An ApproachTo Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang July 24, 2015 Asian Institute of Management Makati City
- 3. A new car comes with an OWNER’S MANUAL with a Preventive Maintenance schedule to help you make your car last longer. A new business does NOT come with such an OWNER’S MANUAL. Many businesses are in trouble with Regulatory Compliance simply because the owners do NOT know what to do.
- 4. ROQUE B. BENITEZ and SANTA FE LABOR UNION – FEDERATION OF FREEWORKERS -versus- SANTA FE MOVING AND RELOCATION SERVICES/ VEDIT KURANGIL G.R. No. 208163 April 20, 2015 Supreme Court of the Philippines
- 5. LITEX GLASS AND ALUMINUM SUPPLY and/or RONALD ONG-SITCO -versus- DOMINADOR B. SANCHEZ G.R. No. 198465 April 22, 2015 Supreme Court of the Philippines
- 6. JESUS G. REYES -versus- GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., EYE REFERRAL CENTER, and MANUEL B. AGULTO G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015 Supreme Court of the Philippines
- 8. Health and Environment Technical Business and Financial Political and Social Legal
- 10. The care and servicing by personnel for the purpose of maintaining equipment and facilities in satisfactory operating condition by providing for systematic inspection, detection, and correction of incipient failures either before they occur or before they develop into major defects.
- 12. 1,000 km or 1 month 5,000 km or 6 months 10,000 km or 12 months 15,000 km or 18 months 20,000 km or 24 months Every 5,000 km or 6 months thereafter…
- 14. 1. Appoint a Compliance Officer/ Committee -or- Outsource a Compliance Consultant 2. Make a Preventive Maintenance schedule for Regulatory Compliance 3. Train and Accredit your Compliance Officer 4. Coordinate and cooperate with Regulatory Agencies (i.e. DOLE)
Notas del editor
- Have you experienced driving a car (or riding in a car) that suddenly lost its brakes? Have you experienced driving a car (or riding in a car) and while cruising the SLEX its engine suddenly stopped?
- On February 8, 2011, Benitez and the Union filed a complaint for ULP and ILLEGAL DISMISSAL with MONEY CLAIMS against the company and its Managing Director Vedit Kurangil (an AUSTRALIAN). Benitez was the Union VICE-PRESIDENT. He was also the Packing and Moving Operator and Crew Leader of the company. On December 18, 2010, the company held its Christmas party wherein an incident happened. On December 20, 2010, the company issued a memorandum terminating Benitez for serious misconduct and/or willful disobedience. The Christmas party incident according to BENITEZ: Benitez complained to the Raffle Committee about the conduct of the Christmas raffle because the committee was putting back the lots of the employees who’s names were already drawn for the minor prizes. He protested and this led to his immediate termination without due process. He submitted his affidavit and the supporting affidavits of 4 other employees who claimed to be seated right beside him in the same table. He alleged that there is ULP because the company and the UNION is in the process of negotiating their CBA. He also alleged that the penalty is too harsh and that he was not given due process. The Christmas party incident according to COMPANY: Benitez went up the stage just when the grand prize was going to be drawn. He berated with foul and abusive language Kurangil, the company and its officials (including the company PRESIDENT and GM Epitacio Titong Jr.) for allowing the CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES to participate in the raffle thereby causing only 80% of the prizes to go to REGULAR EMPLOYEES. This happened before the entire company assembly, in the presence of employees’ families and guests. Aside from the affidavit of Kurangil, the company submit an affidavit of 1 guest and supporting affidavits of 3 employees. LA, NLRC and CA ruled in favor of company. SC ruled in favor of the company but awarded NOMINAL DAMAGES of P30,000 to Benitez for violation of PROCEDURAL PROCESS.
- On February 18, 2009, SANCHEZ filed an illegal dismissal case against the Company and its owner ONG-SITCO. Sanchez was a driver and installer of the Company and had no disciplinary case or issue for 15 years prior to the incident in DECEMBER 23, 2008. He started working for ONG-SITCO in 1994. On December 23, 2008, ONG-SITCO and his wife scolded and threw insults at Sanchez and instructed him to go on INDEFINITE LEAVE. Sanchez kept on coming back almost every week to woe Ong-Sitco but the latter kept on ignoring him. Thus, he was constrained to file a labor complaint on February 18, 2009. After filing the case, SANCHEZ received 2 memos. Subsequent to the filing of the said complaint, Sanchez received two (2) memorandum-letters from petitioners. The first one was dated January 7, 2009 but mailed on February 23, 2009, and received by Sanchez on February 26, 2009. It contained a directive for Sanchez to report for work and to explain his continued absence from December 22, 2008 to January 7, 2009, after he was allegedly given verbal warning for committing the following infractions: 1) going home early without justification on December 3, 2008; 2) exhibiting erratic behavior and threatening to file a case against petitioners after being summoned to explain his unjustified leave from work on December 9, 2008; and, 3) unauthorized use of company vehicle for personal benefit on December 20, 2008. The second memorandum-letter dated January 22, 2009 which was sent on March 10, 2009, and received by Sanchez on March 22, 2009, contained a warning that his refusal to follow the earlier directive to report and explain his continued absence within 24 hours would constitute abandonment of work on his part. The LA’s ruling: He observed that the original copies of the registry receipts which were attached to the envelopes of the January 7 and January 22, 2009 memorandum-letters show that they were mailed only on February 23, 2009 and March 10, 2009, respectively, or after the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal on February 18, 2009. Therefore, SANCHEZ’ version of the facts is more credible. Moreover, the LA pointed out that the alleged infractions imputed against Sanchez are not sufficient grounds to warrant his dismissal. The LA awarded Sanchez with: Separation pay of 1 month pay per year of service; Backwages from date of dismissal up to finality of decision; Holiday pay Service incentive leave pay Attorney’s fees NLRC and CA affirmed the LA. The SC affirmed the CA with modification that the separation pay shall be computed from 2002 instead of 1994.
- On August 1, 2003, REYES was hired as ADMINISTRATOR of the Foundation’s EYE REFERRAL CENTER with a salary of P20,000 per month. Beginning February 1, 2005, the Foundation started withholding Reyes’ salaries WITHOUT NOTICE. His 14th month pay was also not released. But Reyes still continued reporting for work. Reyes wrote a letter to AGULTO but no reply; and then he was verbally informed by the latter’s assistant that he is no longer the Administrator. Afterwards, the office of REYES was padlocked. Reyes continued to work, however. BUT on April 29, 2005, the security guards no longer allowed him to enter the premises. The Foundation’s defense is that Reyes is a consultant who recommended that the position of Administrator be created; that he assumed the position of Administrator on temporary or trial basis; and that it was Reyes who terminated the consultancy agreement. It appears that REYES is a consultant of various government agencies, such as Manila International Airport Authority, Manila Intercontinental Port Authority, Anti-Terrorist Task Force for Aviation and Air Transportation Sector. On December 1-31, 2004, he went on leave without seeking approval from the officers of the Foundation. On the contrary, his letter simply informed the Foundation that he will be away for a month and even advised them that they have the option of appointing his replacement during his absence. The LA ruled that there was NO employer employee relationship. The NLRC reversed the LA. It says that REYES is an employee. The CA revered the NLRC. There’s no employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA. For illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the LA for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of respondents, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence. Under the CONTROL TEST and ECONOMIC REALITY TEST, there is no employer-employee relationship.
- Maintenance, including tests, measurements, adjustments, and parts replacement, performed specifically to prevent faults from occurring. The primary goal of maintenance is to avoid or mitigate the consequences of failure of equipment. This may be by preventing the failure before it actually occurs which Planned Maintenance and Condition Based Maintenance help to achieve. It is designed to preserve and restore equipment reliability by replacing worn components before they actually fail. Preventive maintenance activities include partial or complete overhauls at specified periods, oil changes, lubrication, minor adjustments, and so on. In addition, workers can record equipment deterioration so they know to replace or repair worn parts before they cause system failure. The ideal preventive maintenance program would prevent all equipment failure before it occurs.