FACTS:
The case was originally filed by herein respondents Bargo et al against Congson, the former being hired as piece-rate workers responsible for the loading/unloading of tuna catch for Southern Fishing Industry owned by the latter.
In 1990, the piece-rate workers were replaced with a new set of workers because of their alleged refusal/resistance to the proposed reduction of their piece-rate payment per tuna (the former rate was P1.00 per tuna movement. The reduction was proposed because of the decrease in the volume of tuna catch). They filed for underpayment of wages, contending that their average monthly rate did not exceed P1000, plus non-payment of overtime pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.
The labor arbiter decided in favor of the workers and directed Congson to pay the monetary claims for salary differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, in toto, thus the instant petition.
ISSUES:
1. W/N THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO A SEPARATION PAY?
2. W/N THE COMPUTATION OF WAGES SHOULD INCLUDE THE VALUE OF TUNA LIVER AND INTESTINES THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE REPONDENT WORKERS AS PART OF THEIR COMPENSATION?
HELD:
1. YES. There being a substantive proof that the respondent workers are to be reinstated by their employer, the award for separation pay is appropriate. Separation pay may be given when the employer-employee relationship is to so tainted that reinstatement would not prosper.
2. NO. Article 102 par.1 of the Labor Code states that: Forms of payment. 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 the employee. Thus, the computation made by the labor arbiter in arriving at the money claims is correct.
The case was originally filed by herein respondents Bargo et al against Congson, the former being hired as piece-rate workers responsible for the loading/unloading of tuna catch for Southern Fishing Industry owned by the latter.
In 1990, the piece-rate workers were replaced with a new set of workers because of their alleged refusal/resistance to the proposed reduction of their piece-rate payment per tuna (the former rate was P1.00 per tuna movement. The reduction was proposed because of the decrease in the volume of tuna catch). They filed for underpayment of wages, contending that their average monthly rate did not exceed P1000, plus non-payment of overtime pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.
The labor arbiter decided in favor of the workers and directed Congson to pay the monetary claims for salary differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, in toto, thus the instant petition.
ISSUES:
1. W/N THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO A SEPARATION PAY?
2. W/N THE COMPUTATION OF WAGES SHOULD INCLUDE THE VALUE OF TUNA LIVER AND INTESTINES THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE REPONDENT WORKERS AS PART OF THEIR COMPENSATION?
HELD:
1. YES. There being a substantive proof that the respondent workers are to be reinstated by their employer, the award for separation pay is appropriate. Separation pay may be given when the employer-employee relationship is to so tainted that reinstatement would not prosper.
2. NO. Article 102 par.1 of the Labor Code states that: Forms of payment. 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 the employee. Thus, the computation made by the labor arbiter in arriving at the money claims is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment