Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Lepanto V Lepanto

    Încărcat de

    Socrates Jerome De Guzman
    67 vizualizări2 pagini
    The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Voluntary Arbitrator and Court of Appeals that the mining company was obligated to pay nightshift differentials to regular shift employees who worked beyond 3PM based on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and past practices. Specifically, Section 3 of the agreement stated differentials would be paid for the first and third shifts and excluded from overtime pay calculations, but did not indicate differentials should be denied for second shift work past 3PM. The company also paid these differentials in previous agreements and after the arbitrator's initial decision, confirming the employees were entitled to the differential amounts under the agreement.

    Descriere originală:

    Labor 1 | Overtime Pay

    Titlu original

    Lepanto v Lepanto

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Voluntary Arbitrator and Court of Appeals that the mining company was obligated to pay nightshift differentials to regular shift employees who worked beyond 3PM based on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and past practices. Specifically, Section 3 of the agreement stated differentials would be paid for the first and third shifts and excluded from overtime pay calculations, but did not indicate differentials should be denied for second shift work past 3PM. The company also paid these differentials in previous agreements and after the arbitrator's initial decision, confirming the employees were entitled to the differential amounts under the agreement.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    67 vizualizări2 pagini

    Lepanto V Lepanto

    Încărcat de

    Socrates Jerome De Guzman
    The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Voluntary Arbitrator and Court of Appeals that the mining company was obligated to pay nightshift differentials to regular shift employees who worked beyond 3PM based on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and past practices. Specifically, Section 3 of the agreement stated differentials would be paid for the first and third shifts and excluded from overtime pay calculations, but did not indicate differentials should be denied for second shift work past 3PM. The company also paid these differentials in previous agreements and after the arbitrator's initial decision, confirming the employees were entitled to the differential amounts under the agreement.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v.

    LEPANTO LOCAL STAFF UNION


    G.R. 161713 | August 20, 2008
    J. Carpio

    FACTS:
     Petitioner is a domestic mining corporation while respondent is the duly certified
    bargaining agent od the petitioner’s employees occupying staff positions.
     Nov. 1998 – parties entered into their 4th CBA for the period of July 1 1998 to June 30
    2000:
    o Sec. 3 states that the Company shall continue to pay the nightshift differential for
    work during the first and third shifts to all covered employees within the bargaining
    unit as follows:
     First Shift (11PM to 7AM), differential pay is 20% of basic rate. Third Shift
    (3PM to 11PM), differential pay is 15% of basic rate.
     For overtime work extending beyond regular shift (7AM to 3PM), no
    nightshift differential added before the overtime pay is calculated.
    o Sec. 9 grants longevity pay of P30 a month from 1998 onwards.
     Respondent filed a complaint with the NCMB-Cordillera Administrative Region because
    petitioner failed to pay the differentials stated in the CBA.
     Ruling of Voluntary Arbitrator: Petitioner had the legal obligation to pay the longevity pay. VA
    also agreed with the respondent in stating that surface workers on the regular shift who work beyond
    3PM are entitled to nightshift differential pay. Section 3 of the CBA only states that nighshift
    differential is excluded from the computation of overtime pay BUT does not mean it should not be
    granted to the employees. BUT claim has already prescribed.
     Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Affirmed the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator. In
    addition, records show that the petitioner paid the nightshift differential of the employees
    of the regular shift who worked beyond 3PM after the promulgation of the VA ruling. MR
    denied.
    ISSUE w/ RATIO:
    Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the VA interpretation of the 4th CBA that regular shift
    employees are entitled to night differential pay
    NO.
     SC sustains the interpretation of the VA and the CA. The first paragraph of Sec. 3 provide
    that petitioner shall pay night differential to employees in the 1st and 3rd shift BUT does
    not state that workers who performed work beyond the hours of the second/regular shift
    (7AM to 3PM) should not be given night differentials. It only provides that night
    differential shall not be included in the computation of overtime pay.
     It is settled that in order to ascertain the intention of the parties, the VA may look into the
    contractual history and evidence of past practices. Both VA and CA found that provision
    in question was found in the first 3 CBAs and that during the effectivity of these CBAs,
    petitioner paid the second shift employees night differential.
     CA correctly ruled that petitioner failed to present evidence that payment made before was
    erroneous. In fact, it found that petitioners paid the contested night differential pay after
    the ruling of the VA and upon pendency of the appeal.
    WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the CA decision.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și