Case Digest (G.R. No. 162411)
Facts:
Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (NIASSI) v. Nasipit Employees Labor Union (NELU)-ALU-TUCP, G.R. No. 162411, June 27, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner NIASSI, represented by Ramon M. Calo, is a domestic corporation engaged in stevedoring operations in Nasipit, Agusan del Norte; respondent Nasipit Employees Labor Union (NELU)-ALU-TUCP, represented by Donell P. Dagani, is the certified bargaining agent (a local chapter of the Associated Labor Union) of NIASSI’s rank-and-file employees.The dispute arose after the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB), Caraga Region, issued Wage Order No. RXIII-02 in October 1999 granting a P12 per day cost-of-living allowance (COLA) to minimum wage earners. The Union filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Caraga Regional Office alleging that NIASSI failed to implement WO RXIII-02 and sought inspection and enforcement; a DOLE inspection team reported in May and November 2000 that the wage order did not apply to NIASSI because its employees were already paid above the prescribed minimum wage.
The DOLE Regional Director forwarded the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch; Executive Labor Arbiter Rogelio P. Legaspi referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration, which was docketed as VA Case No. 0925-XIII-08-003-01A. On February 22, 2002, Voluntary Arbitrator Jesus G. Chavez granted the Union’s prayer and ordered implementation of WO RXIII-02, reasoning that the wage order did not expressly exclude employees already earning above the minimum wage and that NIASSI failed to prove that the overage resulted from company wage increases within one year of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
NIASSI moved for reconsideration before the voluntary arbitrator and, after denial, filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging Chavez’s decision. The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 70435, by Decision ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May Wage Order No. RXIII-02 be applied to and cover NIASSI’s employees who, at the time the wage order took effect, were receiving wages higher than the prescribed minimum?
- Does the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision (Article XIX, Section 2) on non-creditability affect the applicability of WO RXIII-02 to employees receiv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)