QuestionsQuestions (Republic Act No. 6725)
RA 6725 amends Article 135 of the Labor Code, as amended.
It is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex.
It refers to employment-related matters such as compensation, fringe benefits, promotion, training opportunities, and access to study/scholarship grants, among other aspects affecting the worker’s employment conditions.
Paying a lesser compensation (wage, salary, or other form of remuneration and fringe benefits) to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value.
That the woman employee received less pay than a male employee and that the work performed is of equal value.
Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion and training opportunities, and with respect to study and scholarship grant, solely on account of sex.
The law specifically targets discrimination “solely on account of sex.” If sex is not the sole basis, the statutory discrimination under Article 135 may not be established as framed.
No. The institution of any criminal action does not bar the aggrieved employee from filing an entirely separate and distinct action for money claims, including damages and other affirmative relief.
They allow parallel pursuit: the criminal case and the money claims case are independent of each other and may proceed separately.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment is authorized to promulgate necessary guidelines to implement the Article in accordance with generally accepted practices and standards here and abroad.
Fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
The law strengthens the prohibition on discrimination against women with respect to terms and conditions of employment.
Because liability for lesser compensation requires that the compared male and female employees perform work of equal value; otherwise, the pay disparity alone may not constitute discrimination under the statute.
That the employer favored a male employee over a female employee regarding promotion (or training/study/scholarship opportunities) and that this favoritism was solely on account of sex.
Employers must ensure nondiscriminatory practices in compensation, promotion, training, and access to study/scholarship grants, and must align policies with implementing guidelines to avoid criminal liability and separate money claims.