[Digest] Bankard Employees vs NLRC and Bankard Inc.

Bankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Alliance Trade Unions vs NLRC and Bankard Inc. FACTS Bankard, Inc. (Bankard) classifies its employees by levels, to wit: Level I, Level II, Level III, Level IV, and Level V. On May !, "##$, its Board of %irectors approved a &'ew alary cale&, made retroactive to pril ", "##$, for t*e p+rpose of makin its *irin rate competitive in t*e ind+stry-s labor market. *e &'ew alary cale& increased t*e *irin rates of new employees, to wit: Levels I and V by one t*o+sand pesos (/",000.00), and Levels II, III and IV by nine *+ndred pesos (/#00.00). ccordinly, t*e salaries of employees w*o fell below t*e new minim+m rates were also ad1+sted to reac* s+c* rates +nder t*eir levels.

Bankard-s move drew t*e Bankard 2mployees 3nion453 (petitioner), t*e d+ly certified e6cl+sive barainin aent of t*e re+lar rank and file employees of Bankard, to press for t*e increase in t*e salary of its old, re+lar employees. Bankard took t*e position, *owever, t*at t*ere was no obliation on t*e part of t*e manaement to rant to all its employees t*e same increase in an across4t*e4board manner. s t*e re7+est for an increase for salary went +n*eeded, petitioner filed two notices of strike, t*e first was treated as a 8/reventive Mediation 9ase and *e second was averted beca+se t*e disp+te was certified by t*e ecretary of Labor and 2mployment for comp+lsory arbitration. *e econd %ivision of t*e 'L;9, by Order of May $", "##) *e e6istence of t*e distortion in t*e same reion of t*e co+ntry. In a problem dealin wit* &wae distortion,& t*e basic ass+mption is t*at t*ere e6ists a ro+pin or classification of employees t*at establis*es distinctions amon t*em on some relevant or leitimate bases. /etitioner maintains t*at for p+rposes of wae distortion, t*e classification is not one based on &levels& or &ranks& b+t on two ro+ps of employees, t*e newly *ired and t*e old, in eac* and every level, and not between and amon t*e different levels or ranks in t*e salary str+ct+re. *e 7+estion of w*et*er wae distortion e6ists is a 7+estion of fact, t*at is wit*in t*e 1+risdiction of 7+asi 1+dicial trib+nals, and it bein a basic r+le t*at findins of facts of 7+asi 1+dicial aencies, like t*e 'L;9, are enerally accorded not only respect b+t at times even finality if t*ey are s+pported by

s+bstantial, evidence as are t*e findins in t*e case at bar, t*ey m+st be respected. ?ere it is clear t*at t*ere is no *ierarc*y of positions between t*e newly *ired and re+lar employees of Bankard, *ence, t*e first element of wae distortion provided in /r+bankers is wantin. 5*ile seniority may be a factor in determinin t*e waes of employees, it cannot be made t*e sole basis in cases w*ere t*e nat+re of t*eir work differs. Moreover, for p+rposes of determinin t*e e6istence of wae distortion, employees cannot create t*eir own independent classification and +se it as a basis to demand an across4 t*e4board increase in salary. *e t*ird element is also wantin. *e ap is not sinificant as to obliterate or res+lt in severe contraction of t*e intentional 7+antitative differences in t*e salary rates between t*e employee ro+p. s already stated, t*e classification +nder t*e wae str+ct+re is based on t*e rank of an employee, not on seniority. @or t*is reason, wae distortion does not appear to e6ist. dditionally, petitioner cannot leally obliate Bankard to correct t*e alleed &wae distortion& as t*e increase in t*e waes and salaries of t*e newly4*ired was not d+e to a prescribed law or wae order. *e wordins of rticle "> are clear. If it was t*e intention of t*e leislators to cover all kinds of wae ad1+stments, t*en t*e lan+ae of t*e law s*o+ld *ave been broad, not restrictive as it is c+rrently p*rased: 85*ere t*e application of any prescribed wae increase by virt+e of a law or 5ae Order iss+ed by any ;eional Board res+lts in distortions of t*e wae str+ct+re wit*in an establis*ment, t*e employer and t*e +nion s*all neotiate to correct t*e distortions. rticle "> s*o+ld t*+s be constr+ed and correlated in relation to minim+m wae fi6in, t*e intention of t*e law bein t*at in t*e event of an increase in minim+m wae, t*e distinctions embodied in t*e wae str+ct+re based on skills, lent* of service, or ot*er loical bases of differentiation will be preserved. 5ae distortion is a fact+al and economic condition t*at may be bro+*t abo+t by different ca+ses. *e mere fact+al e6istence of wae distortion does not, *owever, ipso facto res+lt to an obliation to rectify it, absent a law or ot*er so+rce of obliation w*ic* re7+ires its rectification. 3nlike in anot*er 9 case w*ere t*ere e6isted a &company practice,& on w*ic* to base t*e obliation on, no s+c* manaement practice is *erein alleed to obliate Bankard to provide an across4t*e4board increase to all its re+lar employees. bsent any indication t*at t*e vol+ntary increase of salary rates by an employer was done arbitrarily and illeally for t*e p+rpose of circ+mventin t*e laws or was devoid of any leitimate p+rpose ot*er t*an to discriminate aainst t*e re+lar employees, t*is 9o+rt will not step in to interfere wit* t*is manaement preroative. 2mployees are of co+rse not precl+ded from neotiatin wit* its employer and lobby for wae increases t*ro+* appropriate c*annels, s+c* as t*ro+* a 9B. /2IIO' %2'I2%.