18. What is Wage Distortion? How is it rectified?

ANSWER:
A wage distortion happens when a wage order increasing the rates of wages removes or significantly
reduces the pay advantage of one position of employees over another. This change has to be corrected.
The following are the essential elements of a wage distortion:
1.) The company has a hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates
2.) A wage order significantly changes or increases the salaries of the employees in the lower level but
doesn't have a corresponding increase for the salaries of the employees in the higher level
3.) The distinction between the positions/groups of employees is eliminated
4.) The distortion exists in the same region of the country
Correction of a wage distortion must first be done in the company's grievance machinery provided for in
the CBA. If the distortion isn't resolved there, the next step is voluntary arbitration. In case the company
has no CBA or recognized labor union, the employers and workers have to reach an agreement to correct
the distortion. If they can't agree, they have to bring the problem to the NCMB. If after 10 days in the
NCMB there isn't any correction the next place to go is the NLRC.
Wage distortions can't be the cause of a strike or lockout (Ilaw ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA
586.) The correction of a wage distortion should be done by negotiation or arbitration.
Wage distortions, furthermore, are dangerous; an uncorrected one can lead to insubordination and
weakening of productivity.
19. Is the Equal Protection Clause applicable to labor?
ANSWER:
Page 28-29 of Chan Reviewer
20. Yupangco Doctrine (Yupangco v. CA)
ANSWER:
A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a judgment
debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party may avail
himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing
himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of.
Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative remedies:
a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.
Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper action with a competent
court to recover ownership of the property illegally seized by the sheriff. This finds support in Section 17
(now 16), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court,

21. Compulsary Arbitration v. Voluntary Arbitration; Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitration

ANSWER:
Page 880-883
22. Explain whether or not an individual or a group can bring issues without the participation of
their bargaining unit.

ANSWER: (NOT SURE)

Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision-making.

The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to
such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to
participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this
purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the
representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the
majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989)
NB: Such rights are limited to:
a. Participation in Grievance Proceedings
b. Voluntary modes of settling disputes

23. Retirement and when employee may be compulsory retired.

ANSWER:
Art. 287. Retirement.
Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining
agreement or other applicable employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have
earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided,
however, That an employees retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements
shall not be less than those provided therein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the
establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five
(65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years
in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half
(1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one
whole year.
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen
(15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5)
days of service incentive leaves.
Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees
or workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision.
Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions under Article
288 of this Code.

24. Property rights in Employer-Employee relationships.

ANSWER:
Once an employer-employee relationship is established, such employment is treated, under our
constitutional framework, as a property right. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his
only possession or means of livelihood and those of his dependents. When a person loses his job, his
dependents suffer as well. The worker should, therefore, be protected and insulated against any arbitrary
deprivation of his job. (Philips Semiconductors [Phils.], Inc. vs. Fadriquela, G. R. No. 141717, April 14,
2004; Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. NLRC, 189 SCRA 211 [1990])

25. Kiok Loy v. NLRC (Lock, stop, and barrel Doctrine)

ANSWER:
We are in total conformity with respondent NLRC's pronouncement that petitioner Company is GUILTY
of unfair labor practice. It has been indubitably established that (1) respondent Union was a duly certified
bargaining agent; (2) it made a definite request to bargain, accompanied with a copy of the proposed
Collective Bargaining Agreement, to the Company not only once but twice which were left unanswered
and unacted upon; and (3) the Company made no counter proposal whatsoever all of which conclusively
indicate lack of a sincere desire to negotiate.

A Company's refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process,
may indicate bad faith and this is specially true where the Union's request for a counter proposal is left
unanswered. Even during the period of compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, petitioner Company's
approach and attitude-stalling the negotiation by a series of postponements, non-appearance at the hearing
conducted, and undue delay in submitting its financial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that
it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the Union. Petitioner has not at any instance,
evinced good faith or willingness to discuss freely and fully the claims and demands set forth by the
Union much less justify its opposition thereto.

NB: Case Citation

In Kiok Loy vs. NLRC,13 we found that petitioner therein, Sweden Ice Cream Plant, refused to
submit any counter proposal to the CBA proposed by its employees certified bargaining agent.
We ruled that the former had thereby lost its right to bargain the terms and conditions of the
CBA. Thus, we did not hesitate to impose on the erring company the CBA proposed by its
employees union - lock, stock and barrel. Our findings in Kiok Loy are similar to the facts in
the present case, to wit:

petitioner Companys approach and attitude stalling the negotiation by a series of

postponements, non-appearance at the hearing conducted, and undue delay in submitting its
financial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach
an agreement with the Union. Petitioner has not at any instance, evinced good faith or
willingness to discuss freely and fully the claims and demands set forth by the Union much less
justify its objection thereto.

26.