Scribd
Upload
66 views1 page

Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar

This case involved a dispute between Filipro Inc. (now Nestle Philippines) and its employees' union over holiday pay. The parties submitted the case to voluntary arbitrator Benigno Vivar Jr. Vivar's initial decision ruled Filipro must pay holiday pay according to law but excluded sales personnel. Both sides filed motions. Vivar then issued an order making the holiday pay retroactive to 1974 but ruled sales personnel were excluded and changed the computation divisor, requiring Filipro reimburse overpayments. Treating reconsideration motions, Vivar forwarded the case to the NLRC, which remanded back due to lacking jurisdiction over voluntary arbitration, and Vivar then refused the case as he had resigned.

Uploaded by

maanyag6685
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views1 page

Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar

This case involved a dispute between Filipro Inc. (now Nestle Philippines) and its employees' union over holiday pay. The parties submitted the case to voluntary arbitrator Benigno Vivar Jr. Vivar's initial decision ruled Filipro must pay holiday pay according to law but excluded sales personnel. Both sides filed motions. Vivar then issued an order making the holiday pay retroactive to 1974 but ruled sales personnel were excluded and changed the computation divisor, requiring Filipro reimburse overpayments. Treating reconsideration motions, Vivar forwarded the case to the NLRC, which remanded back due to lacking jurisdiction over voluntary arbitration, and Vivar then refused the case as he had resigned.

Uploaded by

maanyag6685
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Union of Filipro Employees v.

Vivar

Facts:

Filipro Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) had excluded sales personnel from the holiday pay award and
changed the divisor in the computation of benefits from 251 to 261 days. Both Filipro and the Union of
Filipro Employees submitted the case for voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar,
Jr. as voluntary arbitrator. In his decision, Vivar directed Filipro to “pay its monthly paid employees
holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code, subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in
Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code.”

With the decision by Vivar, Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award
to 3 years, (2) exclusion of its sales personnel (consisted by salesmen, sales representatives, truck
drivers, merchandisers and medical representatives) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3)
deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick
leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. On the same light, the Union filed their answer that the
award should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, their sales personnel are
not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and the use of 251 as divisor is an
established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.

Vivar issued an order declaring that the effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to November
1, 1974, the date of effectivity of the labor Code. However, he adjudged the sales personnel are field
personnel and, as such, are not entitled to holiday pay. He likewise ruled that the divisor should be
changed from 251 to 261 due to the grant of 10 days’ holiday pay and ordered the reimbursement of
overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 days as
divisor.

Treating the motions for partial reconsideration of the parties, Vivar forwarded the case to the NLRC,
which remanded the case to Vivar on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to review decisions in
voluntary arbitration cases. In a letter, Vivar refused to take cognizance of the case because, according
to him, he had resigned from service already.

You might also like