Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Philippine National Bank Petitioner vs. Philippine National Bank Employees Association Pema and Court of Industrial Relations Respondents.

    Uploaded by

    Shally Lao-un
    The Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute over the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA argued that the cost of living allowance and longevity pay granted to employees should be included in overtime pay calculations. PNB disagreed. The Court of Industrial Relations sided with PEMA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime pay is only for extra effort beyond regular work hours, so additional payments for other purposes like allowances should not be included in the overtime pay calculation. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties and past practice in implementing it should determine what is considered the "regular wage or salary" for overtime under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine National Bank Petitioner vs. Philippine National Bank Employees Association Pema and Court of Industrial Relations Respondents.

    Uploaded by

    Shally Lao-un
    72 views1 page
    The Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute over the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA argued that the cost of living allowance and longevity pay granted to employees should be included in overtime pay calculations. PNB disagreed. The Court of Industrial Relations sided with PEMA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime pay is only for extra effort beyond regular work hours, so additional payments for other purposes like allowances should not be included in the overtime pay calculation. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties and past practice in implementing it should determine what is considered the "regular wage or salary" for overtime under the law.

    Original Title

    59.-PHILIPPINE-NATIONAL-BANK-PETITIONER-VS.-PHILIPPINE-NATIONAL-BANK-EMPLOYEES-ASSOCIATION-PEMA-AND-COURT-OF-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-RESPONDENTS. (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute over the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA argued that the cost of living allowance and longevity pay granted to employees should be included in overtime pay calculations. PNB disagreed. The Court of Industrial Relations sided with PEMA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime pay is only for extra effort beyond regular work hours, so additional payments for other purposes like allowances should not be included in the overtime pay calculation. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties and past practice in implementing it should determine what is considered the "regular wage or salary" for overtime under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views1 page

    Philippine National Bank Petitioner vs. Philippine National Bank Employees Association Pema and Court of Industrial Relations Respondents.

    Uploaded by

    Shally Lao-un
    The Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute over the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA argued that the cost of living allowance and longevity pay granted to employees should be included in overtime pay calculations. PNB disagreed. The Court of Industrial Relations sided with PEMA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime pay is only for extra effort beyond regular work hours, so additional payments for other purposes like allowances should not be included in the overtime pay calculation. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties and past practice in implementing it should determine what is considered the "regular wage or salary" for overtime under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-30279 July 30, 1982

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,


    vs.
    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA) and COURT OF
    INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

    FACTS:

    PNB and PNB Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute regarding the proper computation
    of overtime pay. PEMA wanted the cost of living allowance (granted in 1958) and longevity pay
    (granted in 1961) to be included in the computation. PNB disagreed and the 2 parties later went
    before the CIR to resolve the dispute. PNB contends that the parties have not so stipulated under
    the collective bargaining agreement between them. The Court of Industrial Relations decided in
    favor of PEMA and held that PNB should compute the overtime pay of its employees on the
    basis
    of the sum total of the employee’s basic salary or wage plus cost of living allowance and
    longevity pay. The CIR relied on the ruling in NAWASA v NAWASA Consolidated Unions,
    which held that “for purposes of computing overtime compensation, regular wage includes all
    payments which the parties have agreed shall be received during the work week, including
    differentiated payments for working at undesirable times, such as at night and the board and
    lodging customarily furnished the employee.”

    Hence this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Should the cost of living allowance and longevity pay granted by the employer be included in the
    computation of overtime pay?

    RULING:

    No. Overtime pay is for extra effort beyond that contemplated in the employment contract;
    additional pay given for any other purpose cannot be included in the basis for the computation of
    overtime pay. It appears that the answer to dispute lies, not in the text of the NAWASA case but
    in the terms and conditions and practice in the implementation of, the agreement, an area which
    makes resolution of the issue dependent on the relation of the terms and conditions of the
    contract to the phraseology and purpose of the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Act 444).Courts cannot
    make contracts for the parties themselves. Commonwealth Act 444 prescribes that overtime
    work shall be paid 'at the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least twenty-five per
    centum additional' (Secs. 4 & 5). The law did not define what is a 'regular wage or salary'. What
    the law emphasized by way of repeated expression is that in addition to 'regular wage', there
    must be paid an additional 25% of that 'regular wage' to constitute overtime rate of pay. The
    parties were thus allowed to agree on what shag be mutually considered regular pay from or
    upon which a 25% premium shall be based and added to make up overtime compensation. This
    the parties did by agreeing and accepting for a very long period to a basic hourly rate to which a
    premium shall be added for purposes of over time. Also significant is the fact that
    Commonwealth Act 444 merely sets a minimum, a least premium rate for purposes of overtime.
    In this case, the parties agreed to premium rates four (4) or even six (6) times than that fixed by
    the Act. Far from being against the law, therefore, the agreement provided for rates
    'commensurate with the Company's reputation of being among the leading employers in the
    Philippines' (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Coll. Barg. Agreement) at the same time that the Company is
    maintained in a competitive position in the market Coll. Barg. Agreement, lbid).

    You might also like