Scribd
Upload
319 views2 pages

Atok Big Wedge Assn. vs. Atok Big Wedge Co. 97 Phil 294

(1) The labor union demanded a wage increase that was partially rejected, leading to hearings before the Court of Industrial Relations which set minimum wages. An agreement was later reached setting valuations for housing and other facilities that could be deducted from wages. (2) When the labor union later tried to enforce minimum wages under the law instead of the agreement, the company opposed. The Court ruled the intention was to make a provisional arrangement pending the Supreme Court decision in a related case. (3) The Court also dismissed the union's claim for additional pay for Sunday/holiday work, finding the company's compensation was already above the legal minimum. The petition was dismissed as unmeritorious.

Uploaded by

Angela De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
319 views2 pages

Atok Big Wedge Assn. vs. Atok Big Wedge Co. 97 Phil 294

(1) The labor union demanded a wage increase that was partially rejected, leading to hearings before the Court of Industrial Relations which set minimum wages. An agreement was later reached setting valuations for housing and other facilities that could be deducted from wages. (2) When the labor union later tried to enforce minimum wages under the law instead of the agreement, the company opposed. The Court ruled the intention was to make a provisional arrangement pending the Supreme Court decision in a related case. (3) The Court also dismissed the union's claim for additional pay for Sunday/holiday work, finding the company's compensation was already above the legal minimum. The petition was dismissed as unmeritorious.

Uploaded by

Angela De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ATOK-BIG

WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, petitioner,


vs.
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, respondents.
July 19, 1955 / G.R. No. L-7349
Reyes, J.B.L

Doctrine
Being taught by the case :
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUPPLEMENT and FACILITY
(1) Supplements, defined – extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the
laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages [vacation and holidays not worked; paid sick leave
or maternity leave; overtime rate in excess of what is required by law; sick, pension, retirement and death
benefits; profit sharing; family allowances; Christmas, war risk and cost of living bonuses or other bonuses
other than those paid as a reward for extra output or time spent on the job].
(2) Facilities, defined – items of expense necessary for laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence,
so that by express provision of the law, they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are
deductible therefrom since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the
same.

Facts of the Case


• On September 4, 1950, the Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association (petitioner, labor
union)submitted to the Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. (respondent) several demands, among
which was an increase of P0.50 in daily wage. Some of the demands were granted by petitioner and
the others were rejected (including the demand for increase in wages).
• Hearings were held in the Court of Industrial Relations. After the hearing, court rendered a decision
fixing the minimum wage for the laborers at P3.20 without rice ration and 2.65 a day with rice ration;
denying the deduction from such minimum wage, of the value of housing facilities furnished by the
company to the laborers, as well as the efficiency bonus given to them by the company and making
the award effective from September 4, 1950 (the date of the presentation of the original demand).
From this decision, the mining company appealed. (G.R. No. L-5276)
• Atok Company asked the Court for authority to stop operations & lay off employees and laborers, for
the reason that due to the heavy losses, increased taxes, high cost of materials, negligible quantity of
ore deports, and the enforcement of the Minimum Wage Law, the continued operation of the company
would lead to its immediate bankruptcy and collapse. The Court, instead of hearing the petition on
the merits, convened the parties for voluntary conciliation and mediation.
• The parties reached an agreement on October 29, 1952 after the SC decision which states agreement
that the following facilities heretofore given or actually being given by petitioner to its workers and
laborers, and which constitute as part of their wages, be valued as follows:

Rice ration P.55 per day


Housing facility 40 per day
All other facilities at least 85 per day

• It is understood that the said amount of facilities valued at the above mentioned prices, may be charged
in full or partially by the Company against laborer or employee, as they may see fit pursuant to the
exigencies of its operation.
• This was approved by the Court on December 26, 1952.
• Later on, the Court decided to affirm the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations by fixing the
minimum cash wage of the laborers and employees to P 3.20 cash, without rice ration, or P2.65 with
rice rations.
• On June 13, 1953, the labor union presented a petition to enforce the agreement made on October 29,
1952 as modified by the case L-5276 and provisions of Minimum Wage Law. Increasing P3.45 a day
with ration and P4.00 without. Also the differential pay from August 4, 1952, when the award took
effect.
• The mining company opposed the petition stating that the agreement was reached to not increase the
cost of production. It would also supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in L-5276 and the
provisions of the aforementioned Minimum Wage Law.
• The Court of Industrial Relations denied the petition stating that the agreement was entered upon by
the labor union with the fact that they already knew the decision of the Court, as well as fixing the
wages to the former rates despite the minimum wage avaliable due to the Minimum Wage Law, with
both parties intending to regulate the wage by coming to an agreement.
• The Court also denied the the claim of the labor union for an additional payment of P0.50 for work
done on Sundays and holidays. It held that the company was within the requirements of the law.
• Thus, the labor union filed for the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE
1. W/N there was a violation to the agreement made on Oct 29, 1952 with the request of the
Labor Union to follow the minimum wage set by the Minimun Wage Law rather than the
fixed wage both parties agreed upon.
2. W/N an additional compensation of P0.50 should be given to the employees and workers
that work on Sundays and holidays.
SUPREME COURT

• For both issues, the Court dismissed the petition as unmeritorious and untenable.

(1) On the First Issue, the court determined that the contention was untenable as the intention of both
parties to the agreement was to make a provisional arrangement pending the Supreme Court decision.
As the agreement was made to satisfy the appeal of the Company in L-5276 with the concerns of
heavy losses thus the request to lay-off laborers from the full enforcement of the Minimum Wage
Law, thus the agreement that the company would pay the minimum wage provided it would be
allowed to reduce the cost by subtracting the evaluated facilities provided for by the company.
(2) On the second issue, as provided for by Sec. 4 Commonwealth Act No. 444(Eight Hour Labor Law)
the legal minimum for additional compensation was computed as 25 per cent of the laborer's regular
renumeration. This amounts to P1 a day for a P4 minimum wage. As the company is giving them an
additional P1.10 from their initial wages via cash portion. The company is giving higher compensation
than the minimum. Therefore the company has not violated any law with respect to additional
compensation.
Petition Dismissed

NOTE: Kindly read the full text to have an in-depth understanding of the facts, ruling and the agreement of both
parties. Medj tricky siya daan. Happy studying !

You might also like