Scribd
Upload
155 views1 page

Labor Dispute: Night Shift Pay Rights

This case involves a dispute between Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and the Lepanto Local Staff Union over payment of night shift differentials. The union argued that under their fourth collective bargaining agreement, workers were entitled to night shift differentials for work performed beyond 3pm. The voluntary arbitrator and Court of Appeals agreed, as the company had paid these differentials under prior CBAs and continued to do so even after disputes arose. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the fourth CBA was intended to exclude payment of differentials to day shift workers for work beyond 3pm.

Uploaded by

LM Rio
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
155 views1 page

Labor Dispute: Night Shift Pay Rights

This case involves a dispute between Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and the Lepanto Local Staff Union over payment of night shift differentials. The union argued that under their fourth collective bargaining agreement, workers were entitled to night shift differentials for work performed beyond 3pm. The voluntary arbitrator and Court of Appeals agreed, as the company had paid these differentials under prior CBAs and continued to do so even after disputes arose. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the fourth CBA was intended to exclude payment of differentials to day shift workers for work beyond 3pm.

Uploaded by

LM Rio
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

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY vs.

LEPANTO LOCAL STAFF UNION


GR. No. 161713, August 20, 2008

DOCTRINE:
The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the
parties. If the terms of the CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the con-
tracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. In order to ascertain the
intention of the contracting parties, the Voluntary Arbitrator shall principally consider their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts as well as their negotiating and contractual history
and evidence of past practices.

FACTS:
During the effectivity of the first three CBAs, petitioner paid night shift differentials to other
workers who were members of respondent for work performed beyond 3pm. Petitioner
also paid night shift differential for work beyond 3pm during the effectivity of the 4th CBA.
However, petitioner alleges that the payment of night shift differential for work performed
beyond 3pm during the 4th CBA was a mistake on the part of its accounting department.
Respondent Union filed a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, al-
leging that petitioner failed to pay the night shift differential and longevity pay of respon-
dent’s members as provided in the 4th CBA. Petitioner and respondent failed to amicably
settle the dispute so they agreed to submit the issue to a voluntary arbitrator (VA). VA
ruled in favor of respondent (Union) that the inclusion of paragraph 3, Section 3, Article VIII
of the 4th CBA disclosed the intent of the parties to grant night shift differential benefits to
employees who rendered work beyond the regular day shift. The VA ruled that if the inten -
tion were otherwise, paragraph 3 would have been deleted. CA affirmed VA and held
that petitioner’s act disclosed the parties’ intent to include employees in the second shift in
the payment of night shift differential.

ISSUE: Whether workers are entitled to night shift differential for work performed beyond
the regular day shift, from 7am to 3pm.

HELD:
YES. SC affirmed CA. The first paragraph of Section 3 provides that petitioner shall con-
tinue to pay night shift differential to workers of the first and third shifts. It does not provide
that workers who performed work beyond the second shift shall not be entitled to night
shift differential. The inclusion of the third paragraph is not intended to exclude the regular
day shift workers from receiving night shift differential for work performed beyond 3pm. It
only provides that the night shift differential pay shall be excluded in the computation of the
overtime pay.
The CA correctly ruled that petitioner failed to present any convincing evidence to prove
that the payment was erroneous. In fact, the Court of Appeals found that even after the
promulgation of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision and while the case was pending appeal,
petitioner still paid night shift differential for work performed beyond 3pm. It affirms the in-
tention of the parties to the CBA to grant night shift differential for work performed beyond
3pm.

You might also like