Cases: Night shift differential pay

What is a Labor Law Case or Labor Jurisprudence? A Labor Law Case or Labor Jurisprudence is a decision/resolution on a labor dispute by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Per Article 8 of the Civil Code, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. 

The following are the Labor Law Cases or Jurisprudence on night shift differential pay.

1) CBA provides higher rate for night shift pay?

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Lepanto Local Staff Union
G.R. No. 161713, 20 August 20098
On 28 November 1998, [the employer] and [the complainant-employee] entered into their fourth Collective Bargaining Agreement (4th CBA) for the period from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000. The 4th CBA provides:
ARTICLE VIII – NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
Section 3. Night Differential pay. – The Company shall continue to pay nightshift differential for work during the first and third shifts to all covered employees within the bargaining unit as follows:
For the First Shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), the differential pay will be 20% of the basic rate. For the Third Shift (3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), the differential pay will be 15% of the basic rate.
However, for overtime work, which extends beyond the regular day shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), there [will] be no night differential pay added before the overtime pay is calculated.
ARTICLE XII – RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OTHER BENEFITS
Section 9. Longevity pay – The company shall grant longevity pay of P30.00 per month effective July 1, 1998 and every year thereafter
On 23 April 2000, [the employee] filed a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Cordillera Administrative Region (NCMB-CAR) alleging that [the employer] failed to pay the night shift differential and longevity pay of [the employee]’s members as provided in the 4th CBA. [the employer] and [the employee] failed to amicably settle the dispute. x x x
x x x
The Voluntary Arbitrator agreed with [the employee] that surface workers on the second shift who performed work after 3:00 p.m. should be given an additional night shift differential pay equivalent to 15% of their basic rate. Interpreting paragraph 3, Section 3, Article VIII of the 4th CBA, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that it only meant that an employee who extends work beyond the second shift shall receive overtime pay which shall be computed before the night shift differential pay. In other words, it excludes the night shift differential in the computation of overtime pay.
The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled 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 Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that if the intention were otherwise, paragraph 3 would have been deleted.
Finally, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that the [the employee]’s claim for night shift differential arising from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd CBAs had already prescribed.
x x x
[RESOLUTION: The employee is entitled to night shift differential pay.]
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 contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail.
x x x
There is no question that workers are entitled to night shift differential of 20% of the basic rate for work performed during the first shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Workers are also entitled to night shift differential of 15% of the basic rate for work performed during the third shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The issue is whether workers are entitled to night shift differential for work performed beyond the regular day shift, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
We sustain the interpretation of both the Voluntary Arbitrator and the Court of Appeals. The first paragraph of Section 3 provides that [the employer] shall continue 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 3:00 p.m. It only provides that the night shift differential pay shall be excluded in the computation of the overtime pay.
It is settled that 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. In this case, the Voluntary Arbitrator and the Court of Appeals both found that the provision in question was contained in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd CBAs between [the employer] and [the employee]. During the effectivity of the first three CBAs, [the employer] paid night shift differentials to other workers who were members of [the employee] for work performed beyond 3:00 p.m. [the employer] also paid night shift differential for work beyond 3:00 p.m. during the effectivity of the 4th CBA. [the employer] alleges that the payment of night shift differential for work performed beyond 3:00 p.m. during the 4th CBA was a mistake on the part of its accounting department. However, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that [the employer] 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, [the employer] still paid night shift differential for work performed beyond 3:00 p.m. It affirms the intention of the parties to the CBA to grant night shift differential for work performed beyond 3:00 p.m.

2) Burden of proof

National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. v. NLRC, Santos
G.R. No. 123520, 26 June 1998
xxx who has the burden of providing a claim for night shift differential pay, the worker who claims not to have been paid night shift differentials, or the employer in custody of pertinent documents which would prove the fact of payment of the same? Xxx
x x x
The fact that [the employee] neglected to substantiate his claim for night shift differentials is not prejudicial to his cause. After all, the burden of proving payment rests on [the employer] NSC. [The employee’s] allegation of non-payment of this benefit, to which he is by law entitled, is a negative allegation which need not be supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of his cause of action. It must be noted that his main cause of action is his illegal dismissal, and the claim for night shift differential is but an incident of the protest against such dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving that payment of such benefit has been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no evidence at all is presented by either party. Moreover, in Jimerez v. National Labor Relations Commission, we declared —
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.
For sure, [the employee] cannot adequately prove the fact of non-payment of night shift differentials since the pertinent employee files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents — which will show that [the employee] rendered night shift work; the time he rendered services; and, the amounts owed as night shift differentials — are not in his possession but in the custody and absolute control of [the employer].
[The employee] has been in [the employer’s] employ for five (5) years — starting 13 January 1988 when he was hired to 14 January 1993 when his services were terminated — and [the employer] never denied that [the employee] rendered night shift work. In fact, it even presented some documents purporting to prove that [the employee] was assigned to work on the night shift.
By choosing not to fully and completely disclose information to prove that it had paid all the night shift differentials due to [the employee], [the employer] failed to discharge the burden of proof. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the NLRC for sustaining the Labor Arbiter when it ruled thus —
It is not disputed that complainant was regularly assigned to a night shift (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.). Under Section 2, Rule II, Book Three of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, complainant is entitled to an additional benefit of not less ten percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of work performed. The record is bereft of evidence that respondent has paid complainant this benefit. The best evidence for respondent corporation would have been the payrolls, vouchers, daily time records and the like which under Sections 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12, Rule X, Book III of the Implementing Rules it is obliged to keep. Its failure gives rise to the presumption that either it does not have them or if it does, their presentation is prejudicial to its cause.
We rule therefore that complainant should be awarded a night shift differential but limited to there (3) years considering the prescriptive period of money claims.
GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga
G.R. No. 176419, 27 November 2013
As regards night shift differential, the Labor Code provides that every employee shall be paid not less than ten percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of work performed between ten o’clock in the evening and six o’clock in the morning.34 As employees of petitioner, respondents are entitled to the payment of this benefit in accordance with the number of hours they worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., if any. In the Decision of the NLRC affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the records were remanded to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin for the computation of the night shift differential and the separation pay. The Regional Arbitration Branch of origin was likewise directed to require herein petitioner to produce additional documents where necessary. Therefore, while we are affirming that respondents are entitled to night shift differential in accordance with the number of hours they worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., it is the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin which should determine the computation thereof for each of the respondents, and award no night shift differential to those of them who never worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
It is also worthwhile to note that in the NLRC Decision, it was herein petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (respondent therein) which was tasked to produce additional documents necessary for the computation of the night shift differential. This is in accordance with our ruling in Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Company v. Bagoy, where we held that it is entirely within the employer’s power to present such employment records that should necessarily be in their possession, and that failure to present such evidence must be taken against them.

Related

Night shift differential pay

Computation of night shift differential pay

FAQ: Night shift differential

⦁ Is equal protection violated for night shift pay between public and private employees?

References

Presidential Decree No. 442, a.k.a. Labor Code of the Philippines

Book IIII, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code

Republic Act No. 11701

2022 DOLE-BWC Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits

⦁ Cited Labor Law Jurisprudence (a.k.a. Supreme Court Decisions)

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Table of Contents

More Cases:

YouTube Channel

Topics

Management Prerogative, Labor Relations

people rallying on street

Picketing

1. Concepts “Picketing” – refers to the right of workers to march to and fro before an establishment involved in

a couple in a psychotherapy session

Voluntary arbitration

1. Concepts “Voluntary arbitration” – refers to the mode of settling labor-management disputes by which the parties select a competent,

Due Process, Post-Employment

Cases: Moonlighting

1. Moonlighting a. Unauthorized use of company time Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Balagot G.R. No. 169016, 31 January 2007 [BACKGROUND]

Equipoise rule

Summary ▪ When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the employee. 1.

General Labor Standards, Working Conditions

man carrying gray pipe

Working conditions

Working conditions refer to the environment and terms/conditions of employment. 1. Coverage The provisions of [herein] shall apply to employees

woman wearing white top holding smartphone and tablet

Non-diminution of benefits

“Principle of non-diminution of benefits” refers to the prohibition against employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their

woman budgeting her bills

Wages

“Wage” – paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms

Cases: Service incentive leave

These are the related Labor Law Cases or Jurisprudence. 1. Covered employees a. Covered employees 1) Rank-and-file employees Ramil v.