This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In creating the RTWPBs, Congress intended to rationalize wages, firstly, by establishing full time boards to police wages round-the-clock, and secondly, by giving the boards enough powers to achieve this objective. In Employers Confederation of the Phils. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission,[16] this Court all too clearly pronounced that Congress meant the RTWPBs to be creative in resolving the annual question of wages without Labor and Management knocking on the doors of Congress at every turn. The RTWPBs are the thinking group of men and women guided by statutory standards and bound by the rules and guidelines prescribed by the NWPC. In the nature of their functions, the RTWPBs investigate and study all the pertinent facts to ascertain the conditions in their respective regions. Hence, they are logically vested with the competence to determine the applicable minimum wages to be imposed as well as the industries and sectors to exempt from the coverage of their wage orders. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the first issue, petitioner maintains that the RTWPB, in issuing said Wage Order, exceeded the authority delegated to it under R.A. No. 6727, which is limited to determining and fixing the minimum wage rate within their respective territorial jurisdiction and with respect only to employees who do not earn the prescribed minimum wage rate; that the RTWPB is not authorized to grant a general across-the-board wage increase for non-minimum wage earners; that Employers Confederation of the Philippines v. National Wages and Productivity Commission[22] (hereafter referred to as "ECOP") is not authority to rule that respondents have been empowered to fix wages other than the minimum wage since said case dealt with an across-the-board increase with a salary ceiling, where the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling; that the Wage Order is an unreasonable intrusion into its property rights; that the Wage Order undermines the essence of collective bargaining; that the Wage Order fails to take into account the rationale for a unified wage structure. | |||||