This is a continuation of my articles titled, Prohibition against elimination or diminution of employee benefits and No specific minimum number of years, where I explained the non-diminution of benefits rule.
The first was posted on August 12, 2013, while the second on February 18, 2014.
In order to have a clear grasp of the topic, I suggest that you read these articles first.
Monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents
In the non-diminution of benefits rule, the term benefits refer to monetary benefits or privileges given to employees with monetary equivalents. Such benefits or privileges form part of the employees’ wages, salaries or compensations making them enforceable obligations.
The Supreme Court has already decided a number of cases concerning the non-diminution of benefits rule and involving monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents.
Among these cases are:
1. Eastern Telecommunication Phils. Inc. vs. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, which involves the payment of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses;
2. Central Azucarera De Tarlac vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union-NLU, which involves 13th month pay, legal/special holiday pay, night premium pay and vacation and sick leaves;
3. TSPIC Corp. vs. TSPIC Employees Union, which involves salary wage increases; and,
4. American Wire and Cable Daily Employees Union vs. American Wire and Cable Company, Inc., which involves service awards with cash incentives, premium pay, Christmas party with incidental benefits and promotional increase.
When no monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents are involved
There is no violation of the non-diminution of benefits rule when no monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents are involved.
[Reference: Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013/Author’s Note: This was first posted on the Internet on March 1, 2014]