246.

National Waterworks and Sewerage Differential pay for Sundays is part of legal
Authority vs. NWSA Unions 11 SCRA 766 (GR wage.— The differential pay for Sundays is a
No. L-18939 [1964]) part of the legal wage. Hence, it was
correctly included in computing the weekly
DOCTRINES:
wages of those employees and laborers who
Labor relations; Public utility obliged to pay worked seven days a week and were
differential sum under collective bargaining regularly receiving the 25% salary differential
agreement.—The NAWASA is a public utility. for a period of three months prior to the
Although pursuant to Section 4 of implementation of Republic Act 1880. This is
Commonwealth Act 444 it is not obliged to so even if petitioner is a public utility in view
pay an additional sum of 25% to its laborers of the contractual obligation it has assumed
for work done on Sundays and legal holidays, on the matter.
yet it must pay said additional compensation
Different computation of daily wages of
by virtue of the contractual obligation it
government and non-government
assumed under the collective bargaining
employees.—In the computation of daily
agreement.
wages of employees paid by the month,
Non-managerial employees covered by distinction should be made between
CommonwealthAct No. 444.—Employees government employees like the GAO
who have little freedom of action and whose employees and those who are not. The
main function is merely to carry out the computation for government employees is
company's orders, plans and policies, are not governed by Section 254 of the Revised
managerial employees and hence are Administrative Code while for others the
covered by Commonwealth Act No. 444. correct computation is the monthly salary
Jurisdiction of Court of Industrial Relations divided by the actual number of working
determined at time dispute arose.—The hours in the month or the regular monthly
Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to compensation divided by the number of
adjudicate overtime pay where there was working days in the month.
employer-employee relationship existing Night compensation to be paid from time
between the parties at the time the dispute services were rendered.—The laborers must
arose. be compensated for nighttime work as of the
Employees of other offices assigned to date the same was rendered.
NAWASA not employees of latter.—The GAO Minimum wage rates applicable also to
employees assigned to work in the NAWASA employees hired subsequent to date of
even if they were paid out of the latter's funds decision.—The rates of minimum pay pay f
cannot be regarded as employees of the ixed in a CIR case are applicable not only to
NAWASA on matters relating to those who were already in the service as of
compensation. They are employees of the the date of the decision but also to those
national government and are not covered who were employed subsequent to said
by the Eight-Hour 'Labor Law. The same may date.
be said of the Bureau of Public Works
"Distress pay" applicable to all employees
assigned to work in the NAWASA.
whose work have -to do with the sewerage
Offsetting overtime with undertime when chambers.—All the laborers, whether
unfair.—The method used by the NAWASA in assigned to the sewerage division or not who
offsetting the overtime with the undertime are actually working inside or outside the
and at the same time charging said sewerage chambers, are entitled to distress
undertime to the accrued leave is unfair. pay.
Staggering not required where work not present evidence on matters not covered
continuous.— Staggering of working hours is therein. On December 4, 1957, respondent
not required where the evidence shows that intervenors filed a petition in intervention on
the work is not continuous. the issue for additional compensation for
night work. Later, however, they amended
FACTS:
their petition by including a new demand for
Petitioner National Waterworks & Sewerage overtime pay in favor of Jesus Centeno.
Authority is a government-owned and Cesar Cabrera, Feliciano Duiguan, Cecilio
controlled corporation created under Remotigue, and other employees receiving
Republic Act No. 1383, while respondent P4,200.00 per annum or more.
NWSA Consolidated Unions are various labor
On February 5, 1958, petitioner filed a motion
organizations composed of laborers and
to dismiss the claim for overtime pay alleging
employees of the NAWASA. The other
that respondent Court of Industrial Relations
respondents are intervenors Jesus Centeno,
was without jurisdiction to pass upon the
et al., hereinafter referred to as intervenors.
same because, as mere intervenors, the
Acting on a certification of the President of latter cannot raise new issues not litigated in
the Philippines, the Court of Industrial the principal case, the same not being the lis
Relations conducted a hearing on mota therein involved. To this motion the
December 5, 1957 on the controversy then intervenors filed an opposition. Thereafter,
existing between petitioner and respondent respondent court issued an order allowing
unions which the latter embodied in a the issue to be litigated. Petitioner's motion to
"Manifesto" dated December 5, 1957, reconsider having been denied, it filed its
namely: implementation of the 40-Hour answer to the petition for intervention. Finally,
Week Law (Republic Act No. 1880); alleged on January 16, 1961, respondent court
violations of the collective bargaining rendered Its decision stating substantially as
agreement dated December 28, 1956 follows:
concerning "distr s pay"; minimum wage of
The NAWASA is an agency not performing
P5.25; promotional appointments and filling
governmental functions .and, therefore, is
of vacancies of newly created positions;
liable to pay additional compensation for
additional compensation for night Work;
work on Sundays and legal holidays
wage increases to some laborers and
conformably to Commonwealth Act No. 444,
employees; and strike duration pay. In
known as the Eight-Hour Labor Law even if
addition, respondent unions raised the issue
said days should be within the staggered f ie
of whether the 25% additional compensation
work-days authorized by the President; the
for Sunday work should be included in
intervenors do not fall within the cate-gory of
computing the daily wage and whether, in
"managerial employees" as contemplated in
determining the daily "wage of a monthly-
Republic Act 2377 and so are not exempt
salaried employee, the salary should be
from the coverage of the Eight-Hour Labor
divided by 30 days.
Law; even those intervenors attached to the
On December 13, 1957, petitioner and General Auditing Office and the Bureau of
respondent unions, conformably to a Public Works come within the purview of
suggestion of the Court of Industrial Relations, Commonwealth Act No. 444; the
submitted a joint stipulation of facts on the computation followed by NAWASA in
issues concerning the 40-Hour Week Law, computing overtime compensation is
"distress pay," minimum wage of P5.25, filling contrary to Commonwealth Act 444; the
of vacancies, night compensation, and undertime of a worker should not be set-off
salary adjustments, reserving the right to against the worker in determining whether
the latter has rendered service in excess of established by law particularly as an agency
eight hours for that day; in computing the of the State to assist in the civil government
daily wage of those employed on daily basis, of the country chiefly to regulate the local
the additional 25 % compensation for Sunday and internal affairs of the city or town that is
work should be included; the computation incorporated (62 C.J.S., p. 61). Non-
used by the NAWASA for monthly salaried municipal corporations, on the otherhand,
employees to wit, dividing the monthly basic are public corporations created as agencies
pay by 30 is erroneous; the minimum wage of the State for limited purposes to take
awarded by respondent court way back on charge merely of some public or state work
November 25, 1950 in Case No. 359-V entitled other than community government.
MWD Workers Union v. Metropolitan Water
The National Waterworks & Sewerage
District, applies even to those who were
Authority was not created for purposes of
employed long after the promulgation of the
local government. It is not a municipal
award and even if the workers are hired only
corporation. It was created "for the purpose
as temporary, emergency and casual
of consolidating and centralizing all
workers for a definite period and for a
waterworks, sewerage and drainage system
particular project; the authority granted to
in the Philippines under one control and
NAWASA by the President to stagger the
direction and general supervision," The
working days of its workers should be limited
NAWASA therefore, though a public
exclusively to those specified in the
corporation, is not a municipal corporation,
authorization and should not be extended to
because it is not an agency of the State to
others who are not therein specified; and
regulate or administer the local affairs of the
under the collective bargaining agreement
town, city, or district which is incorporated.
entered into between the NAWASA and
respondent unions on December 28, 1956, as 2. We agree with petitioner that the NAWASA
well as under Resolution No. 29, series of 1957 is a public utility because its primary function
of the Grievance Committee, even those is to construct, maintain and operate water
who work outside the sewerage chambers reservoirs and waterworks for the purpose of
should be paid 25% additional supplying water to the inhabitants, as well as
compensation as "distress pay." consolidate and centralize all water supplies
and drainage systems in the Philippines.
1. Is NAWASA an agency that performs
governmental functions and, therefore, We likewise agree with petitioner that a
essentially a service agency of the public utility is exempt from paying
government? additional compensation for work on
Sundays and legal holidays conformably to
No.
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 444
While under Republic Act No. 1383 the which provides that the prohibition,
NAWASA is considered as a public regarding employment of Sundays and
corporation it does not show that it was so holidays unless an additional sum of 25% of
created for the government of a portion of the employee's regular remuneration is paid
the State. It should be borne in mind that shall not apply to public utilities such as those
there are two kinds of public corporation, supplying gas, electricity, power, water or
namely, municipal and non-municipal. A providing means of transportation or
municipal corporation in its strict sense is the communication. In other words, the
body politic constituted by the inhabitants of employees and laborers of NAWASA can be
a city or town for the purpose of local made to work on Sundays and legal holidays
government thereof. It is the body politic
without being required to pay them an in office but more on the results he
additional compensation of 25%. accomplishes, In fact, he is free to go out of
office anytime.
It is to be noted, however; that in the case at
bar it has been stipulated that prior to the The philosophy behind the exemption of
enactment of Republic Act No. 1880, managerial employees from the 8-Hour
providing for the implementation of the 40- Labor Law is that such workers are not usually
Hour Week Law, the Metropolitan Water employed f or every hour of work but their
District had been paying 25% additional compensation is determined considering
compensation for work on Sundays and legal their special training, experience or
holidays to its employees and laborers by knowledge which requires the exercise of
virtue of Resolution No. 47, series of 1948, of its discretion and independent judgment, or
board of Directors, which practice was perform work related to management
continued by the NAWASA when the latter policies or general business operations along
took over the service. And in the collective specialized or technical lines. For these
bargaining agreement entered into workers it is not feasible to provide a fixed
between the NAWASA and respondent hourly late of pay or maximum hours of labor.
unions it was agreed that all existing benefits
The philosophy behind the exemption of
enjoyed by the employees and laborers prior
managerial employees from the 8-Hour
to its effectivity shall remain in force and shall
Labor Law is that such workers are not usually
form part of the agreement, among which
employed f or every hour of work but their
certainly is the 25% additional compensation
compensation is determined considering
for work on Sundays and legal holidays
their special training, experience or
therefore enjoyed by said laborers and
knowledge which requires the exercise of
employees. It may, therefore, be said that
discretion and independent judgment, or
while under Commonwealth Act No, 444 a
perform work related to management
public utility is not required to pay additional
policies or general business operations along
compensation to its employees and workers
specialized or technical lines. For these
for work done on Sundays and legal holidays,
workers it is not feasible to provide a fixed
there is, however, no prohibition for it to pay
hourly late of pay or maximum hours of labor.
such additional compensation if it voluntarily
agrees to do so. The NAWASA committed The intervenors herein are holding position of
itself to pay this additional compensation. It responsibility, One of them is the Secretary of
must pay not because of compulsion of law the Board of Directors. Another is the private
but because of contractual obligation. secretary of the general manager. Another is
a public relations officer, and many other
3. This issue raises the question whether the
chiefs of divisions or sections and others are
intervenors are "managerial employees"
supervisors and overseers. Respondent court,
within the meaning of Republic Act 2377 and
however, after examining carefully their
as such are not entitled to the benefits of
respective functions, duties and
Commonwealth Act No, 444, as amended.
responsibilities found that their primary duties
One of the distinguishing characteristics by do not bear any direct relation with the
which a managerial employee may be management of the NAWASA, nor do they
known as expressed in the explanatory note participate in the formulation of its policies
of Republic Act No. 2377 is that he is not nor in the hiring and firing of its employees.
subject to the rigid observance of regular The chiefs of divisions and sections are given
office hours. The true worth of his service does ready policies to execute and standard
not depend so much on the time he spends practices to ob-serve for their execution.
Hence, it concludes, they have little freedom the NAWASA but of the insular government,
of action, as their main function is merely to and as such are not covered by the Eight-
carry out the company's orders, plans and Hour Labor Law.
policies.
The GAO employees assigned to the
To the foregoing comment, we agree. As a NAWASA are exactly in the same position
matter of fact, they are required to observe regarding their status, compensation and
working hours and record their time work and right to overtime pay as the rest of the GAO
are not free to come and go to their offices, employees assigned to the defunct PRISCO,
nor move about at their own discretion, They and following our ruling in the PRISCO case,
do not, therefore, come within the category we hold that the GAO employees herein are
of "managerial employees" within the not covered by the 8-Hour Labor Law, but by
meaning of the law. other pertinent laws on the matter.
4. Petitioner's claim is that the issue of The same thing may be said with regard to
overtime compensation not having been the employees of the Bureau of Public Works
raised in the original case but merely assigned to, and working in, the NAWASA.
dragged into it by intervenors, respondent Their position is the same as that of the GAO
court cannot take cognizance thereof under employees. Therefore, they are not also
Section 1, Rule 18, of the Rules of Court. covered by the 8-Hour Labor Law.
There is No dispute that the intervenors were The respondent court, therefore, erred in
in the employ of petitioner when they considering them as employees of the
intervened and that their claim refers to the NAWASA for the mere reason that they are
8-Hour Labor Law and since this Court has paid out of its fund and are subject to its
held time and again that disputes that call administration and supervision.
for the application of the 8-Hour Labor Law
6. A worker is entitled to overtime pay only for
are within the jurisdiction of the Court of
work in actual service beyond eight hours. If
Industrial Relations if they arise while the
a worker should incur in undertime during his
employer-employee relationship still exists, it
regular daily work, should said undertime be
is clear that the matter subject of intervention
deducted in computing his overtime work?
comes within the jurisdiction of respondent
Petitioner sustains the affirmative, while
court. The fact that the question of overtime
respondent unions the negative, and
payment is not included in the principal case
respondent court decided the dispute in
in the sense that it is not one of the items of
favor of the latter. Hence this error.
dispute certified to by the President is of no
moment, for it comes within the sound There is merit in the decision of respondent
discretion of the Court of Industrial Relations. court that the method used by petitioner in
Moreover, in labor disputes technicalities of offsetting the overtime with the undertime
procedure should as much as possible be and at the same time charging said
avoided not only in the interest of labor but undertime to the accrued leave of the
to avoid multiplicity of action. This claim has employee is unfair, for under such method
no merit. the employee is made to pay twice for his
undertime because his leave is reduced to
5. It is claimed that some intervenors are
that extent while he was made to pay for it
occupying positions in the General Auditing
with work beyond the regular working hours.
Office and in the Bureau of Public Works for
The proper method should be to deduct the
they are appointed either by the Auditor
undertime from the accrued leave but pay
General or by the Secretary of Public Works
the employee the overtime to which he is
and, consequently, they are not officers of
entitled. This method also obviates the It has been held that for purposes of
irregular schedule that would result if the computing overtime compensation a regular
overtime should be set off against the wage includes all payments which the
undertime for that would place the schedule parties have agreed shall be received during
for working hours dependent on the the work week, including piece work wages,
employee. differential payments for working at
undesirable times, such as at night or on
7. and 8. How is a daily wage of a weekly
Sundays and holidays, and the cost of board
employee computed in the light of Republic
and lodging customarily furnished the
Act 1880?
employee (Walling v. Yangermah-Reynolds
According to petitioner, the daily wage Hardwook Co., 325 U.S, 419; Walling v.
should be computed exclusively on the basic Harischfeger Corp., 325 U.S. 427. The “regular
wage without including the automatic rate" of pay also ordinarily includes incentive
increase of 25% corresponding to the Sunday bonus or profitsharing payments made in
differential. To include said Sunday addition to the normal basic pay (66 C. J.S.,
differential would be to increase the basic pp. 704-705), and it was also held that the
pay which is not contemplated by said Act. higher rate for night, Sunday and holiday
Respondent court disagrees with this manner work is just as much a regular rate as the
of computation. It holds that Republic Act lower rate for daytime work. The higher rate
1880 requires that the basic weekly wage is merely an inducement to accept
and the basic monthly salary should not be employment at times which are not as
diminished notwithstanding the reduction in desirable from a workman's standpoint.
the number of working days a week. If the
Respondent court, therefore, correctly
automatic increase corresponding to the
included such differential pay in computing
salary differen-tial should not be included
the weekly wages of those employees and
there would be a diminution of the weekly
laborers who worked seven days a week and
wage of the laborer concerned. Of course,
were continuously receiving 25% Sunday
this should only benefit those who have been
differential for a period of three months
working seven days a week and had been
immediately preceding the implementation
regularly receiving 25% additional
of Republic Act 1880.
compensation for Sunday work before the
effectivity of the Act. The next issue refers to the method of
computing the daily rate of a monthly-
It is evident that Republic Act 1880 does not
salaried employee. Petitioner in computing
intend to raise the wages of the employees
this daily rate divides the monthly basic pay
over what they are actually receiving.
of the employee by 30 in accordance with
Rather, its purpose is to limit the working days
Section 254 of the Revised Administrative
in a week to five days, or to 40 hours without
Code which in part provides that "In making
however permitting any reduction in the
payment for part of a month, the amount to
weekly or daily wage of the compensation
be paid for each day shall be determined by
which was previously received. The question
dividing the monthly pay into as many parts
then to be determined is: what is meant by
as there are days in the particular month."
weekly or daily wage? Does the regular
The respondent court disagrees with this
wage include differential payments for work
method and holds that the way to determine
on Sundays or at nights, or is it the total
the daily rate of a monthly employee is to
amount received by the laborer for whatever
divide the monthly salary by the actual
nature or concept?
number of working hours in the month. Thus,
according to respondent court, Section 8(g)
of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by for fear of possible reprisal. lt happens that
Republic Act 1792, provides that the daily many months or years are allowed to pass by
rate of compensation is the total regular before he could be made to present such
compensation for the customary number of claim against his employer, and so it is neither
hours worked each day. In other words, fair nor just that he be deprived of what is due
according to respondent court, the correct him simply because of his silence for fear of
computation shall be (a) the monthly salary losing the means of his livelihood. Hence, it is
divided by the actual of working hours in a not erroneous for the Court of Industrial
month or (b) the regular monthly Relations to make the payment of such night
compensation divided by the number of compensation retroactive to the date when
working days in a month. the work was actually performed.
This finding of respondent court should be The power of the Court of Industrial Relations
modified insofar as the employees of the to order the payment of compensation for
General Auditing Office and of the Bureau of overtime service prior to the date of the filing
Public Works assigned to work in the NAWASA of the claim has been recognized by this
are concerned for, as already stated, they Court (Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Luzon
are government employees and should be Marine Department Union, et al, L-9265, April
governed by Section 254 of the Revised 29, 1957). The same reasons given therein for
Administrative Code. This section provides the retroactivity of overtime compensation
that in making payment for part of a month. may also be given for the retroactivity of
the amount to be paid for each day shall be payment of night compensation, as such
determined by dividing the monthly pay into reasoning runs along the line already
as many parts as there are days in the abovestated.
particular month. With this modification we
10. The Court of Industrial Relations in its
find correct the finding of the respondent
resolution dated November 25, 1950 issued in
court on this issue.
Case No. 359-V entitled MWD Workers Union,
9. The Court of Industrial Relations awarded et al. v. Metropolitan Water District, fixed the
an additional 25% night compensation to following rates of minimum daily wage: P5.25
some workers with retroactive effect, that is, for those working in Manila and suburbs;
effective even before the presentation of the P4.50 for those working in Quezon City; and
claim, provided that they had been given P4.00 for those working in Ipo. Montalban and
authorization by the general manager to Balara It appears that in spite of the notice to
perform night work. It is petitioner's theory terminate said award filed with the court on
that since there is no statute requiring December 29, 1953, the Metropolitan Water
payment of additional compensation for District continued paying the above wages
night work but it can only be granted either and the NAWASA which succeeded it
by the voluntary act of the employer or by an adopted the same rates for sometime, In
award of the industrial court under its September, 1955, the NAWASA hired the
compulsory arbitration power, such grant claimants as temporary workers and it is now
should only be prospective in operation, and contended that said rates cannot apply to
not retroactive, as authorized by the court: these workers.
It is of common occurrence that a working The Court of Industrial Relations, however
man who has already rendered night time held that the discontinuance of this minimum
service takes him a long time before he can wage rate was Improper and ordered the
muster enough courage to confront his payment of the difference to said workers
employer with the demand for payment for it from the date the payment of said rates was
discontinued, advancing, among others, the And in a conference held between
following reasons: that the resolution of management and labor on November 25,
November 25, 1950 is applicable not only to 1957, the following was agreed upon:
those laborers already in the service but also "Distress Management agreed to pay -
to those who may be employed thereafter; effective October 1, 1956 25% additional
the notice of termination of said award given compensation for those who actually work in
on December 29, 1968 is not legally effective and outside sewerage chambers in
because the same was given without accordance with Resolution 'No. 9 of the
hearing and the employer continued paying Grievance Committee.”
the minimum wages even after the notice of
The question that arose in connection with
termination; and there is no showing that the
this distress pay is with regard to the meaning
minimum wages violate Civil Service Law or
of the phrase "who actually work in and
the principles underlying the WAPCO. We
outside sewerage chambers." Petitioner
find no valid reason to disagree with the
contends that the distress pay should be
foregoing finding of the Court of Industrial
given only to those who actually work inside
Relations considering that the award
the sewerage chambers while the union
continued to be valid and effective in spite
maintains that such pay should be given to
of the notice of termination given by. the
all those whose work have to do with the
employer. No good reason is seen why such
sewerage chambers, whether inside or
award should not apply to those who may be
outside. The Court of Industrial Relations
employed after its approval by the court
sustained the latter view holding that the
there being nothing therein that may prevent
distress pay should be given to those who
its extension to them. Moreover, the industrial
actually work in and outside the sewerage
court can at any time during the
chambers effective October 1, 1956. This
effectiveness of an award alter and modify in
view is now disputed by petitioner.
whole or in part said award or reopen any
question involved therein under Section 17 of The solution of the present issue hinges upon
Commonwealth Act No. 103, and such is the interpretation of paragraph 3, Article VIII
what said court has done when it made the of the collective bargaining agreement,
award extensive to the new employees, copied above, as explained by Resolution
more so when they are similarly situated. To No. 9, and the agreement of November 25,
do otherwise would be to foster 1957, also copied above, which stipulation
discrimination. has to be interpreted as a whole pursuant to
Article 1374 of the Civil Code. As thus
11. This issue has to do with the meaning of
interpreted, we find that those who are
"distress pay." Paragraph 3, Article VIII, of the
entitled to the distress pay are those
collective bargaining agreement entered
employees and laborers who work in the
into between the employer and respondent
sewerage chambers whether they belong to
unions, provides:
the sewerage division or not, and by
"Because of the peculiar nature of the sewerage chambers should be understood
function of those employees and laborers of to mean as the surroundings where the work
the Sewerage Division who actually work in is actually done, not necessarily "inside the
the sewerage chambers, causing "unusual sewerage chambers." This is clearly inferred
distress' to them, they shall receive extra from the conference held in the Department
compensation equivalent to twenty-five of Labor on November 25, 1957 where it was
percent (25%) of their basic wage." agreed that the compensation should be
paid to those who work "in and outside" the
sewerage chambers in accordance with the
terms of Resolution No. 9 of the Grievance sewerage attendants. These attendants are
Committee. It should be noted that. rotated in going inside the manholes,
according to said resolution, sewerage operation of the window glass, bailing out
chambers include "pits, trenches, and other from the main to the manhole and in
excavations that are necessary to tap the supplying the water service as necessity
sewer lines." And the reason given for this demands. These attendants come into
extra compensation is the "unusual distress" contact with dirt, stink and smell, darkness
that is caused to the laborers by working in and heat inside and near the sewage pipes.
the sewerage chambers in the form and The capataz goes from one manhole to
extent abovementioned. another seeing to it that the work is properly
performed and as such also suffers unusual
It is clear then that all the laborers whether of
distress although to a lesser degree.
the sewerage division or not assigned to work
in and outside the sewerage chambers and The group assigned to the third kind of
suffering unusual distress because of the activity is also usually composed of a
nature of their work are entitled to the extra capataz and four attendants. Their work is to
compensatory. And this conclusion is further connect sewer pipes from houses to the
bolstered by the findings of the industrial sewer mains and to do this they excavate the
court regarding the main activities of the trench across the street from the proper line
sewerage division. to the sewer main and then they install the
pipe after tapping the sewer main, In the
Thus, the Court of Industrial Relations found
tapping, the sewer pipe is opened and so the
that the sewerage division has three main
sewerage gets out and fills up the trench and
activities, to wit: (a) cooperation of the
the men have to wade in and work with the
sewerage pumping stations; (b) cleaning
sewerage water. The capatas has to go near
and maintenance of sewer mains: and (c)
the filthy excavations or trenches full of filthy
installation and repairs of house sewer
sewerage matter to aid the attendants in
connections.
making pipe connections, especially when
The pump operators and the sewer these are complicated.
attendants in the seven pumping stations in
It cannot therefore be gainsaid that all these
Manila, according to the industrial court,
laborers suffer unusual distress. The wet pits,
suffer unusual distress. The pump operators
trenches, manholes, which are full of sewage
have to go to the wet pit to see how the
matters, are filthy sources of germs and
cleaning of the screen protecting the pump
different diseases. They emit foul and filthy
is being performed, and go also to the dry pit
odor dangerous to health, Those working in
abutting the wet pit to make repairs in the
such places and exposed directly to the
breakdown of the pumps. Although the
distress of contamination.
operators used to stay near the motor which
is but a f ew meters from the pump, they Premises considered, the decision of the
unavoidably smell the foul odor emitting f Court of Industrial Relations in this respect
rom the pit. The sewerage attendants go should be modified in the sense that all
down and work in the wet pit containing employees and laborers, whether or not they
sewerage materials in order to clean the belong to the sewerage division, who
screen. actually work in and outside the sewerage
chambers, should be paid the distress pay or
A group assigned to the cleaning and
the extra compensation equivalent to 25% of
maintenance of the sewer mains which are
their basic wage effective October 1, 1956.
located in the middle of the streets of Manila
is usually composed of a capataz and four
12. On August 6, 1957, the NAWASA
requested the President of the Philippines for
exemption from Executive Order No. 251
which prescribes prescribes the office hours
to be observed in government and
government-owned or controlled
corporations in order that it could stagger the
working hours of its employees and laborers.
The request is based on the fact that there
are essential and indispensable phases in the
operation of the NAWASA that are required
to be attended to continuously for twenty-
four hours for the entire seven days of the
week without interruption some of which
being the work performed by pump
operators, valve operators, filter operators,
chlorine operators, watchmen and guards,
and medical personnel. This request was
granted and, accordingly, the NAWASA
staggered the work schedule of the
employees and laborers performing the
activities abovementioned. Respondent
unions protested against this staggering
schedule of work and this protest having
been unheeded, they brought the matter to
the Court of Industrial Relations.