Photo from Unsplash | Merakist
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The doctrine of equal pay for equal work admits exceptions where employers may set different salaries based on reasonable factors such as seniority, experience, or skill, provided they act in good faith and justify the differentiation.
The concept of “equal pay for equal work” means that persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code.
Whenever an employer gives employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. Such presumption is borne by logic and human experience. Should the employer pay one employee less than the rest, that employee need not explain why he/she receives less or why the others receive more. This would be adding insult to injury. Evidently, the employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly.
If the employer has discriminated against that employee, such as by not following the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. Failing to discharge this burden, the employer is deemed to have discriminated against the employee, in violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. (International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000)
In Mindanao International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. MICTSILU-FDLO (G.R. No. 245918, November 29, 2022), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” should not remove management prerogative to institute differences in salary on the basis of seniority, skill, and experience in the same class of workers doing the same kind of work.
The Court further held that as an exception, when the employer exercises its management prerogative, it can impose different salaries for employees – even those having the same position – based on reasonable factors or criteria, such as qualifications, skill, work experience, seniority, length of service, region, nature of work, or incentives. The suitable differentiation of the salaries of the employees is based on the management prerogative of the employer, which gives the latter the freedom to regulate according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, subject to requirement of good faith and with due regard to the rights of the employees. The employer has the burden of proof to justify the reasonable difference in salaries of the employees with the same position.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.