THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED vs.

NATIONAL LABOR UNION

National Labor Union instituted this action to ask for 50% additional compensation for the employees of Shell Company who work at night
to attend to the foreign planes landing and taking off (at night), to supply petrol and lubricants, and perform other duties.
Court of Industrial Relations held that The Shell Company pay its workers working at night an additional compensation of 50% over
their regular salaries by working during daytime.
Shell argues that there is no legal provision empowering CIR to order payment of additional compensation to workers who work at night,
and that Act No. 444 relieved the employer of such obligation as it is provided in the Act where it made compulsory the "overtime"
(additional compensation) pay for work rendered beyond 8 hours, and such cases do not include the work at night.
NLU argues decision of the CIR is part of its broad and effective powers as granted by Commonwealth Act No. 103 - the charter of the
Industrial Relations Court, and that Act No. 444 has no Application to this case because it is referring only to particular and the maximum
working day permitted in industrial establishments - the 8-hour day.
ISSUES:
1. WON CIR has the authority to order payment of additional compensation to workers who work at night?
SC: YES
Articles 1, 4 and 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 103:
It is evident from the Com Act. No. 103 : SECTION 1. (a) that when a dispute arises between the principal and the employee or worker on
the question of wages, CIR has jurisdiction throughout the Philippines to consider, investigate and resolve the dispute, setting the wages
they deem fair and reasonable,
SEC. 4. (b) that for the purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision and arrangement, CIR also has jurisdiction over any dispute - industry
and agriculture - resulting from any differences in wages, compensation or participation, working hours, conditions of employment or
tenancy between the employers and employees or between workers and owners and the landowners or farm workers subject to the
fulfillment of certain requirements and conditions when it sees that the dispute could cause results or a strike,
SEC. 13. (c) that in exercising its powers specified above, the Court Industrial Relations is not limited, to decide the dispute, to grant the
remedy or remedies requested by the parties to the dispute, but may include in any order or decision or determination relating to the
purpose of settling the dispute or to prevent further agricultural or industrial disputes.
Shells Arguments:
The power of CIR to fix wages is subject to restrictions of law. Com. Act No. 444 expressly specified those items where payment of extra
compensation is authorized:

(a)
for "overtime" or work in excess of regular hours for emergency imposed during any disaster or accident, or to avoid loss or repair,
(b) for work on Sundays and holidays, (c) in case of emergency,
There is nothing that relates to the work done at night, then the order in question is illegal because not authorized by law ( expressio unius
est exclusio alterius).
SC:
The argument of Shell is mistaken. Law No. 444 does not apply to this case, it is evident that it has a specific objective, namely: (a) set at 8
hours the maximum working day, (b) at some exceptional cases employees could be allowed Work off the day, (c) provide increment, which
must be not less than 25% of regular salary for the "overtime" or work in excess of 8 hours.
The work required by Shell is not covered by the overtime of Com Act. 444 since the work which is the subject of controversy in this case is
not overtime but a full day of work for 8 hours, done at night or in night shift.
Hence, if CIR has the authority to fix wages for the work done during the day, it also has the authority to fix wages done at night.
(Work Day- 24-hr period commencing from the time an employee regularly starts to work regardless of whether the work is broken or
continuous. It may not coincide with a calendar day. -Beda Reviewer)
2. WON those who work at night are entitled to 50% additional compensation?(YES)
SC discussed a lot of issues about the pernicious effect of working at night justifying the award of additional 50% to the compensation of
affected workers, affirming the decision of CIR.
Conclusion of SC
The case against nightwork, then, may be said to rest upon several grounds. In the first place, there are the remotely injurious effects of
permanent nightwork manifested in the later years of the worker's life. Of more immediate importance to the average worker is the
disarrangement of his social life, including the recreational activities of his leisure hours and the ordinary associations of normal family
relations. From an economic point of view, nightwork is to be discouraged because of its adverse effect upon efficiency and output. A moral
argument against nightwork in the case of women is that the night shift forces the workers to go to and from the factory in darkness. Recent
experiences of industrial nations have added much to the evidence against the continuation of nightwork, except in extraordinary
circumstances and unavoidable emergencies. The immediate prohibition of nightwork for all laborers is hardly practicable; its
discontinuance in the case of women employees is unquestionably desirable. 'The night was made for rest and sleep and not for work' is a
common saying among wage-earning people, and many of them dream of an industrial order in which there will be no night shift. (Labor
Problems, 3rd Edition, pp. 325-328, by Watkins & Dodd.).