AUGUST 11, 2011 DATE

NR # 2492
REF. NO.

Probe airline firms non-payment of OT pay of BOC personnel - solon

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casio has asked the House Committee on Labor and Employment to look into the non-compliance of airline companies to pay overtime compensation for Bureau of Customs employees at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA). In House Resolution 1467, Casio said the House panel should investigate the complaints of the almost 800 BOC employees in NAIA who are forced to work 20-hour shifts every other day without overtime pay. I urge Congress to pursue remedies to resolve the dispute, and provide human working conditions and compensation for the BOC employees, given the many years that they have suffered long working hours and low overtime pay, Casio said. In pushing for the probe, Casio said it is an international practice among airlines to pay government fees for customs, immigration and quarantine services. Casio cited the United States Air/Sea Passenger User Fees, payment or remittance of which is a responsibility of the air or sea carrier and other parties. Another is Australias Passenger Movement Charge introduced in 1995 to recover costs of providing customs, immigration and quarantine services which arrangements show airline responsibility over payment of customs services and the like, Casio said. Casio said Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines or Republic Act1937 states that Customs employees may be assigned by a Collector to do overtime work at rates fixed by the Commissioner, when the service rendered is to be paid for by importers, shippers or other person served. This provision was the basis for Customs Administrative Order No. 7-92 entitled Rules and Regulations Governing the Overtime Pay and Other Compensations related thereto due to Customs Personnel at the NAIA which pegged overtime pay rates for collectors, supervisors, inspectors, clerks, guards and other personnel of BOC-NAIA, payable by airline companies, aircraft owners/operators, importers, exporters and others, Casio said. Anakpawis Rep. Rafael Mariano, co-author of the Resolution, said in 2005, the Board of Airlines Representatives (BAR), then headed by the Philippine Airlines, questioned the increase on the basis of publication requirements and the basis of the rate increase.

AUGUST 11, 2011 DATE

NR # 2492
REF. NO.

BARs move was rejected by the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Office of the President (OP). However, their petition -- (CA-G.R. SP NO. 103250 Board of Airline Representatives versus Office of the President represented by Hon. Eduardo Ermita as Executive Secretary, Department of Finance) -- filed at the Court of Appeals (CA) was granted in 2009 with the Court declaring the CAO 7-92 and CAO 1-2005 are unenforceable on the basis that Section 3506 of RA 1937 does not specify airline companies and aircraft owners as among those to give overtime pay, Mariano said. Mariano also said Section 1103 of the RA 1937 clearly stated that Except in the case of forced landings, aircraft arriving in the Philippines from any foreign port or place shall make the first landing at an international airport, unless permission to land elsewhere than at an international airport is first obtained from the Commissioner and in such cases the owner or person in charge of the aircraft shall pay the expenses, if any, incurred in inspecting the craft, articles, passengers and baggage carried therein, and such aircraft shall be subject to the authority of the Collector at the airport while within his jurisdiction. According to the Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA), since the decision, some of the airlines reverted back to the old rates while many did not give overtime compensation at all, Mariano said. (30) jsc