Work, pay discrimination in multinationals

The other day, we wrote about the case of an international school that was found by the Supreme Court guilty of discrimination against Filipino teachers, who were paid less than one-half or one-third of their alien fellow educators who were teaching the same students, handling the same subjects and employed in the same school. The Supreme Court criticized the former DOLE secretary for tolerating such blatant discrimination right here in our country.

In that case, GR 128845, (you can google this), the highest court of the land lectured to DOLE on the fundamentals of the equal protection clause and the abhorrence of discrimination on the basis of race (aside from gender, age, religion and union affiliation, among others). Reminding the DOLE that the public policy abhors discrimination in whatever form, the Supreme Court also cited the generally accepted principles of international law, saying: "International law, which springs from general principles of law, proscribes discrimination. General principles of law include principles of equity, i.e. the general principles of fairness and justice, based on the test of what is reasonable." In that case, the former DOLE secretary even justified the blatant discrimination by alleging that it is difficult to lure aliens to work in the Philippines if they are not offered much superior compensation packages, with all the perks.

The DOLE secretary should have been the first advocate of these principles, but it is sad and deplorable that a former occupant of that position favored the aliens and closed his eyes to the palpable discrimination against his own people. Thus, he got a mouthful from the Supreme Court which continued: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, The Convention Concerning Discrimination In Respect of Employment and Occupation, all embody the general principles against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as parts of the national laws.”

The Supreme Court reminded the former DOLE secretary that in the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible. The Supreme Court told the DOLE secretary: "The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to 'humane conditions of work'. These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace - the factory, the office or the field, but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.” The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all" Similarly, the Labor Code provides that the state shall “ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed.”

The Supreme Court then postulated: "It would be an affront to both the spirit and the letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure equal work opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment." Not only that, the High Court did not mince words in telling the DOLE secretary that: "Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 135, for example, prohibits and penalizes the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value. Article 248 declares it to be an unfair labor practice to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization."

The Supreme Court ended its decision by annulling the discriminatory wage system in that international school. Why? That is the mandate of the Constitution and the law. "The Constitution enjoins the State to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare and to afford full protection to labor.” The state has the right and the duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interests that labor contracts must yield to the common good. The former DOLE secretary should have been the last person to need a lecture from the Supreme Court on his basic duties and responsibilities.