UP LAW F2021 International School Alliance of Educators vs.

Quisumbing
LAW 113: Labor Law Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon 2012 Kapunan, J.
by the Labor Code. The point is that employees should be
given equal pay for work of equal value.

Brief Summary of Facts

International School, Inc. (“The School”) hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the
same into (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The school grants foreign hires certain benefits not accorded local hires and
the former are paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) higher than the latter. A series of failed negotiations between The
School and the legitimate labor union and collective bargaining representative of the faculty members, International School
Alliance of Educators (“ISAE”) as to the disparity in salary of the foreign-hires and local-hires led to a deadlock and ISAE
filed a notice of strike. The failure to reach a compromise caused the issue between The School and ISAE to reach the
Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) which ruled in favor of The School.

Facts of the Case

(1) The School, pursuant to P.D. 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of
foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents; Section 2 (c) of the same Decree authorizes The
School to hire both foreign (“foreign-hires”) and local (“local-hires”) teachers to as members of its faculty to
enable it to continue carrying out its educational program and standard of instruction.
(2) The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits (i.e. housing, transportation, shipping costs taxes and home leave
travel allowance) not accorded to local hires; it also pays foreign-hires a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) higher
than the salary paid to local-hires. It justifies the difference in salary primarily on the basis of economic
disadvantages that the foreign-hires endure on account of dislocation and limited tenure.
(3) During the negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) ISAE, a legitimate labor union and
collective bargaining representative of all faculty members of The School contested the difference in salary rates
between foreign-hires and local-hires. This issue, along with the question of whether foreign-hires should be
included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties, and for ISAE to
subsequently file a notice of strike.
(4) The failure to reach a compromise prompted DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the case where subsequently,
through an Order issued through the Acting Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano the parity and representation issues
were resolved in favor of The School. DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing subsequently denied ISAE’s
motion for reconsideration.

Issues of the Case

Issue Ruling of the Court

(1) W/N the grant of higher salary to foreign-hires Yes.
constitute racial discrimination, and is therefore
void
(2) W/N foreign-hires should be included in the same No.
bargaining unit as local-hires
The Supreme Court disagrees with the contention of
DOLE, through the Acting Secretary that the principle of
equal pay for equal work cannot apply in the present case.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned
upon by the Labor Code. The Supreme Court, in citing
provisions from the 1987 Constitution and International
Law, notes that these provisions “impregnably
institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal
truism of equal pay for equal work”. Persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid
similar salaries. This rule applies to The School, its
“international character” notwithstanding.
A bargaining unit is “a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire
body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer,
indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law”. The basic test of an asserted
bargaining unit’s acceptability I whether or not it is
 fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped together with local-hires for
purposes of collective bargaining.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires,
SO ORDERED.