This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
6, which took effect on October 30, 1984, increased the cost-of-li ing allowance !"O#$% of nonagric<&ral workers in the 'ri ate sector. • (lobe )acka* co+'lied with the said wage order b* 'a*ing its +onthl*-'aid e+'lo*ees the +andated ,3.00 'er da* "O#$. -&t, in co+'&ting the "O#$, (lobe )acka* +<i'lied ,3.00 'er da* "O#$ b* .. da*s, which was the n&+ber of working da*s in the co+'an*. /he 0nion disagreed with the co+'&tation, clai+ing that the dail* "O#$ sho&ld be +<i'lied b* 30 da*s to arri e at the +onthl* "O#$ rate. /he 0nion f&rther alleged that before Wage Order No. 6 took effect, the e+'lo*er had been co+'&ting and 'a*ing the +onthl* "O#$ based on 30 da*s 'er +onth. /his, the 0nion said, was an e+'lo*er 'ractice, which sho&ld not be &nilaterall* withdrawn.
R&L'NG% • ,a*+ent in f&ll b* the e+'lo*er of the "O#$ before the e1ec&tion of the "ollecti e -argaining $gree+ent in 198. and in co+'liance with Wage Orders Nos. 1 !)arch .6, 1981% to 2 !3&ne 11, 1984% sho&ld not be constr&ed as constit&ti e of ol&ntar* e+'lo*er 'ractice, which cannot later be &nilaterall* withdrawn b* the e+'lo*er. /o be considered as s&ch, it sho&ld ha e been 'racticed o er a long 'eriod of ti+e and +&st be shown to ha e been consistent and deliberate. • $bsent clear ad+inistrati e g&idelines, the e+'lo*er cannot be fa<ed for erroneo&s a''lication of the law. ,a*+ent +a* be said to ha e been +ade b* reason of a +istake in the constr&ction or a''lication of a 4do&btf&l or diffic< 5&estion of law6 !$rticle .122, "i il "ode, in relation to $rticle .124, "i il "ode%. 7f it is a 'ast error that is being corrected, no ested right +a* be said to ha e arisen not an* di+in&tion of benefit &nder $rticle 100 of the #abor "ode +a* be said to ha e res<ed b* irt&e of the correction.