THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V.

NATIONAL LABOR
UNION

G.R. NO. L-1309, 26 JULY 1948

  FACTS:

·        A complaint was filed by National Labor Union against petitioner Shell Company praying for
the grant of additional compensation of 50% on their regular wages.

 ·        The Industrial Relations Court issued a decision ordering Shell Company of the Philippine
Islands to pay to their workers who work at night an additional compensation of 50% on their
regular wages if they work during the day. (There is a need of night service since most flights
take off at night which explains necessity for nightwork to supply gasoline and lubricants)

 SHELL COMPANY’S CONTENTION:

·        There is no provision that entitles the Industrial Relations Court to order the payment of
additional compensation to workers who work at night and that under the provisions of
Commonwealth Law No. 444, nightwork is not among those cases in which payment of
“overtime” is compulsory.      

NATIONAL LABOR UNION’S CONTENTION:

·        Commonwealth Law No. 444 does not have any application to the present case, since it is
necessarily limited in scope, referring particularly and exclusively to the maximum day of
continuous work allowed in industrial establishments - the day of 8 hours.       

ISSUE:

·        WON the Industrial Relations Court has jurisdiction? YES.

In the case at hand there is undoubtedly an industrial disposition. While the company, the Shell
company, is not willing to pay its night workers higher wages than the outbound workers, the
"National Labor Union", to which the Shell workers are affiliated, claims another type of salary
for the service nocturnal - 50% more. This is the dispute, the industrial litigation. Article 1 of 
Commonwealth Law No. 103 empowers the Industrial Relations Court to decide any dispute
over wages and compensation in the manner it deems reasonable and convenient, as well as
within the framework of the article. 4 of the same law that authorizes said court to prosecute and
decide any industrial or agricultural dispute or dispute determines the outbreak of a strike or
store to cause it.

WON CIR is right in considering the day at night as a full day of work? YES.

Appellant's lawyers argue that Commonwealth Law No. 444 specify the cases in which the
payment of extra or additional compensation is authorized and are only, namely:
(a) in case of "overtime" or work in excess of regular hours for urgent reasons of urgency due to
a disaster or accident, or to avoid loss or repair;

 (b) in case of work for Sundays and holidays;

(c) in case of emergency;

and that there is nothing that refers to night work; which makes the Order issued by the Industrial
Relations Court illegal, since it is not authorized by law. Appellant invokes the principle of
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

 HELD:

Commonwealth Law No. 444 is s not applicable to this case, it being evident that it has a specific
purpose, namely: (a) set the maximum workday in 8 hours; (b) indicate certain exceptional cases
in which work may be authorized outside of said working day; (c) provide a bonus, which should
not be less than 25% of the regular salary, for overtime or work in excess of 8 hours.

The work last night that the Shell company demands of its workers is not perhaps an "overtime",
in the sense that this word is used in Commonwealth No. 444, but it is a full day of work, also of
8 hours: only which, instead of being done by day, is done at night. In other words, the night
work in question here is not only an unexcess, extension or "overtime" of regular day work, but
it is another type of work, absolutely independent of the daytime. That is why there are two
shifts: the shift of workers who work during the day; and the turn of those who work at night.
This is the reason that nightwork  is not included among the cases of "overtime" indicated in
the aforementioned law No. 444. It is one thing to work on Sunday days and official holidays,
and another thing is to work at night or outside the eight-hour day on weekdays.

If this court has, in cases of dispute, the power to set the wages it deems fair and reasonable for
day work, there is no reason why it should not have the same power with respect to night wages;
It is as much work as one. And with respect to the appreciation that night work is heavier and
more expensive than day work and, therefore, deserves higher pay, there is also no reason
to revoke or alter it. There is no possible argument against the universal fact that regular,
normal and ordinary work is that of day, and that night work is very exceptional and justified
only for certain imperatively unavoidable reasons. For something humanity has always
worked by day.

Undoubtedly, night work not only in the long run affects the health of the worker, but also
deprives him of certain things that make life relatively pleasant, such as, for example, a complete
and uninterrupted rest and certain times of solace leisure or spiritual and cultural expansion that
you might have when you finish work in the afternoon and during the first hours of the night.

Nightwork cannot be considered as desirable, either from the point of view of the employer
or of the wage earner. It is uneconomical unless overhead costs are unusually heavy.
Frequently the scale of wages is higher as an inducement to employees to accept
employment on the night shift, and the rate of production is generally lower. 

Judgment of CIR is affirmed.