International School Alliance of Educators vs.

Quisimbing
FACTS: 1. International School, Inc. o domestic educational institution o established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. o To enable the school to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction, the school hires both foreign and local teacher as members of its faculty, classifying them into two, namely: (1) foreign hires, and ( ) local hires. . The School grants foreign!hires certain benefits not accorded local!hires: o "ousing, transportation, shipping costs, ta#es, and home leave travel allowance. o $oreign!hires are also paid a salary rate twenty!five percent ( %&) more than local!hires. o The School 'ustifies the difference on two (significant economic disadvantages( for foreign!hires: (dislocation factor( and )limited tenure*. ,hen negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held, the International School -lliance of .ducators, (a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members( of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local!hires. This issue eventually caused a deadloc/ between the parties. 1nion claims: o that the point!of!hire classification is discriminatory to $ilipinos o that the grant of higher salaries to foreign!hires constitutes racial discrimination.

The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionali7e in this 'urisdiction the long honored legal truism of (e8ual pay for e8ual wor/.( o :ersons who wor/ with substantially e8ual 8ualifications, s/ill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. o This rule applies to the School, its (international character( notwithstanding. The School contends that the 1nion has not adduced evidence that local!hires perform wor/ e8ual to that of foreign!hires. o The 6ourt found this argument a little cavalier. o If an employer accords employees the same position and ran/, the presumption is that these employees perform e8ual wor/. o If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to e#plain why he receives less or why the others receive more. That would be adding insult to in'ury. The employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the employer to e#plain why the employee is treated unfairly. The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. o There is no evidence here that foreign!hires perform % percent more efficiently or effectively than the local!hires. o <oth groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar wor/ing conditions. The (dislocation factor( and the foreign!hires= limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. o The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign!hires are ade8uately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not en'oyed by local!hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, ta#es and home leave travel allowances. The 6onstitution en'oins the State to (protect the rights of wor/ers and promote their welfare,( (to afford labor full protection.( o therefore, the state has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. o These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good. o Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy, courts will not hesitate to stri/e down these stipulations.

+.

0.

Issue: Is there discrimination if the local hire receives salaries less than their counterparts hired abroad2 3.S Ratio: 4iscrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the 5abor 6ode. o -rticle 1+%, for e#ample, prohibits and penali7es the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for wor/ of e8ual value. o -rticle 09 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organi7ation.

In this case, the Supreme 6ourt found the point!of!hire classification employed by the School to 'ustify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign!hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign!

hires and local!hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign!hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this 6ourt.