1.

Brief History of Labor and Labor Legislations

2. Classification of Labor Legislation

2.1 Labor Standards
2.2 Labor Relations
2.3 Welfare Laws
3. Legal Framework of Labor Legislations / Sources of Rights of Labor Employment
3.1 1987 Constitutionnal provisions on labor and employment
a.) Article II, Sections 9,10,11,13,14,18,20
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life
for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.

b.) Article III, Sections 1,4,8

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

c.) Article XIII, Sections 1,2,3,14

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities
based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its
just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments,
and to expansion and growth.

3.2 The Labor Code of the Philippines and its Implementing Rules and Regulations

3.3 Civil Code of the Philippines

a.) Articles 19, 21

Human Relations (n)
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

b.) Articles 1700-1701

Contract of Labor (n)
Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed
with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts
are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed
shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or
convenience of the public.

3.4 RPC, Art. 289

Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence
or threats. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or
labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree
as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or
work, if the act shall not constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.

3.5 Police Power of the State

3.6 International Covenants

Eight Core Conventions (Azucena Book I)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,1949 (No. 98)
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
3.6.Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) (Students are assigned to bring copy of CBAs)
3.7 Past Practices / Company Policies
4. Name of Decree, Art. 1
ARTICLE 1. Name of Decree. - This Decree shall be known as the "Labor Code of the Philippines"
5. Date of Effectivity, Art. 2
ART. 2. Date of effectivity. - This Code shall take effect six (6) months after its promulgation.
6. Declarations of Policy, Art. 3
ART. 3. Declaration of basic policy. - The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between
workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
7. Construction of Labor Code, Art. 4
ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor. - All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
labor.
7.1 Interpretation of Labor Law, Rationale, Intent
a.) Abella v. NLRC GR No 71813 July 20 1987
ABELLA VS NLRCG.R. No. 71818
Date: July 20, 1987
Petitioners: Rosalina Perez Abella/Hda. Danao-Ramona
Respondents: The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission, Romeo Quitco andRicardo Dionele, Sr.,
Ponente: Paras, J
FACTS:
On June 27, 1960 the petitioner, Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period
of ten (10) years. She opted to extend the leased contract for another ten (10) years. During the existence of the lease, she
employed the private respondents Ricardo Dionele, Sr., and Romeo Quitco. Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights,
petitioner dismissed private respondents and turned over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5, 1981, who
continued the management, cultivation and operation of the farm. On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a
complaint against the petitioner atthe Ministry of Labor and Employment, Bacolod City District Office, for overtime pay, illegal
dismissal and reinstatement with back wages. After the parties had presented their respective evidence, Labor Arbiter Manuel
M. Lucas, Jr., in a Decision dated July 16, 1982, ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business, but
granted the private respondents separation pay. Petitioner appealed, the National Labor Relations Commission, in a
Resolution affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but
the same was denied. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay?
HELD: The petition is devoid of merit.

Article 284 of the Labor Code is the law applicable in this case. Art.284. Closure of establishment and
reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the
installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of
Labor and Employment at least month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a
separation pay equivalent to at least his one month pay or to at least one month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or
cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half month pay for
every year of service whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six months shall be considered one whole
year."
The purpose of the said article is obvious: the protection of the workers whose employment is terminated
because of the closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. Without said law, employees like
private respondents in the case at bar will lose the benefits to which they are entitled for the number of
years served. Although they were absorbed by the new management of the hacienda, in the absence of
any showing that the latter has assumed the responsibilities of the former employer, they will be
considered as new employees and the years of service behind them would amount to nothing. In any
event, it is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code
and its implementing regulations, the workingmans welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration.
The instant petition is hereby dismissed and the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the Resolution of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment are hereby affirmed.
b.) Manaya v. Alabang Country Club 525 SCRA 144

c.) Clemente v. GSIS 152 SCRA 500

G.R. No. L-47521

July 31, 1987

CAROLINA CLEMENTE, petitioner,

vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM Department of Health (Dagupan City) and
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, respondents.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
FACTS
Pedro Clemente was a janitor of the Department of Health for 10 years.
He was assigned at Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Laoag City.
On November 3 to 14, 1976, he was hospitalised at the Central Luzon Sanitarium, Tala Sanitarium in
Caloocan City due to his ailment of nephritis. He was also found to be suffering from such ailments
as portal cirrhosis and leprosy also known as Hansens Disease.
On November 14, 1976, he died of uremia due to nephritis.

His widow filed a claim for employees compensation under the Labor Code but thesame was denied by
GSIS on the ground that the ailments of her husband are not occupational diseases taking into
consideration the nature of his work and were not in the least causally related to his duties and
conditions.
Petitioner contended that the ailments of her husband were contracted in the courseof employment and
were aggravated by the nature of his work. Being a janitor of Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, her husband
worked in direct contact with people suffering from different skin diseases and was exposed to
obnoxious dusts and other dirt which contributed to his ailment of Hansens disease.
The Employment Compensation Commission affirmed this denial of the claim by GSIS. It contended that
the decision of GSIS was anchored upon the findings that the ailments were not listed as occupation
diseases and that there was no substantial evidence of causal connections.
ISSUES
1.What is the quantum of proof required in claims for compensation?
2.Was the disease of the decedent occupation and thus compensable?
HELD
1.Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation. The degree of proof required
under PD 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The claimant must show, at least, by substantial
evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature of
the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work-connection and not a direct causal relation. It is
enough that the hypothesis on which the workmens claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the
contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a workconnection. Probability and not certainty is the touchstone.
2.YES. The major ailments of the deceased could be traced to bacterial and viral infections. In the case of
leprosy, it is known that the source of infection is the discharge from lesions of persons with active cases.
It is believed that the bacillus enters the body through the skin or through the mucous membrane of the
nose and throat.
The husband of the petitioner worked in a skin clinic. As a janitor of the skin clinic, he was exposed to
different carriers of viral and bacterial diseases. He had to clean the clinic itself where patients with
different illnesses come and go. He had to put in order the hospital equipments that had been used. He
had to dispose of garbage and wastes that accumulated in the course of each working day. He was the
employee most exposed to the dangerous concentration of infected materials and not being a medical
practitioner, least likely to known how to avoid infection. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that
Mr. Clementes working conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the diseases.
d.) Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc v. Ople GR No 73681
G.R. No. 73681 June 30, 1988
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc., petitioners,
vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION, respondents.
PARAS, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the Order of respondent Minister of
Labor and Employment (MOLE) directly certifying private respondent as the recognized and dulyauthorized collective bargaining agent for petitioner's sales force and ordering the reinstatement of
three employees of petitioner.

On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union
officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining
non-union members from joining the union. After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the
Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article
264 (g) of the Labor Code.
Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union membership
were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees were
due to infractions committed by them and that the management reserves the right to discipline erring
employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union, among others.
The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Unions complaint. It also ruled
that the three dismissed employees were not without fault but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement
of the same. At the same time, respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the
collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of
the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.
ISSUES
1. WON the Respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when he directly certified
the Union solely on the basis of the latter's self-serving assertion that it enjoys the support of the
majority of the sales force in petitioner's company.
2. WON the Respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when, notwithstanding his
very own finding that there was just cause for the dismissal of the three (3) salesmen, he
nevertheless ordered their reinstatement. (pp. 7-8, Rollo)
HELD:
1. HE committed grave abuse of discretion. (a) He has created havoc by impliedly establishing a
procedural short-cut to obtaining a direct certification-by merely filing a notice of strike. (b) By
creating such a short-cut, he has officially encouraged disrespect for the law. (c) By directly
certifying a Union without sufficient proof of majority representation, he has in effect arrogated
unto himself the right, vested naturally in the employees, to choose their collective bargaining
representative. (d) He has in effect imposed upon the petitioner the obligation to negotiate with a
union whose majority representation is under serious question. This is highly irregular because
while the Union enjoys the blessing of the Minister, it does not enjoy the blessing of the
employees. Petitioner is therefore under threat of being held liable for refusing to negotiate with a
union whose right to bargaining status has not been legally established
2. The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of guilt on
their part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage unequal protection
of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the employees.
The court rendered the decision of the minister reversed and set aside, ordering petitioners to
give the three employees their separation pay.
e.) Nicario v. NLRC et al, GR No. 125340 Sept 17 1998
EMELITA NICARIO, petitioner,

vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MANCAO SUPERMARKET INC., AND/OR

MANAGER, ANTONIO MANCAO, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:

Facts: Nicario was employed as a salesgirl, later promoted to supervisor, with Mancao Supermarket.
She was terminated in 1989. Nicario filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the case. Nicario appealed to the NLRC. NLRC remanded the case back to the Labor Arbiter
for lack of due process. Labor Arbiter adjudged in favor of Nicario, ordering Mancao Supermarket to pay
unpaid service incentive leave, 13th month pay, overtime pay and rest day pay, but dismissed Nicarios
claims for holiday premium pay and unpaid salaries.
Nicario appealed to NLRC. It affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter. In its motion for
reconsideration, NLRC deleted the award of overtime pay and ruled that Antonio Mancao is not jointly and
severally liable with Mancao Supermarket in paying Nicario. Hence, this certiorari proceeding.

Issue: Whether or not Antonio Mancao is solidarily liable with Mancao Supermarket as manager.

HELD: This Court, in previously evaluating the evidentiary value of daily time records, especially those
which show uniform entries with regard to the hours of work rendered by an employee, has ruled that
such unvarying recording of a daily time record is improbable and contrary to human experience. It is
impossible for an employee to arrive at the workplace and leave at exactly the same time, day in day
out. The uniformity and regularity of the entries are badges of untruthfulness and as such indices of
dubiety.[11] The observations made by the Solicitor General regarding the unreliability of the daily time
records would therefore seem more convincing. On the other hand, respondent company failed to present
substantial evidence, other than the disputed DTRs, to prove that petitioner indeed worked for only eight
hours a day.
It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and
the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in
controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the
interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor. The policy is to extend
the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor. [13]This rule
should be applied in the case at bar, especially since the evidence presented by the private respondent
company is not convincing. Accordingly, we uphold the finding that petitioner rendered overtime work,
entitling her to overtime pay.
As to the liability of private respondent Antonio Mancao, petitioner contends that as manager of
Mancao establishment, he should be jointly and severally liable with respondent corporation as to the
monetary award adjudged.

The general rule is that officers of a corporation are not personally liable for their official acts unless it
is shown that they have exceeded their authority. However, the legal fiction that a corporation has a
personality separate and distinct from stockholders and members may be disregarded if it is used as a
means to perpetuate fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the
circumvention of statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues. [14]
In this case, there is no showing that Antonio Mancao, as manager of respondent company,
deliberately and maliciously evaded the respondent's company financial obligation to the
petitioner. Hence, there appearing to be no evidence on record that Antonio Mancao acted maliciously or
deliberately in the non-payment of benefits to petitioner, he cannot be held jointly and severally liable with
Mancao supermarket.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY
GRANTED. Accordingly, the resolution of the NLRC dated December 21, 1995 in NLRC NCR CA No. M002047-94 is hereby MODIFIED by awarding petitioner, Emelita Nicario her overtime pay and relieving
private respondent, Antonio Mancao, of any liability as manager of Mancao Supermarket and further
holding Mancao Supermarket solely liable. No costs

7.2 Interpretation of employment contract

a.) St. Theresas School of Novaliches Foundation et al v NLRC et al GR No 122955, April 15
1998
ST. THERESAS SCHOOL OF NOVALICHES FOUNDATION and ADORACION ROXAS, petitioners,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ESTHER REYES, respondents.
Justitia nemini neganda est. Justice is to be denied to none. The law, while protecting the rights of
the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor destruction of the employer. [1] When the law angles
the scale of justice in favor of labor, the scale should never be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the
employer
Petitioners contend that the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in handing down its disposition wherein, notwithstanding the finding that the
dismissal of private respondent was valid, it awarded backwages for the latter, computed from November
12, 1993 up to the time of rendition of the decision under attack.
Undisputed are the following facts: Petitioner Adoracion Roxas is the president of St. Theresas
School of Novaliches Foundation. She hired private respondent, Esther Reyes, on a contract basis,
for the period from June 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992. However, private respondent commenced work on
May 2, 1991.During the said period of employment, private respondent became ill. She went on a leave
of absence from February 17 to 21 and from February 24 to 28, 1992, such leave of absence having
been duly approved by petitioner Roxas. On March 2, 1992, private respondent reported for work, but
she only stayed in her place of work from 6:48 to 9:38 a.m. Thereafter, she never returned. For what
reason did private respondent stop working?
Petitioners theorize that the private respondent abandoned her work. On the other hand, the latter
maintains that she was replaced. When she went back to work on February 20, 1992, she found out that
her table, chair, and other belongings were moved to a corner of their office, and she was replaced by
Annie Roxas, daughter of petitioner Adoracion Roxas. She tried to contact her employer but the latter
could not be found within the school premises.

On March 25, 1992, petitioners sent private respondent a letter by registered mail, informing her that
her contract, due to expire on March 31, 1992, would not be renewed. Prior thereto, or on March 3, 1992,
to be precise, the private respondent instituted NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-01481-92 [3] against the
herein petitioners for unfair labor practice based on harassment, illegal dismissal, 13 th month pay,
allowances, removal of desk and chair form place of work, and refusal to communicate, moral and
exemplary damages.[4] On November 12, 1993, absent any amicable settlement hammered out by the
parties, the Labor Arbiter came out with a decision, disposing, thus:
WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing, judgment is hereby ordered declaring complainant (sic)
dismissal from the service illegal. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to her former
position without loss of seniority rights and to pay for full backwages from the time of dismissal to her
actual reinstatement in the amount of Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred One (P76,701.00) Pesos.
Respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant P25,000 as moral damages and P10,000 by way of
exemplary damages. Respondent (sic) are further assessed attorneys fees of 10% of the award.
On December 7, 1993, petitioners appealed the aforesaid decision to the NLRC.
On January 12, 1994, private respondent presented a Motion for Partial Execution of the
reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters decision.
On November 29, 1994, petitioners appeal, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 006078-94, was
resolved in the assailed Resolution of the of the Second Division of the NLRC; disposing, as follows:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter below dated November 12,
1993 is hereby reversed and set aside and another one rendered, declaring the separation of Esther
Reyes from service legal and valid.
However, respondent is directed to pay the backwages of herein complainant from November 12,
1993 up to the date of the promulgation of this Resolution.
Therefrom, both parties moved for reconsideration; petitioners assailing the award of backwages in
favor of private respondent.
On November 29, 1995, the same Second Division of NLRC rendered its challenged Decision,
denying subject motions for reconsideration.
Unfortunately for private respondent, she never interposed any appeal from NLRCs ruling, upholding
the validity of her dismissal. It is therefore settled, beyond the reach of this courts power of review, that
private respondents employment was validly terminated.
On the part of petitioners, they have come here to question the award of backwages for the private
respondent, whose dismissal has been upheld with finality.
Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed
period provided the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure
being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. . There is
thus nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of the
employees duties It goes without saying that contracts of employment govern the relationship of the

parties. In this case, private respondents contract provided for a fixed term of nine (9) months, from June
1, 1991 to March 31, 1992. Such stipulation, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
and public policy, is valid, binding and must be respected. [6]
We now tackle the pivotal point of inquiry - the award of backwages in favor of private respondent. Is
it proper in light of the finding that her dismissal was valid?
The term backwages has been defined as that for earnings lost by a worker due to his illegal
dismissal.
Payment thereof is a form of relief that restores the income lost by reason of such unlawful dismissal.
Jurisprudence is filled to the brim with cases wherein backwages were awarded to an employee illegally
dismissed.[13] But where, as in this case of a pitiful employee rendered hapless by her lawyers inaction or
ignorance, the dismissal has been adjudged valid and lawful, the challenged award of backwages is
decidedly improper and contrary to law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the respondent NLRC rendered on
November 29, 1995 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-6078-94 is hereby MODIFIED by deleting therefrom the
award of backwages in question. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.