G.R. No. L-48215, November 26, 1941
PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PARSONS WORKERS & EMPLOYEES UNION, respondents.

FACTS

On May 19, 1939, the respondent Parsons Workers & Employees Union petitioned the petitioner, Parsons Hardware Co., Inc., for a general increase in salaries and wages. The petition was denied, and after failed amicable settlement efforts by the Department of Labor, the Secretary of Labor certified the case to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for arbitration under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 . On December 28, 1939, the CIR rendered a supplementary decision fixing the minimum wage at P1.25 daily and P30.00 monthly for salaried employees, effective January 2, 1940, and ordered the company to raise the minimum pay of “all its employees and laborers” accordingly. The company complied with respect to twenty-three laborers. Subsequently, on September 23, 1940, and December 5, 1940, the Union filed motions seeking application of the wage increase to eighteen other laborers who were not paid the minimum wage. The CIR, by its order of February 3, 1941, resolved both motions favorably to the Union. The petitioner challenges this order on two grounds: (1) the eighteen laborers were not members of the Union when the original petition was submitted on May 19, 1939, and thus not entitled to the benefits; and (2) a minimum wage applicable to all employees must be issued pursuant to Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , not under Section 4 as in this case.

ISSUE

1. Whether the eighteen laborers, who were allegedly not members of the Union at the time of the original petition, are entitled to the minimum wage increase fixed by the CIR decision.
2. Whether the CIR had the authority under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 to fix a minimum wage applicable to all employees of the company, or if such action required proceedings under Section 5.

RULING

1. Yes. The Court held that the CIR’s order raising the minimum wage applied to “all its employees and laborers” without distinction as to Union membership. To accord the increase only to Union members would constitute unjust and unwarranted discrimination against non-members. Therefore, all laborers of the company are entitled to the increase.
2. Yes, the CIR had authority under Section 4. The Court rejected the petitioner’s narrow construction. It clarified that Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 pertains to fixing minimum wages of general application to a given industry or locality, which requires approval by the President. In contrast, Section 4 grants the CIR plenary powers to arbitrate and settle industrial disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout. The dispute in this case, arising from differences regarding a minimum wage, was properly certified for arbitration under Section 4. To require such disputes to be addressed exclusively under Section 5 would frustrate the law’s objective of preventing non-pacific methods in resolving industrial disputes through effective government intervention. The CIR’s decision under Section 4, fixing a minimum wage for all employees of the petitioner company as part of settling the specific dispute, was within its authority.
The order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated February 3, 1941, was affirmed.