Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1309 July 26, 1948
THE SHELL COMPANY OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LIMITED, recurrente,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, recurrida.
Sres. Ross, Selph, Carrascoso y Janda en representacion de la recurrente.
Sres. Paguia y Villanueva en representacion de la recurrida.
BRIONES, J.:
Actuando sobre una peticion de la entidad obrera llamada "National Labor Union," la Corte de Relaciones Industriales ha dictado una decision en la que, entre otras cosas, se obliga a la firma petrolera "The Shell Company of Philippine Islands, Limited" a pagar a sus obreros que trabajan de noche (desde que se pone el sol hasta que se levanta al dia siguiente) una compensacion adicional de 50% sobre sus salarios regulares si trabajasen de dia. Parece que la comania tiene necesidad del servicio nocturno de un determinado numero de obreros, pues los aviones procedentes del extranjero suelen aterrizar y despegarse de noche, siendo por esto necesario el que se hagan faenas de noche para el suministro de gasolina y lubricantes, y para otros menesteres. La compania petrolera se ha excepcionado contra dicha decision de ahi el presente recurso de certiorari para que la revoquemos.
La compania recurrente alega y arguye que no solo no existe ninguna disposicion legal que faculte a la Corte de Relaciones Industriales para ordenar el pago de compensacion adicional a obreros que trabajan de noche, sino que, por el contrario, la ley del Commonwealth No. 444 exime al patrono de semejante obligacion toda vez que en dicha ley se proveen los casos en que es compulsorio el pago de "overtime" (compensacion adicional), y entre tales casos no figura el trabajo de noche.
Por su parte, la union obrera recurrida sostiene que la facultad que se discute forma parte de los poderes amplios y efectivos que la ley del Commonwealth No. 103 — la carta organica del Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales — otorga a dicho tribunal; y que la ley No. 444 del Commonwealth que se invoca no tiene ninguna aplication al presente caso, pues la misma es de alcance forzosamente limitado, refiriendose particular y exclusivamente a la jornada maxima de trabajo contidiano permitida en los establecimientos industriales — la jornada de 8 horas.
Nuestra conclusion es que la union obrera recurrida tiene la razon de su parte. Para una clara y cabal elucidacion de los puntos discutidos, estmamos conveniente, aun a riesgo de alargar esta ponencia, transcribir lasdisposiciones legales pertinentes que son los articulos 1, 4 y 13 de la ley del Commonwealth No. 103. Helas aqui:
SECTION 1. The Judge: his appointment, qualifications, compensation, tenure. — There is hereby created a Court of Industrial Relations, which shall have jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter, controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relation between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act. The Court shall keep a record of all its proceedings and shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. The Judge of the Court shall hold office during good behavior until he reaches the age of seventy years, or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office. His qualifications shall be the same as those provided in the Constitution for members of the Supreme Court and he shall receive an annual compensation of ten thousand pesos and shall be entitled to traveling expenses and per diems when performing official duties outside of the City of Manila. The Department of Justice shall have executive supervision over the Court.
SEC. 4. Strikes and lockouts. — The Court shall take cognizance for purpose of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising form differences as regards wages, shares or compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy or employment, between employers and employees or laborers and between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that the number of employees, laborers or tenants or farm-laborers involved exceeds thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of Labor, or by any or both of the parties to the controversy and certified by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealt with by the Court for the sake of public interest. In all such cases, the Secretary of Labor or the party or parties submitting the disputes, shall clearly and specifically state in writing the questions to be decided. Upon the submission of such a controversy or question by the Secretary of Labor, his intervention therein as authorized by law, shall cease.
The Court shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing, endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute by amicable agreement. If any agreement as to the whole or any part of the dispute is arrived at by the parties, a memorandum of its terms shall be made in writing, signed and acknowledged by the parties thereto before the Judge of the Court or any official acting in his behalf and authorized to administer oaths or acknowledgments, or, before a notary public. The memorandum shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court, and, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall, as between the parties to the agreement, have the same effect as, and be deemed to be, a decision or award.
SEC. 13. Character of the award. — In making an award, order or decision, under the provisions of section four of this Act, the Court shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or decision any matter or determination which my be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of setting the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes.
Resulta evidente de las disposiciones transcritas lo siguiente: (a) que cuando surge una disputa entre el principal y el empleado u obrero, vgr. sobre cuestion de salarios, la Corte de Relaciones Industriales tiene jurisdiccion en todo el territorio de Filipinas para considerar, investigar y resolver dicha disputa, fijando los salarios que estime justos y razonables; (b) que para los efectos de prevencion, arbitraje, decision y arreglo, el mismo Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales tien igualmente jurisdiccion para conocer de cualquier disputa — industrial o agricola — resultante de cualesquier diferencias respecto de los salarios, participaciones o compensaciones, horas de trabajo, condiciones del empleo o de la aparceria entre los patronos y los empleados u obreros y entre los propietarios y los terratenientes u obreros agricolas previo el cumplimiento de ciertos requisitos y condiciones, cuando se viere que dicha disputa ocasiona o puede ocasionar una huelga; (c) que en el ejercicio de sus facultades arriba especificadas, el Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales no queda limitado, al decidir la disputa, a conceder el remedio o remedios solicitados por las partes en la controversia, sino que puede incluir en la orden or decision cualquier materia o determinacion para el proposito de arreglar la disputa o de prevenir ulteriores controversias industriales o agricolas.
En el caso nos ocupa existe indudablemente una dispunta industrial. Mientras la empresa, la compania Shell, no esta dispuesta a pagar a sus obreros de noche mayores salarios que los obreros de ida, la "NationalLabor Union", a la cual estan afiliados los trabajadoresde la Shell, reclama otro tipo de salarios para el servicio nocturno — un 50% mas. En esto consiste la disputa, el litigio industrial. Ahora bien: ¿que ha hecho la Corte de Relaciones Industriales, despues de sometido el conflicto a su jurisdiccion? Pues precisamente lo que manda la citada ley No. 103 del Commonwealth, carta organica de su creacion y funcionamiento, a saber: considerar, investigar y enjuiciar la disputa, resolviedola despues en el sentido en que la ha resuelto, es decir, remunerando el trabajo de noche con un 50% mas de los salarios de dia. Y esto es perfectamente legal tanto dentro del alcance del articulo 1 de la referida ley No. 103 que faculta a la Corte de Relaciones Industriales para decidir cualquier disputa sobre salarios y compensaciones en la forma que estime razonable y conveniente, como dentro del marco del articulo 4 de la misma ley que autoriza a dicho tribunal para enjuiciar y decidir cualquier pleito o controversia industrial o agricola determine el estallido de una huelga o tienda a causarla. Mas todavia: lo hecho por el Trbunal de Relaciones Industriales en el presente caso es asimismo legal dentro del marco del articulo 13 de la misma ley No. 103, articulo que, como queda visto, no solo faculta a dicho tribunal a conceder el remedio que recabanlas partes, sino inclusive a ir mas alla, esto es, a otorgar remedios no expresamente solicitados, siempre que los mismos se encamienen a resolver de una vez la disputa o a prevenir el estallido de ulteriores disputas o huelgas.
Es evidente que con estos amplios poderes el Estadose ha propuesto equipar al Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales hasta el maximum posible de utilidad y eficacia, haciendo del mismo no una simple agencia academica, sino verdaderamente activa, dinamica y eficiente — en una palabra, la maquinaria oficial por excelencia en la formidable y espinosa tarea de resolver los conflictos industriales, yagricolas de cierta clase, previniendo y evitando de esta manera esos paros y huelgas que tanto afligen y danan no solo a las empresas y a los obreros, sino, en general, a toda la comunidad. En su opinion concurrente dictada en el caso autoritativo de Ang Tibay contra Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales1 (R.G. No. 46496), el Magistado Laurel ha expresado muy acertadamente la idea fundamental que subraya la creacion de dicho tribunal, con el siguiente pronunciamiento:
In Commonwealth Act No. 103, and by it, our government no longer performs the role of mere mediator or intervenor but that of supreme arbiter. (Las cursivas son nuestras.).
La recurrente arguye, sin embargo, que si bien es verdad que en caso de disputa el Tribunal de relaciiones Industriales tiene, en virtud de su ley organica, el poder de fijar los salarios, tal poder no es absoluto, sino que esta sujeto a ciertas restricciones y cortapizas, provistas en la ley comunmente conocida por ley sobre la jornada de ocho horas, la ley del Commonwealth No. 444, cuyos articulos pertinentes se transacriben integramente a continuacion:
SECTION 1. The legal working day for any person employed by another shall be of not more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be counted.
SEC. 3. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity in order to prevent loss to life and property or imminent danger to public safety; or in case urgent work to be performed on the machines, equipment, or installations in order to avoid a serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer, or some other just cause of a similar nature; but in all such cases the laborers and employees shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least twenty-five per centum additional.
In case of national emergency the government is empowered to establish rules and regulations for the operation of the plants and factories and to determine the wages to be paid the laborers.
SEC. 4. No person, firm, or corporation, business establishment or place or center of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular remuneration: Provided however, That this prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performing some public service such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of transportation or communication.
Como quiera — argumentanlos abogados de la recurrente — que en estos articulos se especifican los casos en que se autoriza el pago de compensacion extra o adicional y son solo, a saber: (a) en caso de "overtime" o trabajo en exceso de las horas regulares por razones imperiosasde urgencia con motivo de algun desastre o accidente, o para evitar perdidas o repararlas; (b) en caso de trabajo por los domingos y fiestas; (c) en caso de emergencia, y nada hay que se refiera al trabajo de noche; luego la orden de que se trata es ilegal, pues no esta autorizada por la ley. "In the absence — recalcan los abogados de la recurrente — legislation authorizing the payment of extra compensation for work done at night, the Court of Industrial Relations ha no power or authority to order the petitioner company to pay extra compensation for work done by its laborers at night. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where, as inthe case at bar, statute expressly specifies the cases where payment of extra compensation may be demanded, extra compensation may be allowed in those cases only, and in no others. The provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 444 cannot be enlarged by implication or otherwise. Expressum facit cessare tacitum.
La argumentacion es erronea. La Ley No. 444 no es aplicable al presente caso, siendo evidente que la misma tiene un objeto especifico, a saber: (a) fijar en 8 horas la jornada maxima de trabajo; (b) senalar ciertos casos excepcionales en que se puede autorizar el trabajo fuera de dicha jornada; (c) proveer un sobresueldo, que no debe ser menor de 25% del salario regular, para el "overtime" o trabajo en exceso de las 8 horas.
En el caso de Manila Electric, solicitante-apelante, contra The Public Utities Employees' Association,2 apelada, L-1206 (45 Off. Gaz., 1760), esta Corte ha declarado que la facultad conferida por el articulo 1 de la ley del Commonwealth No. 103 al Tribunal de relaciones Industriales para enjuciar y decidir pleitos y controversias industriales entre el capital y el trabajo, que incluye la de fijar salarios y compnsaciones de empleados y obreros, ha quedado restringida por el articulo 4 de la ley Commonwealth No. 444, que al mismo tiempo que limita a un 25% del salario o compensacion regular del obrero el minimum de la compensacion adicional que el tribunal puede conceder por trabajos en los Domingos y fiestas oficiales, exime del pago de dicha compensacion adicional a las entidades de utilidad publica que prestan algun servicio publico, como las que suministran gas, electricidad, fuerza mortriz, agua, o proveen medios de transporte o communicacion. Tal restriccion viene a ser una excepcion de la facultad general del tribunal para fijar, en casos de disputa, los salarios y compensaciones que deben pagar los patronos a los empleados y obreros; y como quiera que dicho articulo 4 se refiere solamente a salario o compensacion por trabajos durante los dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, es obvio que no puede referirse a salario o compensacion adicional por trabajos fuera de lajornada de ocho horas que generalmente se realizan desde primeras horas de la manana a ultimas horas de la tarde, pues una cosa es trabajar en dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, y otra cosa bien distinta es trabajar de noche of fuera de la jornada de ocho horas en dias laborables. Aplicando la maxima legal "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," se puede sostener, sin temor de equivocarse, que una ley que provee una excepcion especifica a sus disposiciones generales, como la compensacion adicional por trabajos en dias de Domingo y fiestas oficiales, excluye cualquiera otra, como la compensacion adicional por trabajos de noche en dias laborables."Another case in which this maxim may almost invariably by followed is that of statute which makes certain specific exceptions to its general provisions. Here wemay safely assume that all other exceptions were intended to be excluded." (Wabash R. Co.vs. United States, 178 Fed., 5, 101 C. C. A. 133; Cella Commision Co. vs. Bohlinger, 147 Fed., 419; 78 C. C. A. 467; Kunkalman vs. Gibson, 171 Ind., 503; 84 N.E. 985; Hering vs. Clement, 133 App. Div., 293; 117 N.Y., Supp. 747.).
El trabajo denoche que la compania Shell exige de sus obreros no es talmente un "overtime", en el sentido en que se emplea esta palabra en la Le No. 444, sino que es una jornada completa de trabajo, tambien de 8 horas: solo que, en vez de realizarse de dia, se hace de noche. Dicho en otras palabras, el trabajo de noche de que aqui se trata no es solamente unexceso, prolongacion u "overtime" del trabajo regular de dia, sino que es otro tipo de trabajo, absolutamente independiente de la jornada diurna. Por eso hay dos turnos: el turno de obreros que trabajan de dia; y el turno de los que trabajan de noche. Asi que no es extrano que el legislador no haya incluido este tipo de trabajo entre los casos de "overtime" senalados en la referida ley No. 444.
La cuestion que, a nuestro juicio, se debe determinar es si entre las facultades generales de la Corte de Relaciones Industriales que estan admitidas sin dipusta, esta la de considerar la jornada de noche como una jornada completa de trabajo; la de estimarla como mas gravosa que la jornada de dia; y consiguientemente, la de proveer y ordenar que se remunere con un 50% mas de los salarios regulares diurnos. Nuestra contestacion es afirmativa: todo esto se halla comprendido entre los poderes generales de la Corte de Relaciones Industriales. Si este tribunal tiene, en casos de disputa, el poder de fijar los salarios que estime justos y razonables para el trabajo de dia, no hay razon por que no ha de tener el mismo poder con respecto a los salarios de noche; es tan trabajo lo uno como lo otro. Y con respecto ala apreciacion de que el trabajo de noche es mas pesado y oneroso que el de dia y, por tanto, merece mayor remuneracion, tampoco hay motivospara revocarla o alterarla. No hay argumento posible contra el hecho universal de que el trabajo regular, normal y ordinario es el de dia, y que el trabajo de noche es muy exceptional y justificado solo por ciertos motivos imperativamente inevitables. Por algo la humanidad ha trabajadosiempre de dia.
Razones de higiene, de medicina, de moral, de cultura, de sociologia, establecen de consuno que el trabajo de nocho tiene muchos inconvenientes, y cuando no hay mas remedio que hacerlo es solo justo que se remunero mejor que de ordinario para resarcir hasa cierto punto al obrero de tales inconvenientes. Es indudable que el trabajo de noche no solo a la larga afecta a la salud del trabajador, sino que le priva a este de ciertas cosas que hacen relativamente agradable la vida, como, vgr., un reposo completo e ininterrumpido y ciertos ratos de solaz, ocio o expansion espiritual y cultural que podria tener al terminar el trabajo por la tarde y durante las primeras horas de la noche. Se dice que el obrero puede descansar de dia despues de haber trabajado toda la noche; pero puede acaso el reposo de dia dar al cuerpo aquel tonico y aquel efecto reparador completo que solo puede proporcionar el reposo natural de noche? Se dice tambien que algunos prefieren trabajar de noche bajo nuestro clima abrasador, evitando asi el calor del dia. Mucho tememos, sin embargo, que esto sea mejor hablado que praticado. Creemos que desde tiempo inmemorial la regla universal es que el hombre trabja de noche mas por necesidad irremediable que por placentera conveniencia.
A la opinion vulgar, universal, hay que sumar la opinionpericial, el criterio especialista. La opinion de los tratadistas y expertos milita decididamente en favor de la tesis de que el trabajo de noche es mas duro y oneroso que el trabajo de dia, considerandose por esto con marcada repugnancia y compeliendo consiguientemente a las gerencias capitalisticas a establecer una escala mas alta de salarios como incentivo a los obreros para aceptarlo. Se podrian citar virias autoridades, pero para no extender demasiado esta ponencia optamos por transcriber solamente algunas, a saber:
. . . Then, it must be remembered that it is distinctly unphysiological to turn the night into day and deprive the body of the beneficial effects of sunshine. The human organism revolts against this procedure. Added to artificial lighting are reversed and unnatural times of eating, resting, and sleeping. Much of the inferiority of nightwork can doubtless be traced to the failure of the workers to secure proper rest and sleep, by day. Because of inability or the lack of opportunity to sleep, nightworkers often spend their days in performing domestic duties, joining the family in the midday meal, 'tinkering about the place', watching the baseball game, attending the theater or taking a ride in the car. It is not strange that nightworkers tend to be less efficient than dayworkers and lose more time. . . (The Management of Labor Relations, by Watkins & Dodd, page 524.).
Nightwork. — Nightwork has gained a measure of prominence in the modern industrial system in connection with continuous industries, that is, industries in which the nature of the processes makes it necessary to keep machinery and equipment in constant operation. Even in continuous industries the tendency is definitely in the direction of FOUR shifts of 6 hours each, with provision for an automatic change of shift for all workers at stated intervals. Some discussion has taken place with regard to the lengths of the period any workers should be allowed to remain on the night shift. A weekly change of shifts is common, specially where three or four shifts are in operation; in other cases the change is made fortnightly or monthly; in still other instances, no alternation is provided for, the workers remaining on day — or nightwork permanently, except where temporary changes are made for individual convenience.
There is sharp difference of opinion concerning the relative merits of these systems. Advocates of the weekly change of shifts contend that the strain of nightwork and the difficulty of getting adequate sleep during the day make it unwise for workers to remain on the"graveyard" shift for more than a week at a time. Opponents urge that repeated changes make it more difficult to settle down to either kind of shift and that after the first week nightwork becomes less trying while the ability to sleep by day increases. Workers themselves react in various ways to the different systems. This much, however, is certain: Few persons react favorably to nightwork, whether the shift be continuous or alternating. Outside of continuous industries, nightwork can scarcely be justified, and, even in these, it presents serious disadvantages which must be recognized in planing for industrial efficiency, stabilization of the working force, the promotion of industrial good-will, and the conservation of the health and vitality of the workers.
Nightwork cannot be regarded 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. (Management of Labor Relations, by Watkins & Dodd, pp. 522-524; emphasis ours.)
. . . The lack of sunlight tends to produce anemia and tuberculosis and to predispose to other ills. Nightwork brings increased liability to eyestrain and accident. Serious moral dangers also are likely to result from the necessity of traveling the streets alone at night, and from the interference with normal home life. From an economic point of view, moreover, the investigations showed that nightwork was unprofitable, being inferior to day work both in quality and in quantity. Wherever it had been abolished, in the long run the efficiency both of the management and of the workers was raised. Furthermore, it was found that nightwork laws are a valuable aid in enforcing acts fixing the maximum period of employment. (Principles of Labor Legislation, by Commons and Andrews, 4th Revised Edition, p. 142.)
Special regulation of nightwork for adult men is a comparatively recent development. Some European countries have adopted laws placing special limitations on hours of nightwork for men, and others prohibit such work except in continuous processes. (Principles of Labor legislation, 4th Revised Edition by Common & Andrews, p. 147.)
Nightwork has almost invariably been looked upon with disfavor by students of the problem because of the excessive strain involved, especially for women and young persons, the large amount of lost time consequent upon exhaustion of the workers, the additional strain and responsibility upon the executive staff, the tendency of excessively fatigued workers to "keep going" on artificial stimulants, the general curtailment of time for rest, leisure, and cultural improvement, and the fact that night workers, although precluded to an extent from the activities of day life, do attempt to enter into these activities, with resultant impairment of physical well-being. It is not contended, of course, that nightwork could be abolished in the continuous-process industries, but it is possible to put such industries upon a three- or four-shifts basis, and to prohibit nightwork for women and children. (Labor's Progress and Problems, Vol. I, p. 464, by Professors Millis and Montgomery.)
Nightwork. — Civilized peoples are beginning to recognize the fact that except in cases of necessity or in periods of great emergency, nightwork is socially undesirable. Under our modern industrial system, however, nightwork has greatly aided the production of commodities, and has offered a significant method of cutting down the ever-increasing overhead costs of industry. This result has led employers to believe that such work is necessary and profitable. Here again one meets a conflict of economic and social interests. Under these circumstances it is necessary to discover whether nightwork has deleterious effects upon the health of laborers and tends to reduce the ultimate supply of efficient labor. If it can proved that nightwork affects adversely both the quality and quantity of productive labor, its discontinuance will undoubtedly be sanctioned by employers. From a social point of view, even a relatively high degree of efficiency in night operations must be forfeited if it is purchased with rapid exhaustion of the health and energy of the workers. From an economic point of view, nightwork may be necessary if the employer is to meet the demand for his product, or if he is to maintain his market in the face of increasing competition or mounting variable production costs.
Industrial experience has shown that the possession of extra-ordinary physical strength and self-control facilitates the reversal of the ordinary routine of day work and night rest, with the little or no unfavorable effect on health and efficiency. Unusual vitality and self-control, however, are not common possessions. It has been found that the most serious obstacle to a reversal of the routine is the lack of self-discipline. Many night workers enter into the numerous activities of day life that preclude sleep, and continue to attempt to do their work at night. Evidence gathered by the British Health of Munition Workers' Committee places permanent night workers, whether judged on the basis of output or loss of time, in a very unfavorable positions as compared with day workers.
Systems of nightwork differ. There is the continuous system, in which employees labor by night and do not attend the establishment at all by day, and the discontinuous system, in which the workers change to the day turn at regular intervals, usually every other week. There are, of course, minor variations in these systems, depending upon the nature of the industry and the wishes of management. Such bodies as the British Health Munition Workers' Committee have given us valuable conclusions concerning the effect of nightwork. Continuous nightwork is definitely less productive than the discontinuous system. The output of the continuous day shift does not make up for this loss in production.
There is, moreover, a marked difference between the rates of output of night and day shifts on the discontinuous plan. In each case investigated the inferiority of night labor was definitely established. This inferiority is evidently the result of the night worker's failure to secure proper amounts of sleep and rest during the day. The system of continuous shifts, especially for women, is regarded by all investigators as undesirable. Women on continuous nightwork are likely to perform domestic duties, and this added strain undoubtedly accounts for the poorer results of their industrial activities. The tendency to devote to amusement and other things the time that should be spent in rest and sleep is certainly as common among men as among women workers and accounts largely for the loss of efficiency and time on the part of both sexes in nightwork.
The case against nightwork, then, may be said to rest upon several grounds. In the first place, there are the remotely injurious effects of permanent nightwork manifested in the later years of the worker's life. Of more immediate importance to the average worker is the disarrangement of his social life, including the recreational activities of his leisure hours and the ordinary associations of normal family relations. From an economic point of view, nightwork is to be discouraged because of its adverse effect upon efficiency and output. A moral argument against nightwork in the case of women is that the night shift forces the workers to go to and from the factory in darkness. Recent experiences of industrial nations have added much to the evidence against the continuation of nightwork, except in extraordinary circumstances and unavoidable emergencies. The immediate prohibition of nightwork for all laborers is hardly practicable; its discontinuance in the case of women employees is unquestionably desirable. 'The night was made for rest and sleep and not for work' is a common saying among wage-earning people, and many of them dream of an industrial order in which there will be no night shift. (Labor Problems, 3rd Edition, pp. 325-328, by Watkins & Dodd.).
En meritos de lo expuesto, se deniega el recurso de certiorari interpuesto y se confirma la sentencia del Tribunal De Reclaciones Industriales, con costas a cargo de a recurrente. Asi se ordena.
Paras, Pres. Interino, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason, MM., estan conformes.
Footnotes
1 69 Phil., 635.
2 79 Phil., 409.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
