Dear Sirs / Mesdames: It is with grave concern that we view the purported plan of the Cooperative to remove and

disallow the field allowance currently being received by our roving tellers. Apparently the reason being propounded for the removal of such allowance was that it is a duplication of another allowance being received by the same persons. While it is true that our roving teller members received field allowance apart from tellers allowance, the same are not similar nor duplicate of each other. Field allowance is given to those who mostly do their jobs outside of the office in recognition of the fact that their job require of them to be subjected to the hazards in the field and that they are working outside the comfort of the office and be at the mercy of the elements and the weather. Since our roving tellers do their job outside of the comforts and safety of the air-conditioned office, it was thus given to them as part of their compensation. Tellers allowance, on the other hand, are given to the tellers as a certain kind of subsidy for their risk of shortages and losses. Of all the classes of employees, it is the tellers who are most vulnerable to financial losses in their everyday tasks. Since the roving tellers handle cash themselves, they were thus given such tellers allowance. The two aforesaid allowances, although given to the same set of employees, are far from being redundant and duplicates of each other as they address different concerns, risks and needs. There is no reason therefore to deny the roving tellers their just compensation in the form of field allowance. To do so is both unfair and to put it mildly, absurd. Aside from the above, the paramount consideration why the field allowance should not be withdrawn from the roving tellers is one of constitutional and statutory issue. It is a basic principle enshrined in the Constitution and the Labor Code that in case of doubt, all laws shall be interpreted in favor of the workers and against the employers. Thus the principle of non-diminution of benefits was born. The principle of non-diminution of benefits states that: any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[ This principle is founded on the Constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, and to afford labor full protection. Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. Against this backdrop, it is thus then ill-advised to remove the subject field allowance from the compensation package of the roving teller because to do so would result in diminution of their benefits. This field allowance has already been enjoyed by the roving tellers for two CBAs now. Removing it today would be capricious and arbitrary and would expose the cooperative to danger of violating the Labor Code. We trust that the Board, in its infinite wisdom, would help convince those who are unenlightened at this time.

jc

Article 100 of the Labor Code. Article 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code.

Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[14] The principle of nondiminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,[15] and to afford labor full protection.[16] Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. Thus in DavaoFruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, et al.[17]where an employer had freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13th month pay those items that were expressly excluded by the law, we held that the act which was favorable to the employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a practice and could not be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated. In Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,[18] we ruled that the employers act of including non-basic benefits in the computation of the 13th month pay was a voluntary act and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. Meanwhile in Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,[19] the Court ordered the payment of the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed sick leave benefits to its intermittent workers after finding that said workers had received these benefits for almost four years until the grant was stopped due to a different interpretation of the CBA provisions. We held that the employer cannot unilaterally withdraw the existing privilege of commutation or conversion to cash given to said workers, and as also noted that the employer had in fact granted and paid said cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits to some intermittent workers.

Concept of NON DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS

The principle of non-diminution of benefits states that: any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[1]

This principle is founded on the Constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, and to afford labor full protection. Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. [2]

Benefit and supplement definition

Employee benefits are compensations given to employees in addition to regular salaries or wages. [3] Some benefits are legally required, e.g., social security benefits, medicare, retirement benefits, maternity benefits, service incentive leave, etc. Other benefits are offered by the employer as an incentive to attract and retain employees as well as increase employee morale and improve job performance. [4] Supplements include those benefits or privileges granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer, e.g., board and lodging within the company premises.

Common application
In employment setting, the principle of non-diminution of benefits finds application when a change initiated by the employer to existing company policies, specially matters concerning employee benefits, results in reduction, diminution or withdrawal of some or all of the the benefits already enjoyed by the employees. For example, if the employees of a certain company is traditionally granted 14th month pay, and the employer subsequently withdrew such benefit, or reduced its amount, the reduction or withdrawal is objectionable on the ground that it would result to diminution of benefits.

Requirements
The application of the principle presupposes that a company practice, policy and tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by the company pursuant to it have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.[5] To ripen into benefits, the following requisites must concur: 1. 2. It should have been practiced over a long period of time; and It must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate. [6]

With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been exercised to constitute voluntary employer practice which cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer, the Court has not laid down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years.[7]