The Minimum wage law

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: The Minimum wage law
Language: English
Year: 1952
Subject: Republic Act No. 602.; Minimum wage laws.; Wage laws.; Philippines. Congress. House Bill No. 1732.; Philippines. Congress. Senate Bill No. 202.
Rights
Abstract: (Continued from the November issue)
Fulltext: The Minimum Waae L•w (REPUBLIC ACT No. 602) (Continued from the November issue) (g) If in a particular industry a Wage Board appoint. ed by the Secretary of Labor within one year after the effective date of this Act recommends that a further ex· tension of time before the application of the full statutory minimum is justified in such industry to avoid undue hard•hip to the indushy, the bosrd may recommend and the Secretary may approve an . extension not to exceed six months and at a minimum wage not less than the ·rate provided to take effect 0n the effective date of this Act. (h) With respect to piece-work or contra.et work, on petition of an interested party, the Secretary of Labor &hall use all available devices of investigation to determine whether the work is being compensated in compliance with this Act, and shall issue findings and orders in connection therewith. SECTION J MINIMUM WAGE lnoorpor•tion of •tatute. Emplo)'9ro liable notwithstanding belief of non-llability. R..-on for minimum wage of 'P8 outside Manila or environa, .. M•nila or ihl envil'Ona", explained. Reuon for axcludin11 retail and Hrvice. •nt•rpl'l&H regularly em• ploying not m.or• than five em.ployeH, Pleaning of retail eatabliament, Meaning of Hrvioe edabliahmsnt. AgPkultural employer owning twelve hectare• or IHa la not aubject to the Minimum Wage Law. Dom•tlc aervanta and tenant• are subject to the law. Minimum wage for crew of vaaaela of Phili1tpine Regietry regulerly calling at Manila. Allowance for two meal• or more. Reaaon for the provlaion fixing the amount allowed for meala. lneorporation of statute. The provisions of this section fixing the minimum measure of the employer's liability to pay for services rendered by an employee must be read into and form a part of every employment contract to which the section applies. Fletcher o. Crinnell Bros .• D. C Mich. 1946, 64 F. Supp. 718. Employer liable notwithstanding belief of non-liability. The burden on· employer to comply with wage provi. sions of this section cannot be shif.ted elsewhere notwith•tanding that employer believed he was not covered by this section and was subjected to an unanticipated liability and penalty. Berry o. 34 /roing Place Corpora.iion, D.C.N. Y. 1943, 52 F. Supp. 875. Reason for minimum wace of P3 outside Manila or environs. . The reason for fixing the minimum wage of PS for industrial workers outside of Manila or its environs is explained by the Chairman of the Committee on Labor, CO?lgressman Espinosa, in the following discussions. "MR. VELOSO (D). All right. What is the reason of the Committee in fixing at P3 the minimum wage for industrial workers outside of Manila or its environs? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). The reason is predicated upon the generally accepted fact that the coat of living in Manila is higher than the coat of living in the provinces; besides, in Manila there is a conglomeration of many industries and there is plenty of employment, and, naturally, the induatries are flourishing in Manila; business in Manila is given hetter opportunity to flourish. "MR. VELOSO (0). That is not my queation. My queation is, why does the Committee recommend PS as the minimum wage in .the provinces when we know very well bha.t the actual . . . "M.R. ESPINOSA (P). (Interpoaing.) That is a com, promise. "MR. VELOSO (D). Wage is only P2. Whereas in Manila the actual wage is P6 or P6 and you are recent· mllllding a lesser wage than that, or P4? Why is it that the Committee, when it comes to Manila, recommends a minimum that is less than the actual wage, whereas in the provinces the recommendation is above the actual wage? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). The intention is to cure an existing evil that exists in the country today. In Manila we have militant labor organizations; we have prlictieally almoat all the facilities whereby working men can ·be protected to the extent aome indus~es are even paying lligher wages than the statutory minimum, and theJ.'e is stUI a strong possibility of giving higher w&ge.s than the prevailing wages in Mania. But in the provinces th•.re is 110 such militant spirit; there are no such militant labor organization; they are still in the process of reaching that goal, and we want to provide them with .the adequate assiatance they need. It is about time that we do ao. "MR. VELOSO (D). Thank you." Journal of th~ Houie of Representalio<s, Session of ·March 17, 1951 (Debale1 on House Bill No. 1732) "Manila or its envirous''", exp.l1ained. "MR. LAUREL. In Section 3 of the proposed mea. sure, it is provided that not less .than PS sjlall be given as 11.·ages, if the enterprise is located outside of Manila or its environs. When we use the word 11environs*' do we have any definite geographical area? What are we to understand by the phrase "Manila or its environs"? Are we to know .that by a certain. geographical measure? Starting from Plaza Goiti, for instance, how are we to determine what we mean in this measure when we speak of "environs"? "MR. ESPINOSA (P.), The sense of the Committee, when we took up that word Henvirons", Was that it would cover. suc:h 111ueicipalities of the province of Rizal that are adjacent_~o Manila. If we did not specify that particular December 32, 1952 THE ~WYEBS JOURNAL 621 Th• Minimum W•a• Law delimination it was because there were some fears expressed in the Committee that· the.;, may be" certain unscrupulous employers who, in order to go around the provisions of this measure, will transfer their place of business tc a region adjacent to those municipalities and to the City of Manila, and we thought it wise to leave it to the courts to decide whether such contingency comes within the defbµ,tion of "environs". "'4R. LAUREL. That is precissly my point. Are we to perinlt an industrial .establishment for instance to go just a foot outside of the confines of Malabon wltich we might regard to be an environ of the City of Manila· to set up its esti\bllshment there and· then regard that part;.cular place as an environ of the City of Manila? ''MR. ESPINOSA· (P.). That is precisely the reason that we placed "environs" instead of making it definitely · municipalities adjacent to the City of Manila. We preforred environs because we are giving our courts a chance to decide whether such particular caaes, such a situation that you have mentioned, may come within the purview of environs. , · "MR. LAUREL. Would it not be better to define the term "environ" in order Dot to permit abuse, in ordel' not io en!lble a narticular industry or establishment to .riv• nOt P4 but PS to its industl'ial employees? Would it not be better for ua to determine what that phrase means, because it seems to me it is vague, instead of giving itg future determine t9 the agents outside of Congress? "MR. ESPINOSA (P.). I would appreciate an amendmont to clarjfy that point from the gentleman from Batanps." Journal of lhe House of RepresentalWes, Session of March 16, 1951. (Debal<& on Hou1< -Bill 1732) ..... "MR. VELOSO (D). On page 8, line 17, the words ''Manila or its environs" are used. What does this term "or its environs" inelu.de? That is quite vague. ''MR. ESPINOSA (P). ''Manila or its environs" was intended to mean thoae municipalities in the province of Rizal which are adjacent or contiguous to Manila. ''MR. VELOSO (D) San Juan, Rizal, ls it included? "MR. ESPINOSA" (P). I am .not very certain about the =~aphical position of the municipalitil'" adjacent to Ma"MR. VELOSO (D). What about Caloocan? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). If it is adjacent to Manila, yes. "MR. VELOSQ (D). What about Olongapo, Zambales, 11·here the cost of living is very high? · ''MR. ESPINOSA (D). What about Cavite, where the U.S. Navy is making the cost of .living high? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). That is not included." journal of tire House of Represenla1iv<&, Se..ion of. .March 17, 1951 (Debale1 on Houoe Bill No. 1732). Reason for excluding retail and servk;e enterprises r•plarly employing not more than five employees, ''MR. VELOSO (D). On the same page, line 28, we find the worda ·"does not regularly employ more than five empleyees." What is the reason Of the Committee in requiring five employees? Why not one only?' "MR. ESPINOSA (P).1 The reason of the Committee in making it five in the City of Manila is that there are minor ;repair or service establishments capitalized with only, say PW; like the small coffee shops that we aee in some remote sections of' the city. In those cases, as l"OU know this country is so poor that we have so many small service establishments · where people make only a small nominal amount everyday, such undertakings cannot survive the statutory minimuJD wage as provided in this . measure. So it was the sense of the Committee to exclude such service establishments .in order to permit them to exist." Journal of the House of Reprerentativa. Seouion of March 17, 1951. (Debates on Howe Bill 1732). Meaning of retail establisll!nent, "Retail establishment" as used in subsection (a) (2) of this section means a business mak'ng retail sales. Wall. ing v. Conoumm Co., C. C. A. Ill. 1945, 149 F. 2tl 626. A "retail establishment" under this section is one that sells goods in small quantities for profit and a manufacturer engagad primarily in the production of goods does not come within the· terma of the exemption. Collini v. Kidd Dairy &o /ce Co .. C. C. A. lex. 1942, 132 F. 2tl 79. Meaning of aervlce establishment. The term •lserviee establishment" within ~rovision of subsection (a) (2) of this section applies to establishments which sell services instead of goods. Nt.'UJ Mexico PubUc Service Co., v. Engel, C. C. A. N. M. 1944, 145 F. 2d 636. . The "service establishments'' contemplattcf by subsection (a) (2) of this aection creating exemption in favor of certain operators of retail or ...Vice .Stabllshments must, on the principle "noseitur a sociis,'' be of the same sort as the "retail" establish;ment, thaf is, one selling services to consumers, and the exemption ·should be limited to those who serve consum~s directly. Gueas v. Monfagu"e. C. C. A. S. C. 1943, 140 F. 2d 500. A "service establishment" within provision of rhis sectio:p. means an establishment which has ordinary characteristics 'of retail establishments except that services instead of goods are sold, and is an establishm"E!nt the }irincipal activity of which is to furnish service to the consuming public. 'FJ.em;ng "· A. B. J(jrochbaum Co., C. C. A. Pa. 1941, 124 F. 2d 567, affirmed 62 S. Ct. 1116, 316 U. S. 517, 86 L. Ed. 1638. Agricultural employer owning twelv; hectares or less is not subject to the Minimum Wage Law. "MR. ABORDO .. I am. not ·against the bill, but I just want to be clarified on certain points. Now, coming to the provision of Section 8, especially paragraph (b), referring to employers who operate farm enterprises, do I get from the gentleman from Iloilo that" in order thai. the minimum wage law may be applicable that the emp]Oyer must own no less than twelves hectares.? ''MR. ESPINOSA (P.). In this particular provision 1 C~man lilspinoaa is th~ Chairman of the Houae Committee on Labor. Author's note. 622 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL December 81, 1952 we exempt from the operation of the statutory minimum wage employers in agricultural and industrial enterpdses who have only twelve hectares. "MR. ABORDO. So that, in other words, even if the owner of an agricultural enterprise or employer thereof ~wning twelve hectares is employing during the kaingin season, for example, or during the planting season, more than aix or seven men, the fact is that they do not fall under this minimum wage law? "MR. ESPINOSA (P.). That is right. ~·MR. ABORDO. Thank you." Journal of lhe HoUH of Repri.en1aliJJa, s ... 1ion of Marc/1 16, 1951. (De&a1., on Howe Bill No. 1132). Domestic servants and tenants are not covered by the law. · PREGUNTAS DEL SEN. FRANCISCO EL SEN. FRANCISCO. Sefior Presidente, para algunas preguntas al ponente. EL PRESIDENTE. El ponente puede contestar si .le place. EL SEN' TORRE!!·' Con gusto. EL SEN. FRANCISCO. El tltulo del proyecto dice aai: "An act to provide for the establishment of minimum wages for agricultural and other employees, and for the Ollforcement of the provisions thereof and for other purposes," y el Art. 2, sobre definiciones usadas, pllrrafo (c) dice: "Employee' includes any individual employed by "" employer." tPodri. decimos ahora ai este proyecto incluye a los dom'8ticos, a· la servidumbre en una casa privada? EL SEN. TORRES. Si trabajan en una casa privada; no eaUn incluldos en este proyecto. EL SEN. FRANCISCO. LY que dice Vuestra Sefioria con resp~ a los choferes? EL SEN. TORREs. Si estos choferes trabajan en em· ~-resas industriales y agricolas y se dedican a aca>Tear f.fectos, est&n incluidos en el proyecto. · SEN. FRANCISCO. 6 Y si prestan servicio exclusivamente a personas particulares? EL SEN. TORRES. No estan incluidos. EL SEN. FRANCISCO. Los jardineros, y coeineros, /, esUn · incluldos? EL SEN. TORRES. Si trabajan en ·casas privadas, no sirven mis que una familia particular, no estin incluidos. EL SEN. FRANCISCO. Patece que intenci6n de! proyecto es excluir a los choferes y a los domesticos que no prestan servicios en. las industrias. EL SEN. TORRES. Asi es. PREGUNTAS DEL SEN. SUMULONG EL SEN. SUMULONG. Seiior. Presidente, para algu~as preguntas al ponente. . EL PRESIDENTE. El ponente p~ede contestar, si le place. EL SEN. TORRES. Con gusto. EL SEN. SUMULONG. Yo quisiera saber de Vuestra 1 Sen&tor Torres was the CbAl,rman of the Senate Committee on Labor. Author'9 note. · The Minimum Wai• Lmw Seiiorla si los aparceros que trabajan en terrenos de Ltroa estan incluldos en este proyecto de ley. EL SEN. TORRES. No, esos aparceros caen baja las disposiciones de la Ley de Aparceria. Senole Journal No. 17, Smion of January 5, 1951. (De&at .. on Senate Bill No. 202). Laborers hired by tenants are subjeet to the law. "MR. CUENCO. Immediately after the last word ·of the amendment of Congressman Mecapagal that was carried out, add a new sub-section (c): "PROVIDED THA:T THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO TENANCY OR CROP-SHARING CONTRACTS COVERED IBY EXISTING LAW." "MR. MACAPAGAL. I move to amend the amendment by deleting the word 'Provided, That.' "THE SPEAKER. Is there any objection? "MR. CONFESOR .. Objection, Mr. Speaker. "MR. MACAPAGAL. Does the gentleman from Cebu aceept the amendment to the amendment 7 "MR. ESPINOSA (P). The amendment is accepted, Mr. Speaker. "MR. CONFESOR. I withdraw my objection. "MR. CASES. Mr. Speaker, for a clarification. How would that stand with the viewpoint of the gentleman from Pangaainan that the tenants are empluying laborers? Granting that there are 8 hectares under cultivation by a tenant, those 3 hectares cannot be worked ·by that one tonant alone so he has to hire laborers according to the gentleman from Pangaainan. In that case, those laborers will not be covered by any minimum wage law? "MR.· CUENCO. I refer to-~ who are working as tenants; that is, they are compensated with partlcljJa.tfon in the products. · "MR. CASES. That is true, but there are big. tenant& occupying a big tract of land and these tenanta by ·necessity will have to employ laborers to help . them carry "" the work in the farm. Now, will they be free to employ laborers, to keep laborei·s wi·thout the !benefit of this law? "MR. CUENCO. The Committee of which I am a humtle member is not called upon to answer for the gentleman from Pangaainan. "MR. CASES. No; but here is a very good que•tie because even if a tenant can employ a laborer, is he exempted from the provisions of·this bill? •'MR. CUENCO. The word utenancy' and '~ shar· ing contract' are words that have legal acceptance in this country. "MR. CASES. I know but a tenant ean also be ·an employer if he occupies a big tract of land, like a sugar. cane planter. · · "For example, I get ten hectsres of land on the basis of the ·3&.70. I give the owner of the land 80% and I keep the 70%. But in order to work on ~ese 10 hectares; I have to hire laborers, even 20 or ·su laborers. N.W, .will these laborers be beyond the proteetiOn of this law, if your amendment is inserted? · · .. "MR. CUENCO. In my humble opinion, the qae•tion will be this: How will the employee be compensated? Will December 31, 1952 THE LAWYERS JQURNAL 628 The Minimum W•11• Law it be through the participation In the products of the land or not? If he hae participation, then he is a tenant. "MR. CASES. If he hu a share in the crop or product of the land, he is a tenant. But he may be compelled to employ ' Sdditional labor in order to work on the land he has leased from the landlord. "MR. CUENCO. If those workers hired by the tenant do not have participation in the crop but are compensated with a daily· w!'gO, then they should ·be considered as agricultural· workers; and therefore, they are covered by this Act. '' ' "MR .. CASES. Therefore, the amendment of the gen. tleman frpm Cebu is not necesll&rY, if that is the explanation given to it. . ' .. MR\·.CUENCO. It is necessary. "MR. CASES. I do not see any connection there. "MR. CUENCO. It is necessary because the word •tenancy" or 'contrado de arrentlamiento' are provided for in· ~.Jaws. "MR. CASES. It is unnecessary because that is alI'll8dy provided in the 'tenancy Jaw". "MR. CUENCO. Well, that is a question of interpr.,_ tation, and at ·least ~ humble self will not presume to give the definition of tenancy. · "MR. CASES. Now, 'why is it that this Jaw proposes te co-· something that has already been covered by the Tenancy Law which we have passed long time ago? "MR. C'UENCO. Yes, because with this amendment of-• the B'!ntleman from Tarlac and the B'!Dtleman from Iloilo and my huml!le self, the farm workers under. tenancy basis will be. excluded from this Minimum W&B'! Law. "llllR ·CASES. Mo,. it is already covered by previous l£ws;_thls· is O!lly sµpplementary. MR. ·CUENCO. I will give the floor to the gentleman ftem Te,rlac."MR. ROY. I do not think there will be any incODSistency ·with ""8peet to the rights of tenants In the· crop-sharing systiim if wage shares will be included in. this.•pro.v'ision here to clarify doubts as to the rights of the tenants to the fruits of his toil when entering into a 11artnership with the· landlord. Now, if a tenant employs laborers, naturally he falls under. this provision of the proposed amendment. we have to include this amendment because there ·is that relation between, tenant and landlord.. With respect to the laborer ....,.,iving wages, be· cause he receives his .W!lle& in :the form of share ol the crop, from the definition. of wage here and remuneration, it. -can be. exprease~ ht money and it will be considered &s w&Ps under the provision of this law. So, there is i;ea)Jy. doubt. whether . the share of the tenants may be tonsidered. as wages. . Henc:e . tlie .necessity· of including thetii in her"e; anyway, there· is no harni in· putting that h~:}$:°cASEs.' The ·.h&re of the_ tenant is a remu~'11'4tio11, <>f. bi• Jabor •. and the meaning of the word wage ii!.i>..t~i!:remuiieraiioii ~of h.is, 1abor.· · - "MR.·RQY., Right., ..... - "MR. CASES. And the gentleinl!!l f11!J11,_ Tari&!' is tht>•uthOl:':ot:~n'T-~Y .t.aw·."'.iliclr prOYi_ded f~. 70.so t:l'llP 'Sliw-Jng;·::· - · "MR. ROY. Yes, are you going to include· that under the. prOYislon af this Jaw now? "MR. CASES. No more. "MR. ROY. Precisely, that is the purpose of . this amendment. "MR. CASES. Do you think this law nullifies the tenancy law or supplements it? ·"MR. ROY. This supplements the tenancy law with respect to those laborers employed by tenants who are lazy to work on their own farm, .so they hire Jabarers to ·work. This amendment will clarify the doubt, became it clearly states that such laborers fall under the provisioils of this law. · "MR. CASES. So any laborer employed by a ·tenant is covered by this Act? · "MR. ROY. Yes; that's right. "THE SPEAKER. Is there any objection on the part of the House? (Al•..- o pause) The Chair does not' hear any. The amendment.·to the amendment -is approved.'' Journal of the House of Repre1en!a!W... Seuiort ~f ·Marc11"/7, 1951. (Dobal., on House Bill No. ·1132). Minimum wage for. erew .of vessels of Phili,.Une Registry regularly calling at Manila. "MR. CUENCO. I have another amendment: · This is in connection with another section of the Macapagal amendment. I move that after the last word of ·the Macapagal amendment, the following proviso· ·be- inierted, a new sub-Bection (d) "PROVIDED, FURTHER, 'THAT THE CREW OF VESSELS OF PHILIPPINE REGisTRY CALLING REGULARLY AT MANILA SHALL BE SUB· JECT TO THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR NON,AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN MANILA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS Ar::r.' "MR. ESPINOSA. (P.) I. """"Pt. the amendment. "MR. MACAPAGAL. Amendment to. the amendment. Delete the words: "Provided, further, That.; · "MR. CUENCO. Accepted. . "THE ·SPEAKER. Is there any objection to tU amendment to the amendment on the part of the House? (After a pauae.) The Chair does not hear.any. Approved. 11MR. CALO. Please restate the amendment. "MR. CUENCO. That was already. approve<!. Just insert this sub-section 'd). THE CREW OF VESSELs OF PHILIPPINE REGISTRY CALLING REGULARL:Y AT MANILA SHALL BE '5tlBJECT TO THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN MANILA AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT::' "MR. CONFESOR. Mr. Speaker, I register my ob: jeetion to the amendment presented by the gentleman from Cebu. The amendment of the gentleman from Cebu is a reproduction of' the last senten.ce that has been amendec! already by the amendment which has 'been presented by the gentleman from Pampanga. And I cannot see any jlll8tifieation for presenting that amendment· again~ un. less the B'!Dtleman from Cebu wants to ·present a mi>tion for the reconsideration of ... the amendment . presented by the. gentleman f.rom Pampanga:.. That .)Nlrtlcuhlr -lllilendment that the gentleman from Cebu has presented, ....... I have· s;µ;i,· is· a: ·reproduction at the put !>f.-t!ie. bill _that THE LAWYERS JOURNAL December: 81,. 1962 has been swti1ru'9<1 by the 8.!0enclment that has been ~tee! and approved by the House. That has been amended already; that has been taken out from the bill b:r 'Oirtue of the amendment presented by the gentleman f1Dm PamJIBlllla. Wllat is the purpose of the gentleman :&om Cebu in presenting the amendment? "M'R. CUENCO. Mr. Speaker, I am proposinlf a new subsection after the Macapagal amendment which ha~ been approved. The cllstinguished Members of .this Chamber are aware that the Macapagal amendment has two m.tes of wages: one for agricUltural workers and anG»tber tot D.on-qricultural workers. Now, th.e shipping business is considered as an incluatry the laborel's of whM:I) are non-agricultural laborers or .industrial laborers. The 111'.ac:apagal .amendment pro.vides a minimum wage of four pesos for Manila and a minimum wage of three pesos on the effectivity of this Act, for places outside of Manila. '1'her& are v.essels of Philippine rqislry tbat halve' as their hQJlle. ports any . place Gllt•ide of Manila. F'm· example, take the case of the vessel SS. DDa J·ulio. That vessel has f.or its bo!ne port the port of Iloilo, but that vessel oills resular~ at Manila. It is but just for the crew of this v.sel that thl!Y be given tile· rat&·of - · for·indusbrial WDl'kora for Ma.nila, tllat is, fooir pesos. 'lM.R- OONFESO.IL Do I ulldlorM&nd that the crew of this· vessel of Philippine registry that calls at Manila should be given a minimum wage for agricUltural workers outside. of Manila or in Maaila? "MB- CUENCO. Jlly· amendment ls tbat these crew of vessela O!f Pilili,ppine "lfistry that have ~ their home puts Qlltside' of Mallila hat calling l'egU!uly at llllanila !><I si- w8ps tor illliustrial w.orh:Ol's il> Manila. In other words, my amendment impl!OYes the lot of these wor.kers. "I/IR. CONFESOR. Does the gentleman mean not a¢Cu1tural wnges? "MR. CUENCO. My amendment is to the effect that these crew should be given a minimum wage for industrial W<ll'ken i.D llanila. ''lllB. OONPESOR. Mir. Speaker, I w;tlldnw my obj.al>ilm. "TJllE SJ!IEAKER. The House will now vote again on the ltlllendment of the gentleman from Cebu as .....-ed. Is there any objeCtioli? ( Afler a pame.) The ChaiP <ioes not beer· any. Approved.'' /o"1nal of the House ~ RePr-iues, Semon of March 17, f951. (Debates on H._ 1!1111 Ntt. 17'2). . Allowance for two meals. oi: more. "MR. CALO. Mr. Speaker, on page 4, Seetion 3, subsection (c), I should, like to find out tram the Committiee ..-hether under this .sub-section. (c) which is still intact, there can be allt>wance for tw<> meals? · ''MR. ESPINOSA (P). Why not? "MR. CALO. Supposing the laborer is supplied with two meals or more? · ·· •.·n:t$PINQ,il,A, (PJ. Yes. "MR. C.MA I sillnlkl like t<>. p-se. this ammdThe Minimum W•ge Law nient that on line 8, delete the word· 'one' befol'e the word 'meal' and ·add 's'· to. the word •meal', so that it would be 'meals'. And then on line· 9, between 'centavos' and 'for', insert the words 'per meal'. "MR. ESPINOSA (P). The Committee accepts the amendment. · ''THE SPEAKER. Is there any. objection? (A:ihr a . pause.) The Chair does· not hear any. The amendment is approved." foumal of the How.e of ~uliua. Seaion o; March 17, 1951. (Debates on House Bill No, 1732), . _ for the ·provision fixing the amount allowed fo• meals. "MR. VELOSO (D). Very good. On page 4; 'we find that the value of the meal to be furnished by the employer to the employee is only thirty centavos. Does not the gentleman think that . that is very small? Why. do. we not make it fifty centavos, so that the laborel' will be given a better meal by the landowner? I tl).iJ!k thirty centavos is very miserable. · . "MR. ESPINOSA (P.) 1 We placed the amo111t1t of· thirty centavos as the val:ue of one meal for agrieultural employees .. - "MR. VELOSO (D). One egg costs thirty centavos. "MR. ESPINOSA (P). -- . Md forty een-. dlor nonz.gricutur.al employees, because we have in mind not only the existin.c, actual, current conditions; but a~so that this will have some permanent effeet.· All those Jll'OVailing high prices are· simply caused by temporary conditions. Before the· war a ·thirty cent""o meal ·will entitle Y.,u ·to·est iD a first class restaurant, even in Manila. That is the· i'nten·tion .of your Committee." Joumabof. llro &.,,...of RepresenhltDJa, Session of March 17, 1951. (D•bales on 11 .. llfl /lliU··Jllo. 1132:). ' SEC. 4. Wage hweetlgaf.il!n< Appi>lntment Of Wage Boarcl~(a) The Secretary of Labor shall have the power, and it shall be his dut:r upon petition .of six· a. llllore employees in any ind.uatry, to cause an invest:gation, to be made of the wages being paid to the employees. in' 'llnch industry and. their u,,;.,g. eondib'.ons, to ascertain if any substantial n11111ber of sueh empleyees are receiving wages which are less than sufficient to- maintain them in ·health, efficiency and general· well-being. If, after such investigation the Secretary of 4'1>or is .of the· opln:on that any subsU.:.t11a1 number of suoh employees are· recei"q .such wages, he shall- appoint a Wage-~ard to fix a minimum wage for such industry. (b) A m>nimum wage to hi established under tllis Act shall be as< nearly. adequate as is·. eooattmWl!ly. feasible to maintain the minimum standard of living necessary for the health, efficieru:y, and general well-lleing of·..,pio:vees . In the determination of a minimum wage. the ~ of Labor and a Wage Board shall, among other relewmt factors, consider the following: · (1) The cost of living; (2)'.-The .. _ estsbliohed· for. work0 .of· like or.com, parable ehvacter by·· collective, &g.eementli- or- Br!>iblat!on .... ...is; December Sl, llli2 "HE· LAWYJ!IRS. JOUIUfAL 826 , _T~e "'jni.mu_m \!'ep Law (3) The wages paid for wol'k of like or comparable· .eha.raeter by employers w1jo voluntarily maintain reasonable standard; and ( 4) Fair return of the eap;tal invested. (e) The Secretary of Labor shall make rules and regulations governing the appointment of a Wage Board, its public hearings and mode of procedure, consonant with the requirementa of due process of law. (e) The appointment of Wage Board shall not Pre.elude· .the Seeretary of IJabor from subsequently appointing new Wage ·Board for the same industry. . (e) The Secretary may appoint a Wage Board for any Industry, whethel' it Is named in section three of this Act or not. · 8ECTION 4WAGE INVESTIGATION: APPOINTMENT OF WAGE BOARD Several wage bur&ls may be establishsd, RHsoh for requiring et least six petitioners. llitinimum wage law involving delegatlon of legislativs power. Test· of a rsasonabls wage. · ·flFair return of the caPital invested~, explained. Purpose of provision providing for adoption of regulation• governing creation of Wage Board. Several wage boards established. "MR. CALO~ Now, I should like to proceed. . Is it the ·sense of this b:ll to establish several wage boards in eer: taln localities wheri> there al'e several industries? "MR. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I now yie'.d the floor to the gentleman from Iloilo. "MR. ESPINOSA (P). It depends upon the presence . 11f variowi industries in the different regions. It depends upon the existence of industries wh;eh will need the assistance of the .wage board for the implementation of the :.provisions of this Jaw.· "MR. CALO. Is it obligatory upon the Department .of Labar to .establish right away a wage board in every locality? . "MR. ESPINOSA (P). No. The language of the tnea. sure provides the powers of the· wage board . ... "MR. CALO. Upon petition. . ''.MR. ESPINOSA (P). That is one. \'\nd even . if there is lio petition, it has the power to create the wage board if it finds out that a .substantial number of employees are not receiving adequate wages to maintain their efficiency ·and general well-being, then it becomes.mandatory to · to create a wage board? "MR. CALO. So; it is not mandatory? "MR. ESPINOSA (P.). No; i.t is not mandatory, but it is within its power." Journal of !Ire Home of Ropresentatioer, · Searion of March 17, 1951. (Debat .. on House Bill No. 173Z.) Reason for requiring at least six petitioners. ."MR. VELOSO -(D). No.w, in··Section 4, page 6, line 24, the petition, in order to merit the attention of the Department of Labor should be signed by six •or more employees in any industry. Why do we require sill:, and •not only one? ' "MR. ESPINOSA (P); The reason is that in. reiail establishments there are only five employees exempted, er not included In the operation of this law.· So we have to require six petitioners, because if we exempt five in retail establishments, to harmoniZe ·or to be in consounce with that exception, this must ·at least to be sbc. because if the number is less than six that cannot harnioniZe .. with that particular _provision wherein we ex.empt retail establishments with employees numb.ering not more .than five." Journal Of th~ House of RepresentoliveJ S01Sion of Mnrch 17, 1951. (Debates on Ho"'• Bill No. 1732). · · Minimum wage law involving delegation of legi.Ove power. A minimum wage law under which the wage standard is fixed by an administrative board or commissiOii does not involve an unconstitutional delegation of legislative jlower. But a statute· delegating the power to fix minimum wages, without any standards or limitations, · to a part · of the concerns engaged in an industry, and compelliiig the mhiority to submit thereto, is a legisl&tive delegation of power in its most·obnoxious form. 31 Am. /ur., Sec. ·503'.p:/081. Te8t of a reasOltabIO wage. It was held that In determining' _.;hat is ·fair and reasonable in fixing a niinimum w~ there is no Standard more appropriate thali the normal "needs of• the aveiaae employee regarded as a human being living in a elvil!Zed community. Stale. v. Crowe, 130 Ark. 272, 197 SW 4, L.R:A. 19/BA 567. Ann. Cas. 19/BD 460 . HFaJr retum of the capital invested",. ex.p~n~~ .. -- . , "MR. VELOSO (D). What. is t)ie 10eaning·.·of "fair retlim of the caP,tal ~nv~ted ?" · "MR. ESPINOSA (P). "Fair return of the capital 'invested" is a necessarjr saf.eguard to the· management of an ,enterprise. Natural!y, we must admit the prlBnlse that peopJ,, who invest in industries have in :their minds the retul'n or profit from th&ir investment .. This .is not. all exclusive; it is only 011e of the. factors to be considered in the determin'ltion because if we do .. not ·pµt it there; we might fix the minimum wage in such a way as to disregard the inhereot right of an investor to gain from. his. investment. "MR. VELOSO (D). what is eonsiderOd by the Commit•• as a fair return of the capital? Is it ten per cent, or twenty per cent, or thirty per cent 'I "MR. ESPINOSA (P). From what I .know thi,;;e . .:... <11tabllshed and recognized practices ·in j;he evaluation ·of fair return of capltsl invested. "MR. VELOSO (D). No, but I shoµld like. to ruive a categorical answer to this point because.. if we do :iiot define that phrase, it will not enllghten the parties concerned. That point is. vecy important hOre.· · 626 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL "MR. ESPINOSA (P). Yes, I am """""'·of "that. "MR. VELOSO (D). What is considered by the Com. mittee as a fair return of capital invested? ''MR. ESPINOSA (P). There are many factors involved in determining what is a fair return of the invested capital. The amoliDt of capital invested, the risk involved in the industry, whether the business is new or old, and many other similar matters. "MR. VELOSO (D). How much profit, on percentage basis, is considered as a fair return of the capital invested? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). As I said, it depends on the nature of the buainess. "MR. VELOSO (D). Call not the gentleman give a definite Percentage? "MR. ESPINOSA (P). That is what I said. Along these lines we have established practices and J;.ieeeden~ governing precisely this particular phrase. There ai·e decisions in our Supreme Court, in our Court of Industrial Relations, as well as in the United St.ates, ,.;hich have a persuasive effect in the determination of such matter.,, Jaumal of the Howe of R.,,,....,.tatW.., Seuion of March 17, 1951. (Debata on Hoa&e Bill No: 1732). . Par- of provision providing for adoption of regulallonB pverning creation of Wage Board. "MR. VELOSO (D). Again, ill the succeeding letter (e), "the Secretary of Labor shall make rules and regu'. lations governing the appointment of a Wage Board and its mode of proceClure." Why do you put this provision here, since in the preceding section we have already prov~ ided for the constitution of the Wage Board. "MR. ESPINOSA (P). But it cannot be denied that in the composition and actual operation of the Wage Board there will be matters in which we need to facilitate the work of that body, and the person best qualified to assisi in thai is the Secretary of Labo1·. The fact that the Department is in an advantageous position to do, makes iU advisable and necessary but ask that Department tO assist the Wage Board. "MR. VELOSO (D). I think that refers to the procedure to be followed in the hearing Or cases involving wages but not in the creation of the bo&rd, for the creation of the Board is already proilided here. "MR. ESPINOSA (P). Yes, that is provided here and the law will have its way." Journal of ~ Houre of Rotwesentatiuea, Seuion of Man:h 11, 1951. (Debat., ·on Ho"'• Bill /Vo. 1732). . SEC. 5. Wage Board; Powers and .duties: Reeommenclatlen~(a) A Wage Board appointed under the pro. visions of this Act shall be composed of a member rep~enti,,g ~e . public w.ho shal.1 !'Ct as chairman of the ~-!1.6 . .epres.,;tativia ·of elirPI~ in the industry, and two representati- of 'employeis in the same industry. The Minimum Wage Law The representatives of the employees &dd employers shall be selected from nominations submitted by employees and employers, or organ~zations thereof, in such industry. Three members of a Wage Board shall constitute a quorum and its recommendations shall require a vote of not leBS than a majority of all its members. The members of a Wage Board shall not be entitled to compensations except to per diems not exceeding seven pesos for each day of actual attendance and shall be reimbursed for all necesaary travOJling expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The chairman, if a government emPloyee, shall not be entitled to any per diem. (b) The Secretary of Labor shall .present to a Wage Board all the evidence· and information in his poBSession l"elating to the wages in the industry for which the Wage Bo81-.I was appointed and all "other information which he deeins relevant ti> the eat.ablishment of a minimum wage for such industry and shall cause to be brought before the Board any Witness when he deems material. A Wage Board may summon other witnesses or call upon the Secretary to iul"nish additional information to aid in its ·deliberations. (c) Within thil"ty days of it.s organization, a Wage Board shall submit to the Secretary of Labor its recom' mendations as to a m'.nimum wage to be paid by employers in the industry or for the varioua branches of the industry considered. The Wage Board shall not i·ecommend for any airieultural or nOn-agricultural industry a minimum wage of less than the prevailing wage obtaining on the effective date of this Act, and in no case less than the minimum wage rates set in section three of this Act These wages may include minimum wages varying witti localities, if in the judgment of the Board conditions make such local differentiation proper and necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Act and such differentiation. does not give an undue competitive advantage to any locality.; and may include terms and conditions mating to part.time employment and suitable treatment of other eases or classes of eases which, because of the nature and character of the employment, in the judgment of the Board, justify special treatment, including, in the case of persons employed as industrial homeworkers, the highest minimum rate which is economically feasible anil which will not result in substantial curtailment of employment opportunities for such employees, and which shall not be less than seventy-five per cent of the minimum wage rates established in three of this Act. Home industries covered by this Act shall include apparel, embroidery, other needle trad6s, shoes, weaving, basketry and other handicrafts. The Secretary may add specific home industries to the coverage of this Act by regulation, when he deema it neC!'BS81"Y to further the purposes of this Act. If the report of t.he Wap Board is not submitted within thirty days,· the Secretary of La, bor may aj>pilint a new Wage Board. • (To be con6nued) December 31, 1952 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL