ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.-CEBU PLANT, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Voluntary Arbitrators; A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43.This procedural issue being debated upon is not novel. The Cour t has already ruled in a number of cases that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. The recent case of Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. Hon. Voluntary Arbitrator Buenaventura C. Magsalin and Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, 650 SCRA 445 (2011), reiterated the well-settled doctrine on this issue. [Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, 696 SCRA 357(2013)] Labor Law; Management Prerogatives; The Court has held that management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place, and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.The Court has held that management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place, and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor. Same; Labor Standards; There is no law that requires employers to provide chairs for bottling operators. The Labor Code, specifically Article 132 thereof, only requires employers to provide seats for women. No similar requirement is mandated for men or male workers.The rights of the Union under any labor law were not violated. There is no law that requires employers to provide chairs for bottling operators. The CA correctly ruled that the Labor Code, specifically Article 132 thereof, only requires employers to provide seats for women. No similar requirement is mandated for men or male workers. It must be stressed that all concerned bottling operators in this case are men. There was no violation either of the Health, Safety and Social Welfare Benefit provisions under Book IV of the Labor Code of the Philippines. As shown in the foregoing, the removal of the chairs was compensated by the reduction of the working hours and increase in the rest period. The directive did not expose the bottling operators to safety and health hazards. The Union should not complain too much about standing and moving about for one and one-half (1 ) hours because studies show that sitting in workplaces for a long time is hazardous to ones health. The report of VicHealth, Australia, disclosed that

prolonged workplace sitting is an emerging public health and occupational health issue with serious implications for the health of our working population. Importantly, prolonged sitting is a risk factor for poor health and early death, even among those who meet, or exceed, national activity guidelines. [Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, 696 SCRA 357(2013)] Same; Same; Non-Diminution of Benefits; The operators chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee benefits covered in Article 100 of the Labor Co de. In the Courts view, the term benefits mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges given to the employee with monetary equivalents. Such benefits or privileges form part of the employees wage, salary or compensatio n making them enforceable obligations.The operators chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee benefits covered in Article 100 of the Labor Code. In the Courts view, the term benefits mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges given to the employee with monetary equivalents. Such benefits or privileges form part of the employees wage, salary or compensation making them enforceable obligations. This Court has already decided several cases regarding the non-diminution rule where the benefits or privileges involved in those cases mainly concern monetary considerations or privileges with monetary equivalents. Some of these cases are: Eastern Telecommunication Phils. Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, 665 SCRA 516 (2012), where the case involves the payment of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses; Central Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor UnionNLU, 625 SCRA 622 (2010), regarding the 13th month pay, legal/special holiday pay, night premium pay and vacation and sick leaves; TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union, 545 SCRA 215 (2008), regarding salary wage increases; and American Wire and Cable Daily Employees Union vs. American Wire and Cable Company, Inc., 457 SCRA 684 (2005), involving service awards with cash incentives, premium pay, Christmas party with incidental benefits and promotional increase. Same; Management Prerogatives; The Supreme Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect not only the welfare of the employees, but also the right of the employers.Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employers judgment in the conduct of its business. For this rea son, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect not only the welfare of the employees, but also the right of the employers. [Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, 696 SCRA 357(2013)]