4. Anti-Discrimination Policies

Discrimination

Unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex (Labor Code, Art. 133 [135])

Jurisprudence: Stipulations on Marriage

• Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NLRC (G.R. No. 118978, 1997)

It was declared here that the company policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution.

• Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol, (G.R. No. 164774, 2006)

The following policies were struck down as invalid for violating the standard of reasonableness which is being followed in our jurisdiction, otherwise called the “Reasonable Business Necessity Rule”:

i) New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3rd degree of relationship, already employed by the company.

ii) In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic], one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.

• Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Welcome Philippines, Inc (G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004)
• In this case, the Court upheld the conflict-of-interest stipulation as applied to an employee’s relationship with an employee of a competing drug company; it did not uphold a general prohibition against marriage. The stipulation provided: “10. You agree to disclose to management any existing or future relationship you may have, either by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. Should it pose a possible conflict of interest in management discretion, you agree to resign voluntarily from the Company as a matter of Company policy.”
• The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal based on this stipulation in the employment contract is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon its employees was held reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the assailed company policy, the employer only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.