labor and employment

good day Sir. my name is laurence and i was wondering if i cud solicit legal advice from u regarding my labor problem.
Problem: im employed in language center somewhere in manila. Just recently, the management unilaterally imposed an atm payroll system on the employees without properly securing employees' consent. Most employees here felt that they had no choice but to abide to it. i was the only one who objected by not filling out the bank form given to us. i did a little research and found out that section 19 of the implementing rules of RA 6727 states that " Upon written petition of the majority of the workers and employees concerned, all private establishments, companies, businesses and other entities with at least twenty-five workers and located within one kilometer radius to a commercial savings or rural bank, shall pay the wages and other benefits of their workers through any of said banks, within the period and in the manner and form prescribed under the Labor Code as amended." the management unilaterally imposed the atm payment system on us. is there a legal basis stating that this is a company prerogative in light of expediency? shouldn't the provision above mean that only employees may initiate such form of payment,as an exception to the general rule? isn't this a violation against other forms of payment by the employer? are there other exemptions?- hoping you can help me sir salamat po sir

good research work, and you will see from the way the law is written, it looks upon atm payroll as something beneficial to the employee. even if the law did not provide that the employer can unilaterally switch to an atm payroll, this does not mean it was unlawful to do so.

thank you sir. na enlighten ako sa explanation niyo.sir ask ko lang does that mean the law allows employers to unilaterally impose such a system absent a petition by employees because the law presumes it is beneficial to labor?do the statutory principles "do not add what is not explicitly stated in the law" and " an unequivocal statute does not warrant further intrepretation" apply? just wondering hindi po ba unlawful yun dahil hindi naman po kami(employees)nag petition for the atm payroll system? thus, transgressing employees' right against other forms of payment? was it the legislative intent to give employers the discretion to impose such system? how should "written consent" in the conditions below be construed? should it be construed solely in the form of a petition or should it be given a liberal construction? kasi nakalagy naman po sa ra 6727 "upon written petition" censya po sa kakulitan ko sir.
im just puzzled :-)

"labor advisory on payment of salaries through atm- (sgd) leonardo quisumbing"

A. Payment through automated teller machine (ATM) of banks provided the following conditions are met:

1. the ATM system of payment is with the written consent of the employees concerned;

2. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from the bank facility which time, if done during working hours, shall be considered compensable hours worked;

3. The system shall allow workers to receive their wages within the period or frequency and in the amount prescribed under the Labor Code, as amended; chanrobles virtual law library

4. There is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of one (1) kilometer to the place of work;

5. Upon request of the concerned employee/s, the employer shall issue a record of payment of wages, benefits and deductions for a particular period;

6. There shall be n additional expenses and no diminution of benefits and privileges as a result of the ATM system of payment;

7. The employer shall assume responsibility in case the wage protection provisions of law and regulations are not complied with under the arrangement. (Explanatory Bulletin issued by DOLE Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing dated November 25, 1996).

thank you sir. na enlighten ako sa explanation niyo.sir ask ko lang does that mean the law allows employers to unilaterally impose such a system absent a petition by employees because the law presumes it is beneficial to labor?do the statutory principles "do not add what is not explicitly stated in the law" and " an unequivocal statute does not warrant further intrepretation" apply? just wondering hindi po ba unlawful yun dahil hindi naman po kami(employees)nag petition for the atm payroll system? thus, transgressing employees' right against other forms of payment? was it the legislative intent to give employers the discretion to impose such system? how should "written consent" in the conditions below be construed? should it be construed solely in the form of a petition or should it be given a liberal construction? kasi nakalagy naman po sa ra 6727 "upon written petition" censya po sa kakulitan ko sir.
im just puzzled :-)

"labor advisory on payment of salaries through atm- (sgd) leonardo quisumbing"

A. Payment through automated teller machine (ATM) of banks provided the following conditions are met:

1. the ATM system of payment is with the written consent of the employees concerned;

2. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from the bank facility which time, if done during working hours, shall be considered compensable hours worked;

3. The system shall allow workers to receive their wages within the period or frequency and in the amount prescribed under the Labor Code, as amended; chanrobles virtual law library

4. There is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of one (1) kilometer to the place of work;

5. Upon request of the concerned employee/s, the employer shall issue a record of payment of wages, benefits and deductions for a particular period;

6. There shall be n additional expenses and no diminution of benefits and privileges as a result of the ATM system of payment;

7. The employer shall assume responsibility in case the wage protection provisions of law and regulations are not complied with under the arrangement. (Explanatory Bulletin issued by DOLE Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing dated November 25, 1996).

mladawg, i understand you are irritated that something was done without your consent and the additional step of having to withdraw your wages is an inconvenience. when a the law prescribes a certain requirement, it is not always the case that it will be unlawful if the requirement is not followed.

i've not encountered a case where it was shown that a company's switch to atm payroll was deemed unlawful, but your point has a lot of merit considering that written consent is required. you can bring this up with your employer, and if you really wish to take it forward, file a complaint at the nearest DOLE office.