Reference no: EM133809298

Question

How does this hypothetical case affect the human resources representatives involved in the case and the other representatives eventually?

Previous History: Labor Law - The statutory exemption for absence or insufficiency of earnings to pay the Christmas bonus does not cover those employees that the Department of Labor and Human Resources expressly exempted from its application.

Summary: Determine whether HIMA Hospital violated the collective agreements between the parties by refusing to pay its unionized employees the Christmas bonus for the year 2015. In the affirmative, because HIMA Hospital did not obtain an exemption that relieved it of its contractual obligation. The statutory exemption for absence or insufficiency of earnings to pay the Christmas bonus did not cover those employees that the Department of Labor and Human Resources expressly exempted from its application-in this case, the employees covered by a collective agreement. As can be seen from the facts described, through the collective agreement the parties agreed to a special monetary compensation in the form of a Christmas bonus. In this regard, it was stated that the HIMA Hospital would grant a Christmas bonus to employees who worked 700 hours or more within the period covered "under the terms provided by law." According to the agreement, the bonus would be equivalent to 6% of income up to a maximum of $10,000 or equivalent to 3% up to a maximum of $40,000, whichever was greater. Note that the contractual terms are almost identical to those set forth in Art. 1 of the Law on Christmas Bonuses in Private Enterprises. The Department of Labor declined to extend the exemption to these employees. The HIMA Hospital could not claim an exemption that the Department of Labor did not grant it. Even assuming that the collective agreement allowed it to benefit from the statutory exemption process, HIMA Hospital did not receive any exemption with respect to unionized employees. Without an exemption in this regard, the employer could not unilaterally fail to pay the Christmas bonus, and thus alter the terms of the collective agreements.