In Philippine labor law, changing an employee’s job title or pay is never just an administrative update. It can affect rank, dignity, security of tenure, benefits, future promotions, and even whether the employee has been illegally demoted, constructively dismissed, or unlawfully deprived of wages. In the Philippine setting, these issues are governed not by a single rule, but by the interaction of the Labor Code, constitutional protections to labor, management prerogative, wage protection rules, due process standards, contract principles, and a large body of Supreme Court doctrine.

This article explains the full legal framework in Philippine context: when employers may lawfully change job titles or compensation, when employee consent is needed, what limits management prerogative, what counts as demotion, how reductions in pay are treated, what remedies workers may pursue, and what practical rules apply in real workplaces.

I. Core legal principles in the Philippines

Philippine labor law starts from several foundational rules.

First, labor is protected by the Constitution. Employees have a right to security of tenure, humane working conditions, and a just share in the fruits of production. A worker cannot simply be stripped of position or pay at the employer’s whim.

Second, employers do have management prerogative. They may regulate all aspects of employment, including work assignments, transfers, supervision, scheduling, discipline, and operational structuring. This includes, in many cases, changing job designations or reorganizing pay structures.

Third, management prerogative is not absolute. It must be exercised:

in good faith,
for legitimate business reasons,
without violating law, contract, collective bargaining agreement, or company policy,
without discrimination,
and without being used to defeat labor rights.

Fourth, an employee’s wages and status are legally protected interests. A change in title or pay that effectively lowers rank, benefits, future prospects, or dignity may amount to an unlawful demotion or constructive dismissal even if the employee remains technically employed.

That is the basic tension in Philippine cases: the employer may manage the enterprise, but may not use that power to undercut the employee’s legal and contractual rights.

II. What is a “job title change” under Philippine labor law?

A job title change can take many forms:

renaming a position,
changing rank or level,
shifting an employee from managerial to supervisory or rank-and-file status,
reclassifying a role after reorganization,
assigning the employee to a different post with a different designation,
or removing a title that carries prestige, authority, or benefits.

Not every title change is illegal. In many businesses, titles are updated because of restructuring, standardization, or operational needs. A mere change in name, by itself, is usually not unlawful if:

duties remain substantially similar,
compensation and benefits are not reduced,
rank and dignity are not impaired,
and the change is made honestly for business reasons.

The legal problem begins when the title change is not merely cosmetic.

A title can affect:

authority over subordinates,
access to allowances and benefits,
managerial or supervisory status,
bonus eligibility,
organizational rank,
future promotion prospects,
professional reputation,
and the employee’s standing in the company.

So, under Philippine doctrine, courts look at the substance, not just the label. A change from “Manager” to “Coordinator,” “Head” to “Specialist,” or “Director” to “Consultant” may be lawful or unlawful depending on the actual consequences.

III. What is a “pay change”?

A pay change may involve:

basic salary increase,
salary reduction,
removal or reduction of allowances,
withdrawal of bonuses,
conversion from monthly to daily pay,
restructuring commissions,
reduction of guaranteed incentives,
change in overtime, premium, or holiday pay treatment,
or modification of other monetary benefits.

Philippine law distinguishes between:

statutory benefits required by law,
contractual benefits promised in the employment contract,
CBA-based benefits under a collective bargaining agreement,
company practice benefits that may have ripened into enforceable rights,
and truly discretionary benefits that management may generally adjust.

A pay change becomes legally sensitive when it reduces something the employee is already entitled to receive.

IV. Security of tenure and why title/pay changes can violate it

Security of tenure does not only protect against outright firing. In Philippine law, it also protects against employer actions that make continued employment impossible, degrading, or substantially less favorable without valid cause.

An employer cannot lawfully force an employee to accept:

a lower rank,
a humiliating assignment,
a materially reduced salary,
or a status change so severe that resignation becomes the only practical option.

When that happens, the case may become one of constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal exists when an employer’s acts make continued work unreasonable, impossible, unlikely, or involve a demotion in rank or diminution in pay and benefits. The employee may technically resign, but the law may treat it as an illegal dismissal.

This is why job title and pay changes matter so much. Even without a termination notice, they can amount to the legal equivalent of dismissal.

V. Management prerogative: what employers may generally do

Philippine employers generally may:

reorganize departments,
redesign positions,
transfer employees,
standardize titles,
adjust reporting lines,
evaluate positions,
assign equivalent posts,
and revise compensation structures prospectively.

These actions are usually valid if they are:

reasonable,
business-related,
non-discriminatory,
and do not result in illegal demotion or unlawful diminution of wages/benefits.

For example, management may usually change a title where the employee’s compensation, rank, authority, and duties remain substantially intact. Likewise, employers may give higher pay, correct payroll errors prospectively, or revise future incentive plans that were never guaranteed.

But Philippine law becomes restrictive when the change harms vested employee rights.

VI. The rule against demotion in rank

A central issue is whether the employee was demoted.

Demotion in Philippine labor law does not always require a formal statement that the employee is being downgraded. Courts examine the real-world effects.

A demotion may exist where there is:

a reduction in position or official rank,
a loss of supervisory or managerial authority,
a substantial reduction in duties or responsibilities,
a transfer to work that is less important or less prestigious,
humiliation or embarrassment in the workplace,
or a move that signals a clear lowering of status.

Even if salary is not cut, a demotion may still be illegal if the employee’s rank, status, or dignity is materially reduced.

Similarly, even if the title stays the same, there can still be a demotion if the employee is stripped of meaningful duties, decision-making authority, or staff support.

Philippine courts do not stop at what the new ID or memorandum says. They ask: Was the employee truly placed in a lower position?

VII. Diminution of pay: the strict Philippine rule

Philippine law strongly protects wages. As a rule, wages cannot be reduced unilaterally by the employer. This includes not only direct cuts to basic pay, but also certain benefits and allowances that have become part of the employee’s wage package.

The principle against diminution means an employer may not eliminate or reduce benefits that employees have long been receiving if those benefits have become:

fixed,
regular,
deliberate,
and not granted by mere error or temporary grace.

The anti-diminution rule is especially powerful when the benefit has become established company practice.

Examples that may trigger a valid complaint:

reducing the employee’s basic salary,
cutting fixed monthly allowances,
removing a guaranteed transportation or meal allowance,
reducing commissions already agreed upon,
withdrawing a regular benefit that has ripened into practice,
or converting compensation to a structure that results in lower guaranteed take-home pay.

In Philippine law, it is not enough for the employer to say business is difficult. Financial difficulty does not automatically authorize unilateral wage reduction, especially where no lawful process or valid employee agreement exists.

VIII. Can an employer reduce salary with employee consent?

Consent matters, but not every signature automatically makes the reduction valid.

In principle, changes to compensation may be made by mutual agreement. Employment contracts can be amended, and parties may agree to new terms. This happens in restructurings, promotions, redeployments, and negotiated changes.

However, Philippine labor law treats employee consent carefully because of unequal bargaining power. Courts may examine whether the supposed agreement was:

truly voluntary,
informed,
specific,
not extracted under coercion,
and not contrary to law, morals, public policy, or minimum labor standards.

A salary reduction may be suspect where:

the employee signs only because refusal means termination,
the consent form is vague,
the employee is misled,
the reduction pushes pay below legal minimums,
or the change waives non-waivable labor standards.

An employee may also argue that the “agreement” was not real consent if it was signed under pressure, fear, or absence of reasonable choice.

IX. Is written consent required?

As a practical and evidentiary matter, written consent is extremely important in the Philippines for any significant pay change or position reclassification. While not every lawful change requires a new contract, employers bear a heavy burden when the change affects status or wages.

For title changes that are purely nominal and non-prejudicial, a company memo may sometimes suffice.

For compensation changes, especially reductions, the safer legal position is that the employer should have:

a clear written notice,
a valid business rationale,
the employee’s written conformity where needed,
and assurance that the change does not violate law or existing rights.

Without this, the employer risks claims for underpayment, illegal deduction, diminution of benefits, or constructive dismissal.

X. Job title changes without pay cuts: are they lawful?

Sometimes an employer changes only the title, not the salary. This may still be challenged.

A title-only change may be lawful if:

it reflects a neutral restructuring,
there is no loss of rank,
there is no humiliation,
duties remain substantially equivalent,
the employee keeps the same compensation and opportunities,
and the change is not retaliatory.

But even without a pay cut, it may be unlawful if:

the new title is clearly lower in rank,
the employee loses authority over people or budgets,
the change is used as punishment,
it damages professional standing,
or it is designed to push the employee out.

Thus, “same pay” does not automatically make the change valid. Philippine cases recognize that rank and dignity matter.

XI. Pay cuts without title changes: are they lawful?

A pay cut is usually more legally dangerous than a title change because wages are directly protected.

If the title remains the same but the employee’s pay is reduced, the employer may face liability unless it can show a lawful basis. The key questions are:

Is the cut prohibited by law or contract?
Is it below minimum wage or below agreed salary?
Does it reduce a regular benefit protected by law or company practice?
Did the employee freely and validly agree?
Is the reduction temporary, authorized, documented, and non-discriminatory?
Is there a valid legal framework supporting it?

Unilateral cuts to base pay are among the clearest triggers for labor disputes in the Philippines.

XII. Distinction between promotion, transfer, reclassification, and demotion

These concepts are often confused.

Promotion

A promotion generally increases rank, responsibility, compensation, or prestige. As a rule, promotion cannot simply be imposed if it fundamentally changes the nature of employment without acceptance, though in practice many promotions are accepted by conduct.

Transfer

A transfer means movement from one position or place to another of equivalent rank, level, and salary. Employers have broad authority to transfer employees, but not where it is unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, or a disguised demotion.

Reclassification

A reclassification changes the employee’s official category or level. This can be lawful if it reflects actual duties and does not reduce rights. It becomes problematic when used to justify lower benefits or lower status without legal basis.

Demotion

A demotion lowers rank, status, authority, or sometimes pay. If done without just cause, due process where required, or lawful operational basis, it may be invalid and may support claims for constructive dismissal.

XIII. Constructive dismissal in job title and pay change cases

Constructive dismissal is one of the most important remedies in this area.

It may arise where the employer:

reduces the employee’s pay,
assigns a lower or humiliating title,
strips core duties,
sidelines the employee,
transfers the employee to a patently inferior post,
or creates working conditions showing the employee is no longer wanted.

In Philippine practice, employees often resign first, then file a complaint claiming that resignation was forced by demotion or pay reduction. The court then examines whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to leave.

Indicators of constructive dismissal include:

abrupt rank downgrading,
unexplained pay cuts,
reassignment to trivial tasks,
removal from the organizational structure,
exclusion from responsibilities previously held,
or a sequence of acts intended to humiliate or marginalize.

XIV. Is due process required before changing title or pay?

This depends on the nature of the action.

If the employer is imposing a disciplinary demotion or salary-related sanction, due process is critical. The employee should be informed of the charges and given a real chance to explain.

If the change is part of a legitimate reorganization and not disciplinary, the usual “twin-notice” dismissal procedure may not strictly apply. Still, fairness, transparency, and documentation remain important.

Where the change effectively dismisses the employee or forces resignation, failure to observe proper legal standards may expose the employer to illegal dismissal liability.

For authorized-cause terminations, retrenchment, redundancy, and closure, separate rules apply. An employer cannot avoid those rules by merely renaming a dismissal as a “title change” or “salary restructuring.”

XV. Company practice and why it matters in pay-change disputes

In the Philippines, a benefit can become demandable through long, consistent, deliberate grant. This is the doctrine of company practice.

A benefit that began voluntarily may later become enforceable if employees received it regularly over a significant period and management deliberately continued giving it.

This matters greatly for pay changes. Employers sometimes believe they may withdraw:

monthly allowances,
regular bonuses,
fixed incentives,
transportation support,
rice subsidies,
or other supplements,

simply because these were not written in the contract. That is not always true. If the benefit has ripened into practice, its withdrawal may violate the rule against diminution.

Not all bonuses are protected, though. A truly discretionary bonus tied to profits or management judgment may not become enforceable in the same way. The legal outcome depends on the wording, practice, and circumstances.

XVI. Reduction of allowances: is it a pay cut?

Often, yes.

In many Philippine disputes, employers reduce not the “basic salary” but allowances. This does not automatically save the employer.

The key issue is whether the allowance is:

a reimbursement of actual expenses,
a conditional benefit,
or a regular, fixed, integral part of compensation.

A fixed monthly allowance that employees receive regardless of actual spending may be treated as part of the wage package for certain purposes. If it has been regularly and deliberately given, its reduction may be challenged as unlawful diminution.

By contrast, a reimbursement benefit that depends on actual receipts or actual travel may be more adjustable.

XVII. Changes caused by promotion or movement to another role

Sometimes an employee moves to a new role and the pay structure changes. This can be lawful where:

the employee knowingly accepts the new position,
the overall package is clearly defined,
the change is not deceptive,
and the new terms do not violate labor standards.

For example, moving from a supervisory post with overtime eligibility to a managerial post with a different compensation arrangement can raise legal questions. In the Philippines, not all employees are entitled to overtime pay; managerial employees and certain exempt personnel may be treated differently. But classification must be genuine. An employer cannot merely change the title to “manager” to avoid paying overtime if the actual duties remain non-managerial.

So in compensation disputes, actual duties matter more than labels.

XVIII. Can an employer lower a job title because of poor performance?

Possibly, but not casually.

If the employer intends a demotion as a disciplinary or performance-based action, it must be grounded on:

clear standards,
documented evaluation,
good faith,
consistency,
and fair process.

Arbitrary demotion based on vague dissatisfaction is risky.

If the issue is serious poor performance, the employer may need to follow proper procedures related to discipline or termination for just cause, depending on the facts. Simply lowering a worker’s title and pay without clear basis may be attacked as bad faith or constructive dismissal.

XIX. Reorganization, redundancy, and title/pay changes

Businesses do have the right to reorganize. In a valid reorganization, titles may change, reporting lines may change, and some positions may disappear.

But a reorganization is not a free pass. In Philippine law, it cannot be used to:

target union members,
punish whistleblowers,
evade tenure rights,
downgrade employees without basis,
or avoid lawful retrenchment/redundancy procedures.

If the employee’s old position is genuinely abolished and the employer offers an equivalent role with no loss of pay or rank, that may be lawful.

If the offered role is inferior, with less pay or status, the employee’s refusal may not automatically be insubordination. The facts matter.

If the change is so severe that the employee is effectively pushed out, the matter may become one of constructive dismissal or illegal termination under the guise of reorganization.

XX. Can salary be reduced because the company is losing money?

Financial distress is often invoked, but it does not automatically legalize a unilateral salary cut.

Philippine law generally requires compliance with lawful mechanisms. Depending on the situation, the employer may need:

genuine employee agreement,
compliance with labor standards,
and, where applicable, use of authorized-cause processes like retrenchment rather than informal pay reduction.

Courts are cautious about salary reduction programs imposed solely by management order. Economic necessity may explain the employer’s motive, but it does not erase employee rights.

A company in distress may restructure, retrench, or negotiate, but it cannot simply disregard wage protections.

XXI. Effect of employment contracts, handbooks, and CBAs

Any analysis in the Philippines must examine the governing documents.

Employment contract

The contract may specify:

position title,
salary,
allowances,
mobility clause,
transfer clause,
management rights clause,
probationary standards,
and benefits.

A contract that expressly allows reasonable reassignment may strengthen the employer’s position on title changes or transfers. But even broad clauses cannot override law or justify bad faith demotion.

Company handbook or policy manual

Policies may define ranks, salary bands, evaluation systems, disciplinary rules, and benefits. These can support or weaken either side.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

If the employee is covered by a CBA, the employer must also respect negotiated provisions on:

classification,
wage scales,
seniority,
promotions,
transfers,
and grievance procedures.

A title or pay change violating the CBA may lead to grievance, voluntary arbitration, unfair labor practice issues, or labor standards complaints depending on the nature of the dispute.

XXII. Managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file implications

A title change may alter legal classification, which can affect:

union eligibility,
overtime entitlement,
holiday pay issues,
rest day pay issues,
and representation rights.

But again, in Philippine law, actual job functions control more than titles. Calling someone “manager” does not necessarily make them a managerial employee. Courts examine whether the person truly formulates and executes management policies or has genuine managerial powers.

Similarly, making someone “supervisor” on paper does not settle the issue if the duties do not support that status.

This matters because employers sometimes reclassify titles to reduce labor obligations. That strategy can fail if the actual functions remain unchanged.

XXIII. Temporary versus permanent changes

A temporary acting assignment is easier to justify than a permanent downgrade.

A short-term business adjustment may be lawful if it is:

necessary,
documented,
non-prejudicial,
and does not unlawfully cut guaranteed compensation.

A permanent pay reduction or permanent lowering of rank is much harder to defend without clear legal basis and consent.

Employees should also check whether the company describes a change as “temporary” but keeps it indefinitely. In labor disputes, the actual duration and effects matter more than the label.

XXIV. When a change in title is really a way to avoid benefits

A common issue is relabeling the employee to avoid:

overtime pay,
holiday pay,
service incentive leave,
commissions,
managerial responsibility allowances,
or separation benefits.

Philippine authorities look beyond labels. If the employer changes the title but the nature of work remains the same, it may not escape legal obligations.

For example:

A sales employee retitled as “account executive” still may be entitled to the same commission structure if the underlying work and agreement support it.
A rank-and-file employee called “team manager” may still remain entitled to overtime if actual managerial powers are lacking.

Substance controls over form.

XXV. Discrimination and retaliation concerns

A title or pay change may also be unlawful if motivated by:

union activity,
complaint filing,
pregnancy,
sex,
religion,
disability,
whistleblowing,
or other prohibited grounds.

Even when management has a facially valid reason, selective enforcement can expose the action as discriminatory or retaliatory.

If only one employee is downgraded after filing a complaint, or if outspoken workers receive lower titles while others do not, the surrounding facts become highly important.

XXVI. Remedies available to employees in the Philippines

An employee affected by unlawful title or pay change may pursue different remedies depending on the facts.

1. Internal grievance or HR complaint

This may be useful for documentation and early resolution, especially in large companies or unionized settings.

2. DOLE labor standards route

If the issue involves underpayment, nonpayment, wage-related violations, or benefits, the Department of Labor and Employment may have jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.

3. NLRC illegal dismissal / constructive dismissal complaint

If the employee has been demoted, forced to resign, or subjected to serious diminution of pay, a complaint for constructive dismissal or illegal dismissal may be filed before the labor arbiter through the NLRC system.

4. Money claims

The employee may claim:

salary differentials,
unpaid allowances,
withheld benefits,
backwages,
damages where warranted,
attorney’s fees in proper cases,
and other monetary relief.

5. Reinstatement or restoration

Where the change is unlawful, the employee may seek restoration to the former position, rank, or equivalent status.

XXVII. What can the employee recover in a successful case?

Depending on the case, relief may include:

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights,
full backwages,
restoration of salary and benefits,
payment of salary differentials,
refund of illegal deductions,
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement where proper,
moral and exemplary damages in appropriate bad-faith cases,
and attorney’s fees.

If the dispute is purely about money claims without dismissal, the result may focus on payment of deficiencies and restoration of benefits rather than reinstatement.

XXVIII. Burden of proof

In Philippine labor disputes:

the employer generally bears the burden to prove the validity of dismissal,
and in constructive dismissal settings, once serious demotion or diminution is shown, the employer must justify its acts.

Documentation matters heavily. Employers should be able to show:

business reasons,
organizational charts,
job descriptions,
comparative salary data,
notices,
signed agreements,
and evidence of good faith.

Employees, on the other hand, should preserve:

contracts,
payslips,
emails,
HR notices,
org charts,
old and new job descriptions,
and messages showing loss of duties or pressure to resign.

XXIX. Common real-world Philippine scenarios

Scenario 1: Title changed, same salary, fewer duties

An employee who was “Operations Manager” is renamed “Operations Specialist,” loses team supervision, and is excluded from management meetings. Even if salary is unchanged, this may support a demotion claim.

Scenario 2: Salary restructured, take-home pay reduced

A company says the basic salary is unchanged but removes fixed allowances and guaranteed commissions. This may be unlawful diminution depending on the nature of the benefits.

Scenario 3: “Voluntary” pay cut during business downturn

Employees are asked to sign a salary reduction agreement or face separation. Validity may turn on genuine consent, legality, and whether minimum standards or non-waivable rights were affected.

Scenario 4: Promotion to “manager” but overtime removed

If the employee’s actual work remains non-managerial, the title change may not defeat overtime entitlement.

Scenario 5: Reorganization with equivalent post offered

If the new post is truly equivalent in pay, rank, and dignity, the employer has a stronger defense. If the new role is plainly inferior, the employee may have a valid complaint.

XXX. Practical legal tests Philippine courts usually care about

When examining job title and pay change cases, the decisive questions are often these:

Was the change made in good faith?

Was there a real business reason?

Did it result in loss of rank, authority, prestige, or dignity?

Did it cause diminution in wages, allowances, or established benefits?

Did the employee freely and knowingly agree?

Did the employer act consistently and without discrimination?

Is the new role substantially equivalent to the old one?

Was the change a disguised way of forcing resignation?

These are the practical fault lines of Philippine labor litigation on this topic.

XXXI. Special caution for employers

Employers in the Philippines should be careful not to assume that a managerial memo solves the issue. Before changing title or pay, they should check:

Does the change reduce compensation in any way?
Does it alter rank or dignity?
Is the employee losing supervisory authority or prestige?
Is the benefit protected by contract, CBA, law, or company practice?
Is there written documentation and real business justification?
Is the employee’s conformity needed?
Could the change be seen as retaliation or constructive dismissal?

The more harmful the change, the higher the legal risk.

XXXII. Special caution for employees

Employees should not focus only on the label used by the company. They should examine:

old and new titles,
actual duties,
authority level,
salary and allowance components,
variable pay structure,
future promotion impact,
and whether the change was really voluntary.

Sometimes the company says there is “no demotion” because the salary is unchanged, but the duties and status say otherwise. In other cases, the title remains the same, but the monetary package has clearly been reduced.

Both can be actionable.

XXXIII. Resignation after a title or pay downgrade

Employees often ask whether resigning weakens the case. Not necessarily.

If the resignation was prompted by unlawful demotion, humiliation, or pay reduction, the employee may still claim constructive dismissal. But the employee should preserve evidence showing that the resignation was not truly voluntary.

A bare resignation letter that says “personal reasons” may complicate the case, though it is not always fatal. The totality of evidence still matters.

XXXIV. Probationary employees and fixed-term employees

Probationary employees are also protected against unlawful changes. Their status does not mean the employer can arbitrarily reduce their title or pay below agreed terms or legal standards. However, their probationary standards and contract terms matter.

Fixed-term employees may likewise challenge unlawful mid-term changes if those changes violate contract or labor standards. A fixed-term arrangement does not give the employer free authority to alter agreed compensation or downgrade status arbitrarily.

XXXV. Foreign-owned companies, BPOs, and startups in the Philippines

The same Philippine labor principles generally apply across industries. In BPOs, multinationals, startups, and technology companies, title inflation is common and job structures can be fluid. But legal analysis still turns on actual rights and consequences.

A “global alignment” explanation does not automatically justify a lower local title or reduced pay. Likewise, startup culture does not excuse bypassing labor standards.

Philippine law applies to employment in the Philippines regardless of corporate style or internal vocabulary.

XXXVI. Key takeaways

In the Philippines, employers may change job titles and reorganize work under management prerogative, but they cannot lawfully use that power to reduce rank, dignity, pay, or established benefits in bad faith or without lawful basis.

A title change is unlawful when it is really a demotion, humiliation, retaliation, or disguised constructive dismissal.

A pay change is unlawful when it is a unilateral reduction of basic salary or protected benefits, or when it violates contract, law, CBA, or established company practice.

The legal analysis always looks at substance over form:

not just the title written on paper,
not just the wording of the memo,
not just whether the employee technically remained employed,
but what actually happened to rank, duties, compensation, and working conditions.

Philippine workers are protected not only from outright dismissal, but also from employer actions that effectively strip their position or livelihood without valid legal ground.

XXXVII. Bottom-line rule in Philippine context

The safest summary is this:

An employer in the Philippines may generally change job titles and work assignments as part of legitimate management prerogative, but may not unilaterally demote an employee, diminish wages or established benefits, or impose changes that amount to constructive dismissal. The legality of the change depends on good faith, business necessity, non-discrimination, absence of prejudice, compliance with contract and labor standards, and the real effect on the employee’s rank, pay, and dignity.

Where a title or pay change causes substantial prejudice, the employee may challenge it as illegal demotion, diminution of benefits, underpayment, or constructive dismissal, with possible remedies including restoration, backwages, salary differentials, damages, and reinstatement or separation pay where proper.