digests for mid terms. part 1.(last 4 cases not included)

8/12/2019 Digests for Mid Terms. Part 1.(Last 4 Cases Not Included)

1/10

Labor Law Manuel DigestsNMO 4-C

I. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

1.NUWHRAIN v. Secretary

Facts:

A total of 346 (321 valid, 3 spoiled) out of the 353 voted in a PCE for Manila Pavilion Hotel. NUWHARAIN

garnered 151 votes, while, HIMPHLU garnered 169 votes. There were votes segregated in the followingmanner. 11=dismissed EE, while pending in CA. 6=Supervisory. 5=probationary.

Med-Arb ordered the opening of 17 segregated votes (11 and 6). Petitioners argue that the votes by the

probationary EEs should be opened since one probe vote was opened. SOLE concluded that the certification

of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper.

Issue:

a. W/N employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be allowed to vote. Yes

b. W/N HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority. Nope.

Held:

a. Probationary

Probationary Employees can vote

In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether

probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. Xxx The Code makes no distinction as to their employmentstatus as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to all

the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to

the bargaining unit.

Rule II, Sec. 3 of DO No. 40-3 states, For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a

definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any

labor organization.

The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot override the

Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code

and its Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.

During the pendency of the appeal, the employer may hire additional employees. To exclude the employees

hired after the issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order but before the appeal has been resolved would violate the

guarantee that every employee has the right to be part of a labor organization from the first day of their

service.

In the present case, records show that the probationary employees, including Gatbonton, were included in

the list of employees in the bargaining unit submitted by the Hotel on May 25, 2006 in compliance with the

directive of the Med-Arbiter after the appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration have been denied by

the SOLE, rendering the Med-Arbiters August 22, 2005 Order final and executory 10 days after the March 22,

2007 Resolution (denying the motion for reconsideration of the January 22 Order denying the appeal), and

rightly so. Because, for purposes of self-organization, those employees are, in light of the discussion above,

deemed eligible to vote.

b. EBR

HIMPHLU did not attain the majority needed.

Prescinding from the Courts ruling that all the probationary employees votes should be deemed valid votes

while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast

would increase from 321 to 337. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.

HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a

majority vote.

It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as

basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine which union won the elections. The

opening of the segregated but valid votes has thus become material. To be sure, the conduct of a certification

election has a two-fold objective: to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the


2/10


majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be represented at all

by anyone.

2. San Miguel Employees v. San Miguel Packaging products Employees Union

Facts:

Petitioner is the incumbent EBR of monthly paid EEs of the following SMC divisions, namely, San MiguelCorporate Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging

Products (SMPP).

Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). Respondent

filed with the Med-Arbiter of the DOLE Regional Officer in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR), three

separate petitions for certification election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. All were dismissed.

Petitioner accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration

requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles

239(a), (b) and (c)[10] and 234(c)[11] of the Labor Code.

DOLE-NCR dismissed the petition, however, it found that respondent did not comply with the 20%

membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation. BLR reversed the ruling of DOLE-NCR with

regard to the 20% requirement. Petitioner appealed to the CA and this was dismissed.

Issue:

W/N respondent can petitioner for a certification election. No.

Held:

Rule in registration of Charter v. Independent Union.

A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a "local" or "chapter" of PDMP

and was issued Charter Certificate No. 112 on 15 June 1999. Hence, respondent was directly chartered by

PDMP.

The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local.

The first involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry

union. The second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter

through the process of chartering.

For chartered unions, the issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or the DOLE Regional Office is

not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local or a chapter under Department Order No. 9.

Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary requirements enumerated in

Section 1, Rule VI.

In Progressive Devt v. SOLE, the Court held that, when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or

chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory.

Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things,

the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the

bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of

Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter.

PDMP cannot directly create a local or a chapter, it being a trade union center.

Evidently, while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten locals or chapters

or affiliates, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective bargaining agent; a trade union

center, on the other hand, is composed of a group of registered national unions or federations.

Department Order No. 9 mentions two labor organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a localor chapter through chartering - a duly registered federation or a national union. Article 234 now includes the

termtrade union center,but interestingly, the provision indicating the procedure for chartering or creating a

local or chapter, namely Article 234-A, still makes no mention of a "trade union center."

Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor

organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union,

then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly.

3. The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Pinag-Isang Galing


3/10


The rank and file employees of Heritage Hotel Manila formed the Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE).

The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) later issued a certificate of

registration to this union. Subsequently, the HHE union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner

company opposed. The company alleged that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent

union, when it was, in truth, a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and

Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN).

The Med-Arbiter granted the HHE unions petition for certification election. Petitioner company appealedthe decision to the SOLE and CA but both were denied. CA issued an injunction.

On December 10, 2003 Certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed

another union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the

PIGLAS union). Two months later, the members of the first union, the HHE union, adopted a resolution for

its dissolution. The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.

PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company also opposed, alleging that the

new unions officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. According to the company,

the employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals injunction against the

holding of the certification election sought by the former union.

Despite the companys opposition, however, the Med-Arbiter granted the PCE.

Issues:

(1) Did the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration?

(2) Is dual unionism a ground for cancelling a unions registration?

Held:

(1) No. Respondent PIGLAS unions organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. It was possible for the number

of attendees to have increased from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed. Besides, with a total of 250 employees

in the bargaining unit, the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20 percent membership

requirement. Thus, the union could not be accused of misrepresentation since it did not pad its membership

to secure registration.

(2) No. The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS unions members were also members of the old rank and

file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the new unions registration. The right of any personto join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. Besides, HHE

union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already been cancelled. Thus,

petitioners arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and academic.

4. Eagle Ridge Golf v. CA

Facts:

On December 6, 2005, at least 20% of Eagle Ridges rank -and-file employeesthe percentage threshold

required under Article 234(c) of the Labor Code for union registrationhad a meeting where they organized

themselves into an independent labor union, named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or Union),

elected a set of officers, and ratified their constitution and by-laws.

EREU then applied for registration and thereafter for PCE.

Eagle Ridge opposed this petition and filed a petition for the cancellation of EREUs Registration Certificate.It ascribed misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its

constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the Union, and the election of its officers.

Eagle ridge argued that EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members (112 rank and ile

for this Bargaining Unit) when the minutes of its December 6, 2005 organizational meeting showed it only

had 26 members. There is a discrepancy of 1 person because the minutes noted that only 25 were present.

The understatement by one member who ratified the constitution and by-laws was a typographical error,

which does not make it either grave or malicious warranting the cancellation of the unions re gistration; The

retraction of 5 union members should not be given any credence.


4/10


Issue:

W/N EREU committed misrepresentation therefore its registration should be cancelled. No.

Held:

No Fraud in application.

The Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting and CBL.

The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19, 2005 for registration.The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under

Art. 234(c). Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge, as shown in the

Sworn Statement of the Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its petition for

cancellation.

The Union has sufficiently explained the discrepancy between the number of those who attended the

organizational meeting showing 26 employees and the list of union members showing 30. The difference is

due to the additional four members admitted two days after the organizational meeting as attested to by their

duly accomplished Union Membership forms. Consequently, the total number of union members, as of

December 8, 2005, was 30, which was truthfully indicated in its application for registration on December 19,

2005.

Retraction is not fatal

In the more meaty issue of the affidavits of retraction executed by six union members, we hold that the

probative value of these affidavits cannot overcome those of the supporting affidavits of 12 union membersand their counsel as to the proceedings and the conduct of the organizational meeting on December 6, 2005.

The six affiants of the affidavits of retraction were not presented in a hearing before the Hearing

Officer (DOLE Regional Director), as required under the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor

Code covering Labor Relations.

Section 11. Affirmation of testimonial evidence. Any affidavit submittedby a party to prove

his/her claims or defenses shall be re-affirmed by the presentation of the affiant before theMed-

Arbiter or Hearing Officer, as the case may be. Any affidavit submitted without the re-affirmation

of the affiant during a scheduled hearing shall not be admitted in evidence

It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of hearsay evidence, since they are not generally

prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants statement,

which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.

The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw their membership through their

affidavits of retraction will not cause the cancellation of registration on the ground of violation of Art. 234(c)

of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-and-file employees in the

employees union.

Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would require a union

membership of at least 22 employees (112 x 205 = 22.4). When the EREU filed its application for

registration on December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the certificate

of registration was granted, there is no dispute that theUnion complied with the mandatory 20%

membership requirement.

Besides, it cannot be argued that the six affidavits of retraction retroact to the time of the application

of registration or even way back to the organizational meeting. Prior to their withdrawal, the six

employees in question were bona fideunion members. More so, they never disputed affixing their

signatures beside their handwritten names during the organizational meetings. While they alleged

that they did not know what they were signing, it bears stressing that their affidavits of retractionwere not re-affirmed during the hearings of the instant case rendering them of little, if any,

evidentiary value.

With the withdrawal of six union members, there is still compliance with the mandatory membership

requirement under Art. 234(c), for the remaining 24 union members constitute more than the 20%

membership requirement of 22 employees.

The initial five affidavits of retraction were executed on February 15, 2006; the sixth, on March 15,

2006. Indisputably, all six were executed way after the filing of the petition for certification election

on January 10, 2006.


5/10


5. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical v. Charter Chemical

Facts:

Petitioner Union filed a PCE in the Med-Arbiter of Luzon.

The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because the CharterCertificate, "Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization," and "Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa

Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas" were not executed under oath

and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union president as required by Section 235 of the

Labor Code.

The Med-Arbiter also said that some of the members are supervisory are part of the union.

DOLE dismissed the appeal but reversed its decision on MR. CA reiterated the Med-Arbiter decision.

Issue:

W/N the denial of the PCE was proper.

Held:

The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or treasurer and attested to by

its president. R.A. 9481 was enacted during the pendency of this case. However, since the operative facts in this case

occurred in 1999, we shall decide the issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force.

Under the D.O. in effect then, the Union must submit 2 copies of the (a) charter certificate; (b) names of its

officers, their address, and principal office of the local chapter; (c) Constitution, By-Laws [CBL, hereinafter

and prior if mentioned]. All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the

Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.

As readily seen, the Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa

Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas are not among the documents

that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor

organization.

As to the charter certificate, the above-quoted rule indicates that it should be executed under oath. Petitioner

union concedes and the records confirm that its charter certificate was not executed under oath.

However, in San Miguel v. Mandaue Packaging, it was not necessary for the charter certificate to be certified

and attested by the local/chapter officers. Id. While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the

previous Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments , we believe

that the same doctrine obtains in this case. Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by

the national union and not the local/chapter, it does not make sense to have the local/chapters officersx x

xcertify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of.

In accordance with this ruling, petitioner unions charter certificate need not be executed under oath.

Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its

charter certificate, (2) the names of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office, and (3) its constitution

and by-laws the last two requirements having been executed under oath by the proper union officials as

borne out by the records.

Eligibility for Special Groups

1. Cathay Pacific Steel Corp v. CA

Facts:

Four former employees of CAPASCO originally filed this labor case before the NLRC. Three retracted their

complaint thereafter. Hence, this Petition shall focus solely on issues affecting private respondent

Tamondong.


6/10


Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong. Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory

personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private

respondent CUSE.

Tamondong is an active member of CUSE and was elected as one of its officers. CAPASCO sent a letter to

Tamondong requesting him to explain and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a

continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment.

Tamondong replied invoking his right to as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. Aftersuch exchange, he was terminated through a memo issued by CAPASCO.

The LA ruled in favor of Tamandong. The decision was reiterated by the CA and ordered Tamondong s

reinstatement. So CAPASCO filed a rule 65 petition.

Issue:

W/N CA committed grave abuse in reinstating Tamandong.. Nope.

Held:

Certiorari under 65 is proper for jurisdictional issues.

The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal,

a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted

without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw.

In the case before this Court, petitioners fail to meet the third requisite for the proper invocation of Petition

for Certiorari under Rule 65, to wit: that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of law.

Granting arguendo that this is allowed, Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and not a managerial

employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private respondent CUSE.

CAPASCO required Tamondong to observe fixed daily working hours from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon and from

1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. This imposition upon private respondent Tamondong, according to the Court of Appeals,

is very uncharacteristic of a managerial employee.

In Engineering Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court held that one of the essential characteristics of an employee

holding a managerial rank is that he is not subjected to the rigid observance of regular office hours or

maximum hours of work. Accordingly, Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory employees from

managerial employees, to wit: supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,

effectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or

clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those

who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire,

transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.

Thus, from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that private respondent

Tamondong was just a supervisory employee.

2. San Miguel Supervisors and Exempt v. Laguesma

Facts:

Petitioner union filed before DOLE a PCE among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMCMagnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

Med-Arbiter Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification election among the

abovementioned employees of the different plants as one bargaining unit.

SMC filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med- Arbiters

error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, into one bargaining unit, and in including supervisory

levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature.


7/10


Undersecretary Laguesma, granted SMCs Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med -Arbiter for

determination of the true classification of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate

bargaining unit.

Upon petitioner-unions motion, USEC Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed the

conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4)

and the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

Issue:

W/N Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential

employees, hence ineligible from joining a union. Nope

Held:

The said employees did not meet the Confidential Employees criteria.

Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate,

determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.

The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of

management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the

confidential employee rule. The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position

involving a potential conflict of interests.

Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through employees who arerepresented by the union with the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their

duties may obtain advance information of the companys position with regard to contract negotiations, the

disposition of grievances, or other labor relations matters

Thus, an employee of a labor union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential labor

information with respect to his employer, the union, or the association, to be regarded a confidential

employee, and knowledge of labor relations information pertaining to the companies with which the union

deals, or which the association represents, will not clause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining

unit representing employees of the union or association.

It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their

functions. From the foregoing functions, it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees

have access to concern the employers internal business operations. (Work scheds, oversseing chicken

operations) As held in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, an employee may not be

excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information

concerning employers internal business operations and which is not related t o the field of labor relations.

In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential employees merely because they

handle confidential data as such must first be strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to

fall under said restrictions. The information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal

business operations data which, to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances

wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial.

Furthermore, even assuming that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence has established that there is

no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing managerial functions to form and

join a union.

The creation of three (3) separate bargaining units for its 3 separate plants would violate the 1-Comp;1-union

rule. It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have community or mutuality of interest, which

is the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.

It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation. This

means that, although they belong to three different plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive

the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.

The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in Cabuyao, Laguna, in Otis,

Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga is immaterial. Geographical location can be

completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed.


8/10


3. Standard Charter Union v. Standard Charter

Facts:

Petitioner and the Standard Chartered Bank (Bank) began negotiating for a new Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) in May 2000 as their 1998-2000 CBA already expired.

Under the old CBA, the following are excluded as appropriate bargaining unit: A. All covenanted and

assistant officers (now called National Officers); B. One confidential secretary of each of the: 1. Chief Executive,Philippine Branches; 2. Deputy Chief Executive/Head, Corporate Banking Group; 3. Head, Finance; 4. Head,

Human Resources; 5. Manager, Cebu; 6. Manager, Iloilo; 7. Covenanted Officers provided said positions shall

be filled by new recruits. C. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo, and in any

other branch that the BANK may establish in the country; D. Personnel of the Telex Department; E. All

Security Guards; F. Probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277 (c) of the Labor Code, as

amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or emergency employees; and G. One (1) HR Staff.

But then in the renewal sought by SCBEU-NUBE, they only wanted the exclusion to apply only to the

following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to

hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers,

Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff.

A notice of strike was given to the Department of Labor due to this deadlock. Then DOLE Secretary Patricia

Sto. Tomas issued an order dismissing the Unions plea.

Issue:

W/N confidential employees sought to be removed from the exclusion as appropriate bargaining unit by SCBEU-

NUBE holds ground. No.

Held:

Exclusion of confidential employees is a question of fact, petitioners failed to prove this.

While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to

managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who

by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial

employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.

For Bank Cashiers, in National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter

v. Torres,declared that they are confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential

matters, e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for

telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central

Bank Manual regarding joint custody, and therefore, disqualified from joining or assisting a union; or joining,

assisting or forming any other labor organization.

Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, meanwhile stated that "confidential employees such as accounting

personnel, radio and telegraph operatorswho, having access to confidential information, may become the

source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining

agreement."

In Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,the Court designated personnel

staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees because by the very nature

of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of,

persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

4. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE

Facts:

Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-RFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc.

Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed separate petitions for certification election before Med-Arbiter.

The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a charter certificate

by the Associated Labor Union (ALU), and the supervisory union by the Associated Professional, Supervisory,


9/10


Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). Private respondents also alleged that the establishment

in which they sought to operate was unorganized.

Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI) opposed both petitions for certification election.

The Med-Arbiter held that the petitions were invalid. SOLE reversed this. CA affirmed the decision of the

SOLE.

Issue:W/N the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions in the same institution be validly part of the same federation. No.

Held:

The issue on the status of the supervisory union CSBTI-SU depends on the status of APSOTEU, its mother

federation.

The DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-03, which took effect on March 15, 2003, further amending Book

V of the above implementing rules. The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for

registration of labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR.

The records in this case showed that APSOTEU was registered on March 1, 1991. Accordingly, the law

applicable at that time was Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules, and not Department Order

No. 9 which took effect only on June 21, 1997. Thu s, considering further that APSOTEUs principal office is

located in Diliman, Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the certificate

of registration is valid. Thus, APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization and has authority to issue charter to its affiliates. It may

issue a local charter certificate to CSBTI-SU and correspondingly, CSBTI-SU is legitimate.

Rule on Supervisory and R-a-F affiliation

A word of caution though, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for

membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form

their own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of

interest.

Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and- file or where the supervisors

labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors union should not be allowed to affiliate

with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates

in the union activity within the company.

Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. Theprohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national federation the

members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees.

In De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine v. Laguesma, we reiterated the rule that for the

prohibition to apply, it is not enough that the supervisory union and the rank-and-file union are affiliated

with a single federation. In addition, the supervisors must have direct authority over the rank-and-file

employees.

In the instant case, the national federations that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-file and

supervisory unions are separately affiliated with, do have a common set of officers.

In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively participates in the CSBTI-SU while ALU, the rank-

and-file federation, actively participates in the CSBTI-RFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest

among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of supervisory unions. For

as long as they are affiliated with the APSOTEU and ALU, the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do

not meet the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separatelypetition for certification elections.

5. Tunay na Pagkakaisa v. Asia Brewery

Facts:


10/10


ABI entered into a CBA effective for five (5) years from 1997 to 2002, with Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa

sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the exclusive bargaining representative of ABIs rank -and-file

employees. Both parties renegotiated this for the period of 2000-2003.

Under the CBA, Sec. 1 states, The UNION shall not represent or accept for membership employees outside

the scope of the bargaining unit herein defined.Sec. 2 the following jobs/positions as herein defined shall

beexcludedfrom the bargaining unit, to wit: 6. Confidential and Executive Secretaries; 12. Purchasing and

Quality Control Staff. Subsequently, a dispute arose when ABIs management stopped deducting union dues from eighty -one (81)

employees, believing that their membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated the CBA.

Eighteen (18) of these affected employees are QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge

Technician who formed part of the Quality Control Staff. Twenty (20) checkers are assigned at the Materials

Department of the Administration Division, Full Goods Department of the Brewery Division and Packaging

Division. The rest are secretaries/clerks directly under their respective division managers.

The Voluntary Arbitrator said the positions of the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file category

because their functions are merely routinary and clerical.

Issue:

W/N the subject employees are confidential employees, thus should be excluded in the CBA. No.

Held:Routinely and clerical nature of an employees work excludes them from the confidential classification.

It is rather curious that there would be several secretaries/clerks for just one (1) department/division

performing tasks which are mostly routine and clerical. Respondent insisted they fall under the Confidential

and Executive Secretaries expressly excluded by the CBA from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

However, perusal of the job descriptions of these secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned duties and

responsibilities involve routine activities of recording and monitoring, and other paper works for their

respective departments while secretarial tasks such as receiving telephone calls and filing of office

correspondence appear to have been commonly imposed as additional duties.

Respondent failed to indicate who among these numerous secretaries/clerks have access to confidential data

relating to management policies that could give rise to potential conflict of interest with their Union

membership.

Clearly, the rationale under our previous rulings for the exclusion of executive secretaries or divisionsecretarieswould have little or no significance considering the lack of or very limited access to confidential

information of these secretaries/clerks. It is not even farfetched that the job category may exist only on paper

since they are all daily-paid workers.

digests for mid terms. part 1.(last 4 cases not included)

Documents