Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right to Self-Organization
NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., (NEECO I) EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. NLRC
Facts:
NEECO I, herein private respondent, ordered all its regular employees, including petitioners to accomplish applications for retirement,
resignation or separation from service. What followed was promotion of certain union officers to supervisory rank.
As a response to what they considered as harassment to union members and circumvention of their right to security of tenure, the
employees-union members held a snap election of their officers. Herein petitioners who were elected union officers then were
compulosorily retired.
Petitioners filed a case for illegal dismissal and damages before the NLRC, alleging that they were singled out for retirement because
they were officers, past officers or active members of the labor union in the cooperative.
Labor Arbiter: finding of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice; ordered reinstatement of complainants with award of full backwages,
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and cost of litigation in their favor.
NLRC appeal by private respondent NEECO I: given due course (despite omnibus motion to dismiss by petitioners due to insufficient
bond); deleted award of damages, attorneys fees and cost of litigation; denied motion for reconsideration of both petitioners and private
respondent
Issues/Held/Ratio:
1. Appeal bond
o Petitioners contend that the supersedeas bond posted before the NLRC was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary
period (in LC Art.223) and hence appeal was not perfected.
o SC:
There is substantial compliance on the part of private respondent. The LA decision was rendered 21
December 1992, respondents appealed 28 December 1992 and bond was issued 4 January 1993 (last day of
filing appeal) and forwarded on 5 January 1993.
As to the amount posted, unreasonable and excessive bond may be reduced by the court so as not to
effectively deprive respondent the right to appeal. Further, it already paid respondents their retirement benefits.
2. (topical) Moral and exemplary damages
o SC:
There is a finding by the LA of unfair labor practice manifested in the singling out of petitioners for
retirement because of their being union officers, past officers or active members. Their being selected for
retirement was arbitrarily made by the employer and not in succession according to the list, violative of the
employees constitutional right to self-organization, including right to bargain collectively.
The amount of moral damages were however reduced from Php30,000.00 (LA award) to Php10,000.00
while Php5,000.00 exemplary damages were awarded, both to each of the petitioners, taking into consideration
the business, social and financial position of the cooperative.
TUPAS seeks to review the resolution of the director of the Bureau of labor relations dismissing its appeal from the decision of the
Med-Arbiter ordering a certification election to be conducted among the regular daily paid rank and file employees/workers of
Universal Robina Corporation-Meat and Canning Division to determine which of the contending unions (TUPAS, NEW ULO, or no
union) shall be the bargaining unit of the daily wage rank and file employees in the Meat and Canning Division of the company.
From 1984 - 1987 , TUPAS was the sole and exclusive collective baragainign representative of the workers of Meat and Canning
Division of Universal Rubina Corporation with a 3-year CBA to expire on Nov. 15, 1987.
During the 60-day freedom period before the expiry, it filed a notice of strike as a means of pressuring the company to extend,
renew or negotiate a new CBA and when such was staged(on Oct. 12) it resulted in the negotiation of a new CBA (which was
finally signed Dec. 3)
4 days prior (Oct 8) NEW ULO, composed mostly of workers belonging to IGLESIA NI KRISTO sec, reegistered as a labor union
and claiming to be composed of the majority of the daily wage rank and file employees (numbering 191), they filed for a certificate
election at the BLR.
TUPAS moved to dismiss the petition for being defective in form and contending that the NEW ULO members were part of the InC
sect which 3 years previeous refuse to affiliate with any labor union.
Nov. 17 - The Med- Arbiter ordered the holding of a certificate election within 20 days
TUPAS appealed to the BLR, which dismissed the same and denied the MR.
Hence, the present appeal.
Issue/Held
Whether the Director of the BLR erred in dismissing TUPAS appeal from the Med-Arbiters order requiring the conduct of a certificate
election? NO.
Ratio
The SCs decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Unionupholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect
not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own
union. The public respondent correctly observed that the "recognition of the tenets of the sect ... should not infringe on the basic
right of self-organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation."
The fact that TUPAS was able to negotiate a new CBA with ROBINA within the 60-day freedom period of the existing CBA, does
not foreclose the right of the rival union, NEW ULO, to challenge TUPAS' claim to majority status, by filing a timely petition for
certification election on October 13, 1987 before TUPAS' old CBA expired on November 15, 1987 and before it signed a new CBA
with the company on December 3, 1987.
As pointed out by the Med-Arbiter a "certification election is the best forum in ascertaining the majority status of the contending
unions wherein the workers themselves can freely choose their bargaining representative thru secret ballot."
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS V. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND CIR
Facts:
Respondent Union (Pan American employees Association) filed a notice of strike on Aug. 28, 1965.
On Sept. 17, 2965, the President of the Philippines certified the strike to the CIR as being an industrial dispute affecting national
interest and the parties were called to a conference on Sept. 20.
Several conferences were held between petitioner airline and respondent union and it was the position of the union that its
members would not resume their duties unless its officers were also included in the return-to-work order.
Petitioner disagrees contending that it was agreeable to having the workers return to work but not the five officials of the
respondent union.
It alleged that the strike was illegal, being offensive to a no-strike clause of an existing collective bargaining agreement the result
being that the officials could, as the responsible parties, be liable for dismissal. It offered, however, to deposit their salaries even if
they would not be working, with the further promise that they would not even be required to refund any amount should the right to
remain in their positions be considered as legally terminated by their calling the alleged illegal strike (payroll reinstatement I
guess? The term wasnt mentioned in the case but I think its the same right?).
September 28, 1965 However, Judge Bugayong issued an order requiring petitioner to accept the five union officers pending
resolution on the merits of the dispute involved in the strike. Petitioners MR was likewise denied.
Hence, this petition, alleging a grave abuse of discretion
Issue/Held: Did the CIR commit grave abuse of discretion in not granting the petitioners plea? NO
Ratio:
The discretion the CIR possesses cannot be so restricted and emasculated that the mere failure to grant a plea to exclude from
the return-to-work order the union officials could be considered as tantamount to a grave abuse.
As far back as 1957, the SC has held in the words of J. Labrador: The evident intention of the law is to empower the CIR to act in
such cases, not only in the manner prescribed under Commonwealth Act 103, but with the same broad powers and jurisdiction
granted by that Act. If the Court of Industrial Relations is granted authority to find a solution in an industrial dispute and such
solution consists in ordering of employees to return back to work, it cannot be contended that the Court of Industrial Relations
does not have the power or jurisdiction to carry that solution into effect.
Recently, speaking through J. Sanchez: the CIR is granted great breadth of discretion in its quest for a solution to a labor problem
so certified
Hence, there can be no legal objection to the mode of exercise of authority in such fashion by respondent Court of Industrial
Relations. The allegation as to the grave abuse of discretion is clearly devoid of merit.
Further, the SC goes on to explain the novelty posed by the present situation and explained that the petitioners apprehension in
making the officers of the union return to work was caused by the fact that the five officers of the union consist of three (3)
Passenger Traffic Representatives and a reservation clerk who in the course of their duties could cause mix-ups in the reservation
and accommodation of passengers which could result in very many suits for damages against petitioner (similar to the case of as
the case of Nicolas Cuenca vs. Northwest Airlines).
Petitioner attempted to remove the sting from its objection to have the union officers return to work by offering to deposit the
salaries of the five officers with respondent Court to be paid to them, coupled with what it considered to be a generous concession
that if their right to return to work be not recognized, there would be no need for refund. However, due to this, it betrayed an
inexcusable lack of confidence in the responsibility of union officials and ultimately in the validity of the collective bargaining
process itself. For it is the basic premise under which a regime of collective bargaining was instituted by the Industrial Peace Act
that through the process of industrial democracy, with both union and management equally deserving of public trust, labor
problems could be susceptible of the just solution and industrial peace attained.
When management displays what appears to be grave but unwarranted distrust in the union officials discharging their functions
just because a strike was resorted to, then the integrity of the collective bargaining process itself is called into question. It would
have been different if there were a rational basis for such fears, purely speculative in character for the records were bereft any
indication of a clear and present danger to be expected from the union officials return to work.
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
Further, this unwarranted demand has certain implications recognized by the SC, as it would effectively deprive the rank and file of
their freedom of choice as to who should represent them and to that extent, impair their constitutional and statutory right to
freedom of association
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION
AND THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENTS.
Facts:
Nov. 26, 1992 TMPCLU filed a petition for certification election with the DOLE NCR for all rank-and-file employees of the TMC.
Feb. 23, 1993 Petitioner filed a Position Paper seeking the denial of the issuance of an Order directing the holding of a certification election on two
grounds: first, that the respondent union, being "in the process of registration" had no legal personality to file the same as it was not a legitimate
labor organization as of the date of the filing of the petition; and second, that the union was composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees in violation of law.
Attached to the position paper was a list of union members and their respective job classifications, indicating that many of the signatories to the
petition for certification election occupied supervisory positions and were not in fact rank-and-file employees.
Mar. 8, 1993 Med-Arbiter, Paterno D. Adap, dismissed respondent union's petition for certification election for lack of merit. He found that the labor
organization's membership was composed of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation of LC Art. 245 and that at the time of the filing of
its petition, respondent union had not even acquired legal personality yet.
Nov. 9, 1993 On appeal, the Office of the Secretary of Labor directed the holding of a certification election among the regular rank.-and-file
employees of TMC.
o Petitioner-appellant was already a legitimate labor organization at the time of the filing of the petition. 2 days before the filing of the said
petition, it was issued a certificate of registration.
o Med-Arbiter should have not dismissed the petition for certification election based on the ground that the proposed bargaining unit is a mixture
of supervisory and rank-and-file employees, hence, violative of Article 245 of the LC as amended.
o A perusal of the petition and the other documents submitted by petitioner-appellant will readily show that what the former really seeks to
represent are the regular rank-and-file employees in the company numbering about 1,800 more or less, a unit which is obviously appropriate
for bargaining purposes. This being the case, the mere allegation of respondent-appellee that there are about 42 supervisory employees in the
proposed bargaining unit should have not caused the dismissal of the instant petition.
Petitioner filed MR, reiterating its claim that as of the date of filing of petition for certification election, TMPCLU had not yet acquired the status of a
legitimate labor organization as required by the LC, and that the proposed bargaining unit was inappropriate.
Public respondent set aside its earlier resolution and remanded the case to the Med-Arbiter concluding that the issues raised by petitioner both on
appeal and in its MR were factual issues requiring further hearing and production of evidence.
Findings of Med-Arbiter Brigida C. Fodrigon: Petitioner could not have been issued its Certificate of Registration on November 24, 1992 when it
applied for registration only on November 23, 1992 as shown by the official receipt of payment of filing fee. She concluded that respondent TMPCLU
could not have acquired legal personality at the time of the filing of its petition."
April 20, 1996 Public respondent issued a new Resolution, directing the conduct of a certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of the TMC. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Issue: W/N the certification election should be conducted Held: NO.
Ratio:
The purpose of every certification election is to determine the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining. A certification election for the collective bargaining process is one of the fairest and most effective ways of
determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force.
In determining the labor organization which represents the interests of the workforce, those interests must be, as far as reasonably possible,
homogeneous, so as to genuinely reach the concerns of the individual members of a labor organization.
Rothenberg: an appropriate bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, composed of all or less than the entire body of employees,
which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and
duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of law.
Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer Calleja: bargaining unit is "the legal collectivity for collective bargaining purposes whose members have substantially
mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions of employment as will assure to all employees their collective bargaining rights."
The LC has made it a clear statutory policy to prevent supervisory employees from joining labor organizations consisting of rank-and-file employees
as the concerns which involve members of either group are normally disparate and contradictory.
Based on A.245 provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. Not being
one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore,
anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of
the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the LC.
The rationale behind the LC's exclusion of supervisors from unions of rank-and-file employees is that such employees, while in the performance of
supervisory functions, become the alter ego of management in the making and the implementing of key decisions at the sub-managerial level.
Certainly, it would be difficult to find unity or mutuality of interests in a bargaining unit consisting of a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees. And this is so because the fundamental test of a bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not such a unit will best advance to all
employees within the unit the proper exercise of their collective bargaining rights. The LC itself has recognized this, in preventing supervisory
employees from joining unions of rank-and-file employees.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED V. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION
Facts:
The Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter 776, a
legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the
DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit.
The Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club (THIGCI)opposed the Unions petition for certification election on the ground that the list of union
members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent
without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of
the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were rank-and file employees of THIGCI.
THIGCI submitted a list of the names of its 71 actual rank-and-file employees which it annexed to its Comment to the petitioner for
certification election. It then incorporated a tabulation of the number of signatories to the said petition whose membership in the union
was being questioned as disqualified and the reasons for disqualification. THIGCI also alleged that some of the signatures were secured
through fraudulent and deceitful means and submitted copies of the handwritten denials and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating
in the petition.
DOLE Med-Arbiter: ordered the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees if THIGCI. It held that the documents show that
petitioner Union was a legitimate labor federation and its local/chapter was duly reported to this Office as one of its affiliate local/chapter. As for the
allegation that some of the signatures were fraudulently obtained, Med-Arbiter held that it should be coursed through an independent petition for
cancellation of union registration which is within the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director. The Med-Arbiter held that THIGCI failed to submit
the job descriptions of the questioned employees and other supporting documents to bolster its claim that they are disqualified from joining THEU.
THIGCI appealed at the Office of the DOLE Secretary. Decision: dismissal of the petition for certification election due to clear absence of mutuality
of interests, i.e., THEU sought to represent two separate bargaining units (supervisory employees and rank-and-file employees) as well as
employees of two separate and distinct corporate entities.
Motion for Reconsideration by THEU before DOLE Undersecretary: In the DOLE Resolution, Undersecretary set aside the dismissal on the ground
that THEU is a local chapter and thus, the 20% membership requirement is not necessary for it to acquire legitimate status. Hence, the retraction of
some members cannot negate the legitimacy it had already acquired before the petition; that the names of the allegedly disqualified supervisory
employees should be simply removed from THEUs roster of membership. Motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, petition for certiorari to the
SC which was referred to the CA
CA: denied THIGCIs petition for certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution in favour the Union.
ISSUES:/ HELD:
1)Whether a certificate of registration of a union can be subject to collateral attack? NO
2) MAIN: Is there a lack of mutuality of interest (in re claim that THEU sought to represent two separate bargaining units)? NO. FAILURE TO PRESENT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
RATIO:
1) While Art 245 of the Labor Code expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a rank-and file union, it does not provide what would be the
effect if a rank-and-file union counts supervisory employees among its members or vice versa. The argument of THIGCI is that the acquisition of
rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification election, first and foremost depends on whether or not
the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization... An organization which carries a mixture of rank and file supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization xxx
SC said that the petition has no merit because after a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to
collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Sec 5 Rule V, Book IV of the Rules to
Implement the Labor Code. As regards the grounds for cancellation of a certificate of registration, the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees
is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances
enumerated in Art 239 Sections (a) and (c) (element of misrepresentation, false statement, fraud or deceit). THEU, having been validly issued a
certificate of registration, should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. As to the
2)
allegation that some of the signatures were secured through fraud, the proper procedure is to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of
registration and not intervention in a petition for certification election.
(Note: in re alleged withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification election, SC held that the best evidence is in the certification
election itself wherein the workers can freely express themselves in a secret ballot)
MAIN: THIGCI failed to present substantial evidence that the assailed employees are actually occupying supervisory positions. While THIGCI
submitted a list of its employees with their corresponding job titles and ranks, there is nothing mentioned about the supervisors respective duties,
powers, and prerogatives that would show that they can effectively recommend managerial actions which require the use of independent judgment.
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor:
The mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd
situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member of a union... What is essential is the nature of the
employees function and not the nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether the employee has rank and file or
managerial status or whether he is a supervisory employee.
AD GOTHONG MANUFACTING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU, petitioner, vs. HON. NIEVES CONFESOR, Secretary, Department
of Labor and Employment and AD GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Subangdaku, Mandaue City, respondents.
Facts:
May 12, 93 petitioner Union filed a petition for certification election in its bid to represent the unorganized regular rank-and-file
employees of respondent Company excluding its office staff and personnel. Respondent company opposed the petition as it excluded
office staff and personnel who are rank and file employees. The parties eventually included Romulo Plaza and Paul Yap in list of
eligible voters on condition that their votes are considered challenged on ground that they were supervisory employees.
Plaza and Yap argued that they are rank and file employees. Plaza claimed that he was a mere salesman in Cebu while Yap claimed
that he is a mere expediter whose job includes facilitation of processing of bills of lading of all company shipments.
Petitioner maintains that Plaza and Yap are supervisors who are disqualified to join the bargaining unit for rank and file employees. It
based its assertion on the following: 1) joint affidavit of Ricardo Canete et al which alleges Yap is a supervisory employee; 2) affidavit
of Pedro Diez which alleges that affiant is a supervisor in production department of respondent company; 3) photocopy of
memorandum regarding attendance of department heads and supervisors to quarterly meeting which contains Plaza and Yaps
names; 4) photocopy of memo which states Romy Plaza as acting OIC of marketing in Davao; 5) photocopy of minutes of regular
quarterly meeting wherein Yap was mentioned as shipping assistant and newly hired member of the staff.
Med-Arbiter Achilles Manit declared that Yap and Plaza are rank and file employees.
Petitioner appealed to Secretary of Labor insisting that Yap and Plaza are supervisor and manager of the company and are prohibited
from joining bargaining unit as rank and file employees. Respondent claimed that Pacita Gothong was the companys secretary and
not Baby Siador, who signed the minutes. Respondent also argued that Plaza could not qualify as manager as the Davao Branch
never materialized.
Respondent Secretary of Labor affirmed the finding of Med-Arbiter Achilles. Motion for Recon denied.
Issue: Whether or not Plaza and Yap are managerial/supervisory employees and thus prohibited from joining the bargaining unit. (Corollary
issue: did Confesor commit grave abuse of discretion?)
Held: No, they are not. Plaza and Yap are rank and file employees. Confesor did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petition is
dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio:
The Labor Code Article 212(m) recognizes two principal groups of employees, namely, the managerial and rank and file groups. Under
Rule I, Section 2(c), Book III of the IRR of the LC, to be a member of managerial staff, the following elements must concur:
1. His primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies
2. He customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of his functions
3. He regularly and directly assists in the management of the establishment
4. He does not devote more than 20% of his time to work other than those mentioned above
Franklin Baker Co of the Phil vs Trajano: test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person possess authority to act in
the interest of employer in the matter specified in Article 212(k) of LC and Section 1(m) of its IRR whether such authority is merely routinary
or clerical in nature but requires use of independent judgment.
The SC also accords due respect and sustains findings of fact made by quasi-judicial agencies (Med-Arbiter and Sec of Labor) which are
supported by substantial evidence considering their expertise in their respective fields. The Med-Arbiter ruled that the petitioner failed to
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
PAPER INDUSRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of
Labor and Employment, HON. HENRY PABEL, Director of DOLE Regional Office No. XI, PCOP-BISLIG SUPERVISORY AND
TECHNICAL STAFF EMPLOYEES UNION, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION and FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS
Facts:
Petitioner PICOP is engaged in manufacture of paper and timber products with place of operations at Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del
Sur. It has 9,000 employees, 944 of whom are supervisory and technical staff employees. 487 of these supervisory and technical
staff employees are signatory members of private respondent PBSTSEU.
August 9, 1989 PBSTSEU instituted Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the supervisory/technical staff EE of PICOP for CBA purposes.
August 10, 1989 initial hearing of petition was set on August 18, then reset to August 25 at the instance of PICOP. PICOP failed
to file any comment or position paper. Private respondents FFW and ALU then filed petitions for Intervention.
September 14, 1989 Med- Arbiter Arturo Gamolo issued Order granting petitions for Intervention of FFW and ALU. Another order
issued that PICOPs supervisory and technical staff have four choices: 1) PBSTSEU; 2) FFW; 3) ALU; or 4) No union.
September 21, 1989 PICOP appealed the order setting certification election contending that Med-Arbiter committed grave abuse
of discretion in deciding the case without giving PICOP opportunity to file comments and answers and that PBSTSEU had no
personality to file for certification election.
Secretary of Labor issued a Resolution which upheld the Med-Arbiters order with modification allowing employees in Cebu,
Davao and Illigan to participate in election.
PICOP questioned and objected to inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred
were reclassified as managerial employees in light of reorganization effected by it. Under the Revised Organizational Structure,
company was divided into four main business groups: 1) Paper Products; 2) Timber Products; 3) Forest Resources; 4) Support
Services. A Vice president heads each group. A division manager heads the divisions comprising each group. A department
manager heads the departments comprising each division. Section heads and supervisors, now called section managers and unit
managers head the sections and independent units comprising each department. PICOP advanced that considering the present
authority of section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are classified as managerial employees, hence ineligible to
form or join any labor organization.
March 27, 1990 Med-Arbiter Phibun Pura issued order holding that supervisors and section heads of the petitioner are
managerial employees and therefore excluded from the list of voters of certification election.
PBSTSEU appealed the order of Med-Arbiter and so did ALU. Laguesma then issued the assailed order setting aside the order of
Med-Arbiter Pura and held that subject supervisors and section heads are supervisory employees eligible to vote in the election
PICOP sought reconsideration but was denied.
Issue: Whether or not Section Heads and supervisors who have been designated as Section managers and unit managers were converted
to managerial employees thus unable to join unions by virtue of Article 245 of the Labor Code. (Corollary: whether Laguesma is guilty of
denying due process) Held: The petition is unmeritorious and thereby dismissed.
Ratio:
United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union vs Laguesma: Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and First Line
Managers. Top and Middle Managers have authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of
First Line managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by rank and file employees. Under this distinction, managerial
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
10
Petitioners-appellants Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of herein private respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc.
(ICTSI) and are officers/members of Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local
Chapter (APCWU-ICTSI), a labor organization duly registered as a local affiliate of the Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union
(APCWU).
When ICTSI started its operation, it used 304-day factor in determining the wages of its employees. In accordance, however, with
subsequent CBA1, the employees work week was reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued using
the 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the employees.
Wage Order was issued increasing the minimum wage. Heeding the proposal and following the implementation of the new wage order,
ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in determining the daily wage of its employees and other
consequential compensation, even if the employees work week consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA.
ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its on-call employees. This prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike
which included as cause of action not only the retrenchment of the employees but also ICTSIs use of 365 days as divisor in the
computation of wages. The dispute respecting the retrenchment was resolved by a compromise settlement while that respecting the
computation of wages was referred to the Labor Arbiter.
APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees similarly situated, filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against
ICTSI. Petitioners-appellants filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene.
LA: Correct divisor is 250 days; Motion to Intervene denied.
CBA- Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be five (5) days on any day from Monday to
Sunday, as may be scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior notice unless any of this day is
declared a special holiday.
11
NLRC: reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed APCWUs complaint for lack of merit. Denial of Motion to Intervene
was affirmed.
CA on petition for certiorari.
Dismissed APCWUs petition on the following grounds: failure to allege when its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC
decision was filed, failure to attach the necessary appendices to the petition, and failure to file its motion for extension to file
its petition within the reglementary period.
Dismissed petitioner-appellants motion as they were already well-represented by APCWU.
12
13
Contention:
Union: the following employees are the only ones to be
excluded:
1. all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire
employees
2. confidential employees
3. those with access to labor relations materials
4. Chief Cashiers
5. Assistant Cashiers
6. personnel of the Telex Department
7. one Human Resources (HR) staff
(See case for the list of excluded employees in the 1998-2000
CBA)
SOLE: maintained the previous exclusions because petitioner
failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the
list qualify for exclusion
Note: The disqualification of managerial and confidential
employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence.
Issue: WON Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees,
such that they should be excluded.
Held/Ratio:
Bank cashiers
They are confidential employees as held in the case of National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) - Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter v. Torres.
They have control,custody and/or access to confidential matters like the cash position, financial statements, vault combination,
etc.
Telex Department
They are confidential employees as held in Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja.
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
14
They have access to confidential information which may become the source of undue advantage. They may act as spy or spies of
either party to a collective bargaining agreement.
Personnel staff (HR)
They are also confidential employees.
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.
HOWEVER
Union failed to substantiate its claim. They failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are
actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should, accordingly, be included in the
appropriate bargaining unit.
They could not simply rely on jurisprudence without explaining how and why it should apply to this case. Allegations must be
supported by evidence.
Dispositive: Petition is DENIED.
CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC (CENECO) V. SECRETARY OF DOLE AND CENECO UNION OF RATIONAL
EMPLOYEES (CURE)
Facts:
Aug. 15, 1987 - CENECO entered into a CBA with CURE, union representing rank-and-file employees, with 3 years term from
April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990.
Dec. 9, 1989 - CURE members had a general assembly wherein they agreed that union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall
the union members' membership from CENECO in order to avail of the full benefits under the existing CBA entered into by and
between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits that union may avail of under the renewed CBA. This was ratified by
259 of the 362 union members.
Dec. 28, 1989 - CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new CBA. This was denied on the ground
that under applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative
are not entitled to form or join a union.
Feb. 27, 1990 - Withdrawal of membership was denied by CENECO as the basis was not among the ground covered by the
Board Resolution No. 5023. CURE filed petition for direct recognition or for certification election. CENECO filed motion to dismiss.
CENECO cited the case of Batangas I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Romeo A. Young which held that employees who at
the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join unions for purposes of collective bargaining
agreement, for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.
Med-Arbiter (Serapio): granted the petition for certification of election, denied motion to dismiss
DOLE: directly certified CURE as the exclusive bargaining representative
Contention: CENECO: Secretary committed a grave abuse of discretion in not applying to the present case the doctrine enunciated in the
BATANGAS case
Issue: WON employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes
of the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement proposed by the latter. Held: Yes
Ratio:
Batangas case merely declared employees who are AT THE SAME TIME members of the cooperative cannot join labor unions for
purposes of collective bargaining. The case DID NOT state that member-employees are prohibited from withdrawing their
membership in the cooperative in order to join a labor union.
Article I, Section 9 of the Articles of Incorporation and By- Laws of CENECO:
any member may withdraw from membership upon compliance with such uniform terms and conditions as the Board may
prescribe x x x upon withdrawal, the member is merely required to surrender his membership certificate and he is to be
refunded his membership fee less any obligation that he has with the cooperative.
Thus, there is no other condition imposed on the withdrawing member and the denial of CENECO is unjustified.
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
15
The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed.
The policy of the State to afford full protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective bargaining mandates that the
employees' right to form and join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration.
Membership in an electric cooperative which merely vests in the member a right to vote during the annual meeting is too trivial
and insubstantial vis-a-vis the primordial and more important constitutional right of an employee to join a union of his choice.
The 390 employees of CENECO, some of whom have never been members of the cooperative, represent a very small
percentage of the cooperative's total membership of 44,000. It is inconceivable how the withdrawal of a negligible number of
members could adversely affect the business concerns and operations of CENECO.
Issue: W/N the claim of immunity by the ICMC and IRRI from the application of Philippine labor laws is valid
Held: YES. The status of ICMC as a specialized agency and that of the IRRI as an international organization exempts it the application of
labor laws.
Ratio:
Re: Concept of immunity granted to Ios and Specialized Agencies
3 propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to international organizations:
1. For the effective discharge of their functions;
2. No country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common international funds; and
3. The IOs should be accorded the facilities for the conduct of its official business
PURPOSE OF IMMUNITY: to shield the affairs of IOS from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member
States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
Re: Contention that immunity from local jurisdiction allegedly deprives labor of its basic rights
There is alternative recourse available, i.e. FOR ICMC: other z of settlement, and withdrawal of accorded privileges and immunites; FOR
IRRI: formation of a Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM)
BLOCK B 2013 - DAWAY
16
17
18
19