023 TUNAY

NA
PAGKAKAISA
NG
MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY,
vs.ASIA BREWERY, INC.,
G.R. No. 162025
August 3, 2010
TOPIC:Confidential Employees
PONENTE:VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Respondent insisted they fall under th

"Confidential and Executive Secretaries
expressly excluded by the CBA from th
rank-and-file bargaining unit. However
perusal of the job descriptions of thes
secretaries/clerks
reveals
that
the
assigned duties and responsibilities involv
routine
activities
of
recording
an
monitoring, and other paper works for the
respective departments while secretaria
tasks such as receiving telephone calls an
filing of office correspondence appear t
have been commonly imposed as additiona
duties.

FACTS:
1. Respondent Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) is engaged in the manufacture, sale an
distribution of beer, shandy, bottled water and glass products. ABI entered into
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), effective for five (5) years with Bisig a
LakasngmgaManggagawasa Asia-Independent (BLMA), the exclusive bargainin
representative of ABIs rank-and-file employees. Under the CBA, 12 jobs were defined t
be excluded from the bargaining agreement.
2. Subsequently, a dispute arose when ABIs management stopped deducting union due
from eighty-one (81) employees, believing that their membership in BLMA violated th
CBA.
3. BLMA claimed that ABIs actions restrained the employees right to self-organizatio
and brought the matter to the grievance machinery. As the parties failed to amicabl
settle the controversy, BLMA lodged a complaint before the National Conciliation an
Mediation Board (NCMB). The parties eventually agreed to submit the case for arbitratio
to resolve the issue of "whether or not there is restraint to employees in the exercise o
their right to self-organization."
4. Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) ruled in favor of BLMA. Accordingly, the subject employee
were declared eligible for inclusion within the bargaining unit represented by BLMA. O
appeal by ABI to the CA, it reversed the VA, ruling that the 81 employees are exclude
from and are not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in Section 2
Article I of the CBA; the 81 employees cannot validly become members of responden
and/or if already members, that their membership is violative of the CBA and that the
should disaffiliate from respondent; andpetitioner has not committed any act tha
restrained or tended to restrain its employees in the exercise of their right to sel
organization.
5. In the meantime, a certification election was held on August 10, 2002 wherei
petitioner TunaynaPagkakaisangManggagawasa Asia (TPMA) won. As the incumben
bargaining representative of ABIs rank-and-file employees claiming interest in th
outcome of the case, petitioner filed with the CA an omnibus motion for reconsideratio
of the decision and intervention, with attached petition signed by the union officers. Bot
motions were denied by the CA
ISSUE:
Whether or not the workers were confidential employees

HELD: No. We hold that the secretaries/clerks, numbering about forty (40), are rank-and
file employees and not confidential employees.
RATIO
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist an
labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibitio
to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work ar
required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, ar

likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.Confidential employees are thu
excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate categor
and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition fo
managerial employees because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union, the latter migh
not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union ca
also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in th
Union membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employee
may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy o
spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.

In the present case, the CBA expressly excluded "Confidential and Executive Secretaries
from the rank-and-file bargaining unit, for which reason ABI seeks their disaffiliation from
petitioner.Respondent failed to indicate who among these numerous workers have acces
to confidential data relating to management policies that could give rise to potentia
conflict of interest with their Union membership. Clearly, the rationale under our previou
rulings for the exclusion of executive secretaries or division secretaries would have littl
or no significance considering the lack of or very limited access to confidentia
information of these secretaries/clerks. It is not even farfetched that the job categor
may exist only on paper since they are all daily-paid workers. Quite understandably
petitioner had earlier expressed the view that the positions were just being "reclassified
as these employees actually discharged routine functions.We thus hold that th
secretaries/clerks, numbering about forty (40), are rank-and-file employees and no
confidential employees.

Sub Issue:
Whether or not the company committed unfair labor practice by restraining to employee
in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Held: No. Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in th
interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit
respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor practice that restrained it
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, nor have thereb
demonstrated an anti-union stance.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidentia
capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policie
in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if a
employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidentia
relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the superviso
must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. In the present case
there is no showing that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in
confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential informatio
relating to labor relations policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to interna
business operations of the company, as respondent claims, this is not per se ground fo
their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees.