35.

PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL

WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (PMTIULGWF) vs. PURA FERRERCALLEJA

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES RESPRESENTED BY PETITIONER UNION POSSESS

MANAGERIAL STATUS

HELD: NO. Testofsupervisoryormanagerialstatusdepends

onwhetherapersonpossessesauthoritytoactintheinterestofhis
employerandwhethersuchauthorityisnotmerelyroutinaryor
clericalinnaturebutrequirestheuseofindependentjudgment.

The public respondent, in its factual findings, found that the supervisory employees sought to be
represented by the respondent union are not involved in policymaking and their recommendatory
powers are not even instantly effective since the same are still subject to review by at least three
managerial heads (department manager, personnel manager and general manager) before final action
can be taken. Hence, it is evidently settled that the said employees do not possess a managerial status.
The fact that their work designations are either managers or supervisors is of no moment considering
that it is the nature of their functions and not the said nomenclatures or titles of their jobs which
determines their statuses.
36. PAPERINDUSTRIESCORPORATIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.
HON.BIENVENIDOE.LAGUESMA

ISSUE:WHETHERORNOTTHECONCERNEDSUPERVISORYEMPLOYEES
ANDSECTIONHEADSPOSSESSMANAGERIALSTATUS

HELD:NO.InUnitedPepsiCola
SupervisoryUnion(UPSU)v.Laguesma,wehadoccasiontoelucidateontheterm
managerialemployees.ManagerialemployeesarerankedasTopManagers,
MiddleManagersandFirstLineManagers.TopandMiddleManagershavethe
authoritytodevise,implementandcontrolstrategicandoperationalpolicies
whilethetaskofFirstLineManagersissimplytoensurethatsuchpoliciesare
carriedoutbytherankandfileemployeesofanorganization.Underthis
distinction,managerialemployeesthereforefallintwo(2)categories,namely,the
managerspersecomposedofTopandMiddleManagers,andthesupervisors
composedofFirstLineManagers.Thus,themerefactthatanemployeeis
designatedmanagerdoesnotipsofactomakehimone.Designationshouldbe
reconciledwiththeactualjobdescriptionoftheemployee,foritisthejob
descriptionthatdeterminesthenatureofemployment.

Inthepetitionbeforeus,athoroughdissectionofthejobdescriptionoftheconcerned
supervisoryemployeesandsectionheadsindisputablyshowthattheyarenotactually
managerialbutonlysupervisoryemployeessincetheydonotlaydowncompanypolicies.
PICOPscontentionthatthesubjectsectionheadsandunitmanagersexercisethe
authoritytohireandfireisambiguousandquitemisleadingforthereasonthatany
authoritytheyexerciseisnotsupremebutmerelyadvisoryincharacter.Theirsisnota
finaldeterminationofthecompanypoliciesinasmuchasanyactiontakenbythemon
mattersrelativetohiring,promotion,transfer,suspensionandterminationofemployeesis
stillsubjecttoconfirmationandapprovalbytheirrespectivesuperior.Thus,wheresuch
power,whichisineffectrecommendatoryincharacter,issubjecttoevaluation,reviewand
finalactionbythedepartmentheadsandotherhigherexecutivesofthecompany,thesame,
althoughpresent,isnoteffectiveandnotanexerciseofindependentjudgmentasrequired
bylaw.
37.UNITEDPEPSICOLASUPERVISORYUNION(UPSU),petitioner,vs.HON.
BIENVENIDOE.LAGUESMAandPEPSICOLAPRODUCTS,PHILIPPINES,NC.,
respondents.

ISSUE:WHETHERORNOTARTICLE245ISUNCONSTITUTIONALASTO
BANNINGTHESECURITYGUARDS,SUPERVISORYEMPLOYEESTOFORM
UNIONS?

HELD:NO.TherightguaranteedinArt.III,8issubjecttotheconditionthatits
exerciseshouldbeforpurposesnotcontrarytolaw.InthecaseofArt.245,there
isarationalbasisforprohibitingmanagerialemployeesfromformingorjoining
labororganizations.
38.SOUTHERNPHILIPPINESFEDERATIONOFLABOR(SPFL),petitioner,vs.
HONORABLEPURAFERRERCALLEJA

ISSUE:WHETHERORNOTEMPLOYEESOFCONFIDENTIALPAYROLLBE
EXCLUDEDFORTHEBARGAININGUNITDUETONONPAYMENTOF
UNIONFEES

HELD:NO.Asregardstheemployeesintheconfidentialpayroll,thepetitionerhas
notshownthatthenatureoftheirjobsisclassifiedasmanagerialexceptforits
allegationthattheyareconsideredbymanagementasoccupyingmanagerial
positionsandhighlyconfidential.Neithercanpaymentornonpaymentof uniondues
bethedeterminingfactorofwhetherthechallengedemployeesshouldbeexcludedfromthe
bargainingunitsincetheunionshopprovisionintheCBAappliesonlytonewlyhired
employeesbutnottomembersofthebargainingunitwhowerenotmembersoftheunionat
thetimeofthesigningoftheCBA.Itis,therefore,notimpossibleforemployeestobe
membersofthebarganinguniteventhoughtheyarenonunionmembersornotpaying
uniondues.
39. philtranco v BLR

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO FORM AND BE PART OF A
UNION.

HELD: NO. It, therefore, follows that the members of the KASAMA KO who are professional,
technical, administrative and confidential personnel of PHILTRANCO performing
managerial functions are not qualified to join, much less form a union. This rationalizes
the exclusion of managers and confidential employees exercising managerial functions
from the ambit of the collective bargaining unit. As correctly observed by Med-Arbiter
Adap:
... managerial and confidential employees were expressly excluded within
the operational ambit of the bargaining unit for the simple reason that
under the law, managers are disqualified to be members of a labor
organization.
On the other hand, confidential workers were not included because either
they were performing managerial functions and/or their duties and
responsibilities were considered or may be categorized as part and parcel
of management as the primary reason for their exclusion in the bargaining
unit. The other categorized employees were likewise not included because
parties have agreed on the fact that the aforementioned group of workers
are not qualified to join a labor organization at the time the agreement was
executed and that they were classified as outside the parameter of the
bargaining unit. (Rollo, pp. 28-29)
40. golden farms v calleja

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ARE EXEMPT FROM JOINING UNIONS
HELD: YES. Wehavedecreedasdisqualifiedfrombargainingwithmanagementincaseof
BulletinPublishingCo.Inc.vs.Hon.AugustoSanchez,etc.(144SCRA628)reiterating
hereintherationaleforsuchrulingasfollows:ifthesemanagerialemployeeswouldbelong
toorbeaffiliatedwithaUnion,thelattermightnotbeassuredoftheirloyaltytotheUnion
inviewofevidentconflictofinterestsorthattheUnioncanbecompanydominatedwiththe
presenceofmanagerialemployeesinUnionmembership.Amanagerialemployeeisdefined
underArt.212(k)ofthenewLaborCodeasonewhoisvestedwithpowersorprerogatives
tolaydownandexecutemanagementpoliciesand/ortohire,transfer,suspend,layoff,
recall,discharge,assignordisciplineemployees,ortoeffectivelyrecommendsuch
managerialactions.AllemployeesnotfallingwithinthisdefinitionsareconsideredRank
andfileemployeesforpurposesofthisBook.

Thisrationaleholdstruealsoforconfidentialemployeessuchasaccountingpersonnel,
radioandtelegraphoperators,whohavingaccesstoconfidentialinformation,maybecome
thesourceofundueadvantage.Saidemployee(s)mayactasaspyorspiesofeitherpartyto
acollectivebargainingagreement.ThisisEspeciallytrueinthepresentcasewherethe
petitioningUnionisalreadythebargainingagentoftherankandfileemployeesinthe
establishment.ToallowtheconfidentialemployeestojointheexistingUnionoftherank
andfilewouldbeinviolationofthetermsoftheCollectiveBargainingAgreement
whereinthiskindofemployeesbythenatureoftheirfunctions/positionsareexpressly
excluded.
41. PIER 8 V CONFESSOR

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT FOREMEN AND LEGAL SECRETARIES ARE EXCLUDED FROM JOINING UNIONS
HELD: YES. Foremenarechiefandoftenespeciallytrainedworkmenwhoworkwithand
commonlyareinchargeofagroupofemployeesinanindustrialplantorinconstruction
work.Theyarethepersonsdesignatedbytheemployermanagementtodirecttheworkof
employees,andtosuperintendandoverseethem.Theyarerepresentativesoftheemployer
managementwithauthorityoverparticulargroupsofworkers,processes,operations,or
sectionsofaplantoranentireorganization.Inthemodernindustrialplant,theyareat
oncealinkinthechainofcommandandthebridgebetweenmanagementandlabor.Inthe
performanceoftheirwork,foremendefinitelyusetheirindependentjudgmentandare
empoweredtomakerecommendationsformanagerialactionwithrespecttothose
employeesundertheircontrol.Foremenfallsquarelyunderthecategoryofsupervisory
employees,andcannotbepartofrankandfileunions.

ASFORTHELEGALSECRATARIESareneithermanagersnorsupervisors.Theirworkis
basicallyroutinaryandclerical.However,theyshouldbedifferentiatedfromrankandfile
employeesbecausetheyaretaskedwith,amongothers,thetypingoflegaldocuments,
memorandaandcorrespondence,thekeepingofrecordsandfiles,thegivingofand
receivingnotices,andsuchotherdutiesasrequiredbythelegalpersonnelofthe
corporation.Legalsecretariesthereforefallunderthecategoryofconfidentialemployees.
ANDTHUSCANNOTJOINLABORUNIONS
42. SAN MIGUEL V LAGUESMA

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ACCESS TO A CONFIDEMTIAL INFORMATION BE

CONSIDERED AS CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE AND BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BARGANING UNIT
HELD:
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. 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 to the field of labor relations. MORESO,
It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to
guarantee to all workers the right to self-organization. Hence, confidential employees who may be
excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees
of their right to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing.