Atlas Lithographic ServicesVS.Undersec.

Laguesma (DOLE), Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino(KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN)

G.R.No.96566 January 6, 1992

FACTS:

On July 1990, the supervisory, administrative personnel, production, accounting and confidential employees of Atlas
Lithographic Services, Inc.(ALSI) affiliated with Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino,a national labor organization
. These supervisory employees’ name as they have adopted, ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL (Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc.
Supervisory, Administrative, Personnel, Production, Accounting and Confidential Employees Association). Thereafter,
KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN filed a certification election so that it can be the sole bargaining agent of the supervisory
employees. However, Atlas Lithographic Services Inc. opposed the certification election and ATLAS LITHOGRAPIC
SERVICES’s contention: that under the law (art.245 of LC) KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN cannot represent the supervisory for
collective bargaining purposes because they (KAMPIL) also represents the rank-and-file employees.- A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST MAY ARISE in Collective bargaining and strike, and discipline. KAMPIL’s contention: despite affiliation with a
national federation, the local union does not lose its personality which is separate, and distinct from the national
federation. It applies the 1984 Adamson Case –that interprets the right of a supervisor’s union to affiliate under the
Industrial Act. On Sept. 1990, the Med Arbiter ordered the conduct of the certification election.

ISSUE: Whether under Article 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to
Affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees

HELD:

PETITION GRANTED. ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL prohibited from affiliating with a national labor union of rank-and-file
employees. Adamson case not applicable in this case. Because in Adamson the rank-and-file employees are not under
the supervisor’s union as in the case before us. Also, the national union in Adamson case did not actively represent its
local chapters, unlike in this case where KAMPIL even filed for certification election to represent the supervisors.**

PROHIBITION: a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-
and-file employeeswhere that federation actively participates in union activity in the company. The prohibition 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. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors
will be co-minglingwith those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.

NOTA BENE:

The interests of supervisors on the one hand, and the rank-and-file employees on the other, are separate and distinct.
The functions of supervisors, being recommendatory in nature, are more identified with the interests of the employer.
The performance of those functions may, thus, run counter to the interests of the rank-and-file. Also, Members of the
supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co-member rank-and-file employees. In
the area of bargaining, their interests cannot be considered identical. The needs of one are different from those of the
other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a
sympathy strike on the sole basis of affiliation.**The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not
managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of
subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank-and-file