San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union vs.

Laguesma
(1997, Romero
!"C#S
Oct. 5, 1990: Union fled with the DOLE a Petition for District Certifcation or Certifcation
Election amon the s!"er#isors and e$em"t em"lo%ees of the &'C 'anolia Po!ltr%
Prod!cts Plants of Ca(!%ao, &an )ernando and Otis.
Dec. 19, 1990: 'ed*+r(iter Danilo ,e%nante iss!ed an Order orderin the cond!ct of
certifcation amon the s!"er#isors and e$em"t em"lo%ees of the &'C 'anolia Po!ltr%
Prod!cts Plants of Ca(!%ao, &an )ernando and Otis as one bargaining unit.
-an. 1., 1991: &'C fled a /otice of +""eal with 'emorand!m on +""eal, "ointin o!t
the 'ed*+r(iter0s error in ro!"in toether all 1 se"arate "lants into one (arainin
!nit, and in incl!din s!"er#isor% le#els 1 and a(o#e whose "ositions are confdential in
nature.
o -!l% 21, 1991: La(or Usec. La!esma ranted &'C0s +""eal and ordered the remand
of the case to the 'ed*+r(iter of oriin for determination of the tr!e classifcation of
each of the em"lo%ees so!ht to (e incl!ded in the a""ro"riate (arainin !nit.
U"on Union0s motion 3+!. 4, 19915, La!esma ranted the reconsideration "ra%ed for
and directed the cond!ct of se"arate certifcation elections amon the s!"er#isors
ran6ed as s!"er#isor% le#els 1 to 7 3&1 to &75 and the e$em"t em"lo%ees in each of the
three "lants at Ca(!%ao, &an )ernando and Otis.
o &e"t. 21, 1991: &'C fled a '), with 'otion to s!s"end "roceedins.
'ar. 11, 1991: Order was iss!ed (% La!esma rantin the 'otion, citin Philips
Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC. 8Confdential em"lo%ees, li6e manaerial
em"lo%ees, are not allowed to form, 9oin or assist a la(or !nion for "!r"oses of
collecti#e (arainin. :ere, &1 and &7 and the so*called e$em"t em"lo%ees are
admittedl% confdential em"lo%ees and therefore, the% are not allowed to form,
9oin or assist a la(or !nion for "!r"oses of collecti#e (arainin followin the
a(o#e co!rt0s r!lin. Conse;!entl%, the% are not allowed to "artici"ate in the
certifcation election.<
$SSUES%&EL'%RUL$()*
1. =hether &!"er#isor% em"lo%ees 1 and 7 and the e$em"t em"lo%ees of the com"an% are
considered confdential em"lo%ees, hence inelii(le from 9oinin a !nion. (+.
>he said em"lo%ees, s!"er#isors and the e$em"t em"lo%ees, are not #ested with the
"owers and "reroati#es to la% down and e$ec!te manaement "olicies and?or to hire,
transfer, s!s"end, la%o@, recall, dischare or dismiss em"lo%ees. >h!s, the% are not
managerial employees who, !nder +.275 3LC5, are not elii(le to 9oin, assist or form an%
la(or oraniAation. Bn the same "ro#ision, the% are not allowed mem(ershi" in a la(or
oraniAation of the ran6*and*fle em"lo%ees but ma% 9oin, assist or form se"arate la(or
oraniAations of their on.
Con,dential employees* >hose who 315 assist or act in a confdential ca"acit%, 325 to
"ersons who form!late, determine, and e@ect!ate manaement "olicies in the feld of
la(or relations.
o Coth m!st (e met if an em"lo%ee is to (e considered a confdential em"lo%ee 3the
confdential relationshi" m!st e$ist (etween the em"lo%ees and his s!"er#isor, and
the s!"er#isor m!st handle the "rescri(ed res"onsi(ilities relatin to la(or relations5.
>he e$cl!sion from (arainin !nits of em"lo%ees who, in the normal co!rse of their
d!ties, (ecome aware of manaement "olicies relatin to la(or relations is a "rinci"al
o(9ecti#e so!ht to (e accom"lished (% the confdential employee rule.
o ,ationale: !mployees should not be placed in a position involving a potential con"ict
of interests. 'anaement sho!ld not (e re;!ired to handle la(or relations matters
thro!h em"lo%ees who are re"resented (% the !nion with the com"an% is re;!ired
to deal and who in the normal "erformance of their d!ties ma% o(tain ad#ance
information of the com"an%0s "osition with reard to contract neotiations, the
dis"osition of rie#ances, or other la(or relations matters.
o #ulletin Publishing Company v. $on. %ugusto &anche': Bf these manaerial
em"lo%ees wo!ld (elon to or (e aDliated with a Union, the latter miht not (e
ass!red of their lo%alt% to the Union in #iew of e#ident conEict of interest. >he Union
can also (ecome com"an%*dominated with the "resence of manaerial em"lo%ees in
Union mem(ershi".
o Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC: Confdential em"lo%ees, (% the #er%
nat!re of their f!nctions, assist and act in a confdential ca"acit% to, or ha#e access
to confdential matters of, "ersons who e$ercise manaerial f!nctions in the feld of
la(or relations. >herefore, the rationale (ehind the inelii(ilit% of manaerial
em"lo%ees to form, assist or 9oin a la(or !nion was held e;!all% a""lica(le to them.
Bn determinin the confdentialit% of certain em"lo%ees, a 6e% ;!estion fre;!entl%
considered is the em"lo%ees0 necessar% access to confdential la(or relations
information.
o &'C: &!"er#isor% em"lo%ees 1 and 7 and the e$em"t em"lo%ees are confdential
em"lo%ees (eca!se the% answered in the aDrmati#e when as6ed Do you handle
confdential data or documents( in the Position F!estionnaires s!(mitted (% the
Union.
o CU>G Bn the same ;!estionnaire, it was also stated that the confdential information
handled (% ;!estioned em"lo%ees relate to product formulation, product standards
and product specifcation which (% no means relate to 8la(or relations.<
Hrantin arguendo that an em"lo%ee has access to confdential la(or relations
information (!t s!ch is merely incidental to his duties and 6nowlede thereof is not
necessar% in the "erformance of s!ch d!ties, said access does not render the em"lo%ee
a confdential em"lo%ee.
o Bf access to confdential la(or relations information is to (e a factor in the
determination of an em"lo%ee0s confdential stat!s, such information must relate to
the employer)s labor relations policies.
o :E,E: )rom the foreoin f!nctions 3discontin!e?tem"oraril% sto" shift o"erationsI
o#ersee ;!alit% control f!nction at "rocessin linesI administer eDcient s%stem of
"rod!ct e#al!ation, etc.5, it can (e leaned that the confdential information said
em"lo%ees ha#e access to concern the employer)s internal business operations.
o *estinghouse !lectric Corporation v. National Labor Relations #oard: +n em"lo%ee
ma% not (e e$cl!ded from a""ro"riate (arainin !nit merel% (eca!se he has access
to confdential information concernin em"lo%er0s internal (!siness o"erations and
which is not related to the feld of la(or relations.
+.11, &.1, 19.4 Const. mandates the &tate to !arantee to all wor6ers the riht to self*
oraniAation. :ence, confdential em"lo%ees who ma% (e e$cl!ded from (arainin !nit
m!st (e strictl% defned so as not to needlessl% de"ri#e man% em"lo%ees of their riht
(arain collecti#el% thro!h re"resentati#es of their choosin.
o :E,E: &!"er#isors 1 and a(o#e ma% not (e considered confdential em"lo%ees merel%
(eca!se the% handle confdential data as s!ch m!st frst (e strictl% classifed as
"ertainin to la(or relations for them to fall !nder said restrictions. >he information
the% handle are "ro"erl% classifa(le as technical and internal (!siness o"erations
data which has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the
interests of a !nion and the manaement are in#aria(l% ad#ersarial.
o >h!s, the% ma% a""ro"riatel% form a (arainin !nit for "!r"oses of collecti#e
(arainin. E#en ass!min that the% are confdential em"lo%ees, 9!ris"r!dence has
esta(lished that there is no leal "rohi(ition aainst confdential em"lo%ees who are
not performing managerial functions to form and 9oin a !nion.
-. Bf the% are not confdential em"lo%ees, do the em"lo%ees of the three "lants constit!te
an a""ro"riate sinle (arainin !nit. .ES.
Union: >he creation (% La!esma of 1 se"arate (arainin !nits, one each for Ca(!%ao,
Otis, and &an )ernando, is contrar% to the one+company, one+union policy. &!"er#isors
le#el 1 to 7 and e$em"t em"lo%ees of the 1 "lants ha#e a community of interests.
'E,B>O,BOU&.
"ppropriate /argaining unit* + ro!" of em"lo%ees of a i#en em"lo%er, com"rised of
all or less than all of the entire (od% of em"lo%ees, which the collecti#e interest of all the
em"lo%ees, consistent with e;!it% to the em"lo%er, indicate to (e (est s!ited to ser#e
the reci"rocal rihts and d!ties of the "arties !nder the collecti#e (arainin "ro#isions
of the law.
o + !nit to (e a""ro"riate m!st e@ect a ro!"in of em"lo%ees who ha#e s!(stantial,
m!t!al interests in waes, ho!rs, wor6in conditions and other s!(9ects of collecti#e
(arainin.
o :E,E: >he em"lo%ees concerned ha#e comm!nit% or m!t!alit% of interest, which is
the standard in determinin the "ro"er constit!enc% of a collecti#e (arainin !nit.
>he% all (elon to the 'anolia Po!ltr% Di#ision of &'C. +ltho!h the% (elon to
three di@erent "lants, the% "erform wor6 of the same nat!re, recei#e the same waes
and com"ensation, and most im"ortantl%, share a common sta6e in concerted
acti#ities.
O&H: &e"arate (arainin !nits in the 1 di@erent "lants of the di#ision will fragmenti'e
the employees of the said di#ision, th!s greatly diminishing their bargaining
leverage. +n% concerted acti#it% held aainst &'C for a la(or rie#ance in one
(arainin !nit will, in all "ro(a(ilit%, not create m!ch im"act on the its o"erations. >his
sit!ation will clearl% fr!strate the "ro#isions of the La(or Code and the 'andate of the
Constit!tion.
>he fact that the 1 "lants are located in three di@erent "laces is
immaterial. Heora"hical location can (e com"letel% disrearded if the comm!nal or
m!t!al interests of the em"lo%ees are not sacrifced 3cf. ,P v. Calle-a+.errer * all non*
academic ran6 and fle em"lo%ees of the UPD, UP', UPLC, UPJ were allowed to
"artici"ate in a certifcation election5.
o >he distance amon the 1 "lants is not "rod!cti#e of ins!rmo!nta(le diDc!lties in
the administration of !nion a@airs. /either are there reional di@erences that are
li6el% to im"ede the o"erations of a sinle (arainin re"resentati#e.