7. National Sugar Refineries Corp. vs.

NLRC and NBSR Supervisory Union

G.R. No. 101761, ! "ar#$ 1%%&
'opi#( Supervisors, like manager, not entitled to overtime pay.
)a#ts(
1. Petitioner, a corporation which is fully owned and controlled by the government, operates three refineries located at
Bukidnon, Iloilo and Batangas.
2. espondent union represents the former supervisors of the !"S#$%&' Batangas sugar refinery.
(. In 1))*, petitioner implemented a +ob $valuation program affecting all employees, from rank and file to department
heads.
,. -ith the implementation of the +ob $valuation program, members of the respondent union were re.classified under
levels S./ to S* which are considered managerial staff for purposes of compensation and benefits.
/. In 0ay, 1))1, petitioner recogni2ed herein respondent union, which was organi2ed pursuant to " 341/ allowing
supervisory employees to form their own unions, as the bargaining representative of all the supervisory employees
at the petitioner5s plant in Batangas.
3. In +une 1))1, respondent union filed a complaint with the e6ecutive labor arbiter for non.payment of overtime, rest
day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of "rticle 111 of the 7abor &ode.
4. 7abor arbiter directed to pay the wages complained of
*. !7& affirmed the decision of 7abor "rbiter on the ground that members of the respondent union are not
managerial employees, and, therefore they are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay. 8hey declared that
these supervisory employees are merely e6ercising recommendatory powers sub9ect to the evaluation, review and
final action by their department heads.
). :ence this appeal
*ssue( -'! the members of respondent union are entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay;
+eld( !o, for the reason that they are considered as members of the managerial staff, as mentions in "rticle *2 of the
7abor &ode.
Ratio(
1. "rticle *2 of the 7abor &ode <&overage=
2. >"s used herein, >managerial employees? refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or
members of the managerial staff.?
(. In this case, though these supervisors are not managers, they are clearly officers or members of the managerial
staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and hence, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day.
,. Promotion of its employees is one of the 9urisprudentially.recogni2ed e6clusive prerogatives of management,
provided it is done in good faith. In the case, private respondent union has miserably failed to convince this court
that the petitioner acted implementing the +$ program. 8here is no showing that the +$ Program was intended to
circumvent the law and deprive the members of respondent union of the benefits they used to receive.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@