Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
SAN
MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED,
Petitioner, -versus- SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT UNION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 146206 Present: CARPIO,* J., VELASCO, J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, and SERENO,**JJ. Promulgated: August 1, 2011 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
The issues in
the present case, relating to the inclusion of employees in supervisor levels 3
and 4 and the exempt employees in the proposed bargaining unit, thereby
allowing their participation in the certification election; the application of
the community or mutuality of interests test; and the determination of the
employees who belong to the category of confidential employees, are not
novel.
In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation
Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma,[1] the
Court held that even if they handle confidential data regarding technical and
internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt
employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered
confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations,
particularly, negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Court also declared that the employees
belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia
Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community
or mutuality of interests, constitute a single bargaining unit. They perform work of the same nature, receive
the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in
concerted activities. It was immaterial
that the three plants have different locations as they did not impede the
operations of a single bargaining representative.[2]
Pursuant to the Court's decision in
G.R. No. 110399, the Department of Labor and Employment National Capital
Region (DOLE-NCR) conducted pre-election conferences.[3] However, there was a discrepancy in the list
of eligible voters, i.e., petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees
for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while respondent
listed 60 and 82, respectively.[4]
On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan issued an Order[5]
directing Election Officer Cynthia Tolentino to proceed with the conduct of
certification election in accordance with Section 2, Rule XII of Department
Order No. 9.
On September 30, 1998, a certification
election was conducted and it yielded the following results,[6]
thus:
Cabuyao
San Fernando Total
Plant Plant
Yes 23 23 46
No 0 0 0
Spoiled 2 0 2
Segregated 41 35
76
Total Votes
Cast
66 58 124
On the date of the election, September
30, 1998, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters,[7]
questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds
that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks
to represent or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship
with petitioner. Specifically, it argued
that certain employees should not be allowed to vote as they are: (1) confidential employees; (2) employees
assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not covered by the
bargaining unit; (3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing
managerial work and scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who belong to the
Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who are members
of other unions.
On October 21, 1998, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing
respondent to submit proof showing that the employees in the submitted list are
covered by the original petition for certification election and belong to the
bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise, directing petitioner to
substantiate the allegations contained in its Omnibus Objections and Challenge
to Voters.[8]
In compliance thereto, respondent
averred that (1) the bargaining unit contemplated in the original petition is
the Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation, now known as San Miguel Foods,
Inc.; (2) it covered the operations in
Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao,
Laguna or San Fernando, Pampanga; and (3) it submitted individual and separate
declarations of the employees whose votes were challenged in the election.[9]
Adding the results to the number of votes
canvassed during the September 30, 1998 certification election, the final tally
showed that: number of eligible voters
149; number of valid votes cast 121; number of spoiled ballots - 3; total
number of votes cast 124, with 118 (i.e., 46 + 72 = 118 ) Yes votes
and 3 No votes.[10]
The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution[11]
dated February 17, 1999 directing the parties to appear before the Election
Officer of the Labor Relations Division on March 9, 1999, 10:00 a.m., for the
opening of the segregated ballots.
Thereafter, on April 12, 1999, the segregated ballots were opened,
showing that out of the 76 segregated
votes, 72
were cast for Yes and 3 for No, with one spoiled ballot.[12]
Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter
issued the Order[13]
dated April 13, 1999, stating that since the Yes vote received 97% of the
valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent
of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry
Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE
Undersecretary, in the Resolution[14]
dated July 30, 1999, in OS-A-2-70-91 (NCR-OD-M-9010-017), affirmed the Order dated April 13, 1999, with
modification that George C. Matias, Alma Maria M. Lozano, Joannabel T. Delos
Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be excluded from the bargaining unit which
respondent seeks to represent. She opined
that the challenged voters should be excluded from the bargaining unit, because
Matias and Lozano are members of Magnolia Poultry Processing Plants Monthly
Employees Union, while Delos Reyes and Pajaron are employees of San Miguel
Corporation, which is a separate and distinct entity from petitioner.
Petitioners Partial Motion for Reconsideration[15]
dated August 14, 1999 was denied by the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary in the
Order[16] dated
August 27, 1999.
In the Decision[17]
dated April 28, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510, entitled San
Miguel Foods, Inc. v. The Honorable Office of the Secretary of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Relations, and San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union,
the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
with modification the Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of the DOLE
Undersecretary, stating that those holding the positions
of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
bargaining unit.
Petitioners Motion for
Partial Reconsideration[18]
dated May 23, 2000 was denied by the CA in the Resolution[19]
dated November 28, 2000.
Hence, petitioner filed this present
petition raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS
DEPARTED FROM JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
DEFINED BY THIS COURT'S RULING IN G.R. NO. 110399.
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS
DEPARTED FROM JURISPRUDENCE - SPECIFICALLY, THIS COURT'S DEFINITION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE - WHEN IT RULED FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE PAYROLL
MASTER POSITION IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
III.
WHETHER THIS PETITION IS A REHASH
OR A RESURRECTION OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN G.R. NO. 110399, AS ARGUED BY
PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
Petitioner contends
that with the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 110399[20] identifying the specific employees who can
participate in the certification election, i.e., the supervisors
(levels 1 to 4) and exempt employees of San Miguel Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, the CA erred in expanding the scope of the
bargaining unit so as to include employees who do not belong to or who are not
based in its Cabuyao or San Fernando plants.
It also alleges that the employees of the Cabuyao, San Fernando, and
Otis plants of petitioners predecessor, San Miguel Corporation, as stated in
G.R. No. 110399, were engaged in dressed chicken processing, i.e., handling and packaging of chicken
meat, while the new bargaining unit, as defined by the CA in the present case,
includes employees engaged in live chicken operations, i.e., those who breed chicks and grow chickens.
Respondent counters
that petitioners proposed exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining
unit was a rehashed issue which was already settled in G.R. No. 110399. It maintains that the issue of union
membership coverage should no longer be raised as a certification election already
took place on September 30, 1998, wherein respondent won with 97% votes.
Petitioners
contentions are erroneous. In G.R. No.
110399, the Court explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute
a single bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union
policy. An appropriate bargaining unit
is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of
all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.[21]
In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development
Company Workers Union United Lumber
and General Workers of the Phils,[22]
the Court, taking into account the community or mutuality of interests test,
ordered the formation of a single bargaining unit consisting of the Sawmill
Division in Butuan City and the Logging Division in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao,
Agusan [Del] Norte of the Mainit Lumber Development Company. It held that while the existence of a
bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the
appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is community or
mutuality of interest. This is so
because the basic test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is
whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to
all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.[23] Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest
among the employees of the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in the same way
that the company needs them both. There
may be differences as to the nature of their individual assignments, but the
distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining
unit.[24]
Thus, applying the
ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that there
should be only one bargaining unit for
the employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando,
and Otis[25]
of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in dressed chicken processing and
Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in live chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific line of
work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other
relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from
each other, the specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and
there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single
bargaining unit.
Petitioner asserts that
the CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master in the definition of a confidential employee and,
thus, prays that the said position and all other positions with access to
salary and compensation data be excluded from the bargaining unit.
This argument must
fail. Confidential employees are defined
as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the
field of labor relations.[26] The two criteria are cumulative, and both
must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship
must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must
handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of
employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management
policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be
accomplished by the confidential employee rule.[27]
A confidential employee
is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or
care and protection of the employers property.[28] Confidential employees, such as accounting
personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to
confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.[29] However,
such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut
of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and
compensation data. The CA correctly held
that the position of Payroll Master
does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the
course of the performance of his functions.
Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and
regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be
excluded from the subject bargaining unit.
Corollarily, although
Article 245[30]
of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor
organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to
confidential employees or those who by
reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees
and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.[31] Confidential employees are thus excluded from
the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The
rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor
organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees, because if
allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their
loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become
company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the union
membership.[32] Having access
to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source
of undue advantage. Said employees may
act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.[33]
In this regard, the CA
correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant belong to the category of confidential employees and, hence, are
excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective positions and
job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant,[34]
the scope of ones work necessarily involves labor relations,
recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and
compensation package, and human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant,[35]
one's work includes the recording of minutes for management during collective
bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and
administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from
the petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their
functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which
outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.
The proceedings for
certification election are quasi-judicial
in nature and, therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain
finality.[36] Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the
present case pertaining to the coverage
of the employees who would constitute the bargaining unit is now a foregone
conclusion.
It bears stressing that
a certification election is the sole concern of the workers; hence, an employer
lacks the personality to dispute the same.
The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the
process of certification election, since this is the sole concern of the
workers.[37] Law and policy demand that employers take a
strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining
representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence
of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its
loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.[38] The only exception is where the employer
itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258[39]
of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively.[40]
With the foregoing
disquisition, the Court writes finis to
the issues raised so as to forestall future suits of similar nature.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated April 28, 2000 and Resolution dated November 28, 2000 of the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510, which affirmed with modification the
Resolutions dated July 30, 1999 and August 27, 1999 of the Secretary of Labor,
are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
Third
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
*
Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per
Special Order No. 1056a dated July 27, 2011.
**
Designated
as an a additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
[1] 343
Phil. 143 (1997).
[2] Id.
at 151, 153-154.
[3] Per
petitioners Reply to Comment dated January 6, 2004, its Otis Plant is no
longer operational.
[4] See CA Decision dated April 28, 2000, p.
5; rollo, p. 15.
[5] Rollo,
pp. 127-130.
[6] Supra note 4.
[7] Rollo, pp. 131-133.
[8] See Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of then
Acting DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, id. at 84.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Rollo, pp. 142-150.
[12] Supra note 8.
[13] Rollo, pp. 88-89.
[14] Per
then Acting DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, id. at
83-86.
[15] CA
rollo, pp. 130-141.
[16] Rollo,
p. 87.
[17] Penned
by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Corona
Ibay-Somera and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; id. at 11-26.
[18] CA
rollo, pp. 437-449.
[19] Penned
by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Elvi
John S. Asuncion and Eliezer R. Delos Santos, concurring, rollo, pp.
28-29.
[20] San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and
Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra
note 1.
[21] Id. at 153, citing University of the Philippines v. Calleja-Ferrer, 211 SCRA 464
(1992), which cited Rothenberg on Labor
Relations, p. 482.
[22] G.R.
No. 79526, December 21, 1990, 192 SCRA 598.
[23] Id. at 602, citing Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., et al.,
103 Phil 1103 (1958).
[24] Id.
[25] See note
3.
[26] Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., v. Laguesma,
G.R. No. 381 Phil. 414, 424 (2000), citing San
Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note 1, at 374, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB (CA6)
398 F2d. 689 (1968), Ladish Co., 178
NLRB 90 (1969) and B.F. Goodrich Co., 115
NLRB 722 (1956).
[27] Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia
Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. 162025, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 376,
387, citing San Miguel Corp. Supervisors
and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra
note 1, at 374-375, which cited Westinghouse
Electric Corp. v. NLRB, id., Ladish Co., id., and B.F. Goodrich Co.,
id.
[28] Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 103300, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 104,
116.
[29] Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 256
Phil. 903, 909 (1989), cited in Standard
Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank,
G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 284, 291-292 and Philips
Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210
SCRA 339, 348.
[30] Art.
245. Ineligibility of managerial
employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. - Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible
for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees
but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or
legitimate labor organizations of their own.
The rank-and-file union and the supervisor's union operating within the
supervisors union operating within the same establishment may join the same
federation or national union.
[31] Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia
Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., supra note
27, at 381, citing Metrolab Industries,
Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 108855, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182,
197.
[32] Id. at 381-382, citing Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez,
228 Phil. 600, 608-609 (1986).
[33] Id. at 382, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note 29.
[34] Human
Resource Assistant: To support
the human resources objectives of the MPPP, MPF this position shall provide
coordination, advice, information and assistance to the plant personnel manager
in the following duties:
MANPOWER PLANNING (PROCESS[ING] AND
LIVE)
1.1. Assists and participates
in the studies on manning and manpower forecasts needed to meet the current and
future personnel requirements of processing, live operations.
1.2. Checks plans for the
implementation of staff movements such as transfers, promotions and separations
of both processing [and] live operations.
1.3 Coordinates with all
department[s] for the consolidation of manpower cost budget and its complement.
1.4 Provides updated organization to the plant
management.
COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION (PROCESSING
AND LIVE)
2.1 Initially evaluates and
classifies all positions.
2.2 Prepares salary analyses
and recommendations for consultation with compensation dept.
2.3 Develops/updates
compensation packages for specific personnel when the need arises.
2.4 Administers compensation-related
benefits, such as extra time worked allowance, special allowance, supplementary
allowance, housing assistance, per diem,
relocation expense reimbursement, etc.
2.5 Provide the Personnel
Manager Officer and Compensation Department with the records related to
Compensation such as salary profiles per classification used negotiations.
RECRUITMENT (PROCESSING, LIVE)
3.1 Conducts preliminary
interview of applicants before giving tests.
3.2 Coordinates with Dept.
Heads/Managers pertaining to internal recruitment selection and hiring of
qualified applicants.
3.3. Checks all pre-employment
papers of the applicants to ensure its completeness such as the requisition,
approved Plantilla, applicants SSS number and TIN, etc. (CA rollo, pp. 66-67) (Emphasis supplied.)
[35] Personnel Assistant:
LABOR RELATIONS
1.
Records minutes during Labor Management Cooperation dialogues and CBA
negotiations meeting and facilitates the same when requested.
2.
Coordinates Grievance Meeting officially submitted by the Union to Management
and feedbacks PPM on schedules and results.
3.
Provides support to departments in recording of minutes and schedule of
Administrative Investigations.
4. Consults and coordinates with SMB Legal
Group to seek legal clarification or opinion on certain labor issues and
reports to PPM for action.
5. Performs and maintains liaison with union
representative on certain issues to minimize courses of action.
6. Ensures timely preparation
and submission of DOLE monthly and quarterly reportorial requirements.
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
1. Facilitates timely implementation of
Corporate Special Programs in discussion with the PPM aligned with budgeted
costs and Management thrust.
2. Coordinates with local unions for
participation/support in the activities of program implementation and reports
to PPM on results of meetings.
3. Maintains regular dialogues and liaisoning
activities with employees on concern affecting them and provides feedback to
PPM. (Id. at 69-70)
(Emphasis supplied.)
[36] United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU)
v. Laguesma, 351 Phil. 244, 261 (1998) citing B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich (Marikina Factory)
Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU, 151 Phil. 585 (1973).
[37] Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang
Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. - 330 Phil. 472, 493 (1996), citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,
G.R. No. 102130, July 26, 1994, 234 SCRA 517, 523; National Association of Trade
Unions - Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA
546, 551; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v. Laguesma, G.R. No.
101730, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 452, 456-457.
[38] Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang
Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. - NAFLU, supra, citing Golden Farms,
Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, supra.
[39] Art.
258. When an employer may file
petition. - When requested to bargain collectively, an employer
may petition the Bureau for an election.
If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the
unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification election cases
shall be decided within twenty (20) days.
The Bureau shall conduct a
certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
[40]
National Association of Trade Unions - Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, supra note
37.