labor law 2 digest 10 dec.rtf

8/13/2019 Labor Law 2 digest 10 Dec.rtf

1/25


2/25

;urisrudence. ot mentioned in Art. 24" of a)or Code.

-%a is %e raiona!e for ine!igii!iy of $onfidenia! e'!oyees/

1. Conflict of interest2.


3/25

000

Sandard C%arered "'!oyees *nion vs. Sandard C%arered Bank3 C"+ (2004)

FACTS

6he CBA ro!isions in disute are the exclusion of certain emlo*ees:-hether the Bank5s C%ief Cas%iersand Assisan Cas%iers% 'ersonne!of %e Te!e# e'arenand 7 saffare confidential emlo*ees% suchthat the* should )e excluded.

6he union cites Durisrudence to suort that the* are confidentialemlo*ees.

SC*SS+,

-+, ank $as%iers are $onfidenia! e'!oyees/

NATU - Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres:

confidential emlo*ees ha!ing control% custod* and8or access to confidentialmatters% e.g.% the )ranch>s cash osition% statements of financial condition%!ault com)ination% cash codes for telegrahic transfers% demand drafts andother negotia)le instruments% ursuant to Sec. 11.4 of the Central Ban&Manual regarding Doint custod*% and therefore% disualified from Doining orassisting a unionF or Doining% assisting or forming an* other la)or

organiGation.

-+, radio and e!egra'% o'eraors are $onfidenia! e'!oyees/

ha!ing access to confidential information% ma* )ecome the source of unduead!antage. Said emlo*ees ma* act as s* or sies of either art* to acollecti!e )argaining agreement.

-+, 7 saff are $onfidenia! e'!oyees/

confidential emlo*ees )ecause )* the !er* nature of their functions% the*

assist and act in a confidential caacit* to% or ha!e access to confidentialmatters of% ersons -ho exercise managerial functions in the field of la)orrelations.

-%a is %e saus of %ese e'!oyees in %e CBA/

$ES


4/25

6he union did not resent an* e!idence to suort their claim. 6he* cannotsiml* rel* on Durisrudence.

Hence% these emlo*ees are excluded.

000

San Migue! Su'ervisors *nion vs. 8aguesa (199:)

FACTS


5/25

information concerning emlo*er/s internal )usiness oerations and -hich isnot related to the field of la)or relations.@

t is the contention of the emlo*er cororation that Suer!isor* emlo*ees3 and 4 and the exemt emlo*ees come -ithin the meaning of the term

?confidential emlo*ees@ rimaril* )ecause the* ans-ered in the affirmati!e-hen as&ed ?o you %and!e $onfidenia! daa or do$uens/@ in the$osition 7uestionnaires su)mitted )* the


6/25

000

Suguanon 7ura! Bank vs. 8aguesa (2000)

FACTS

At disute is -hether the $redi and $o!!e$ion su'ervisors< and %e$as%iers< a$$ounans and a$ing $%iefs of %e !oans de'aren< ofthe )an& are confidential or managerial emlo*ees.

Ban& contends that it has onl* " officers running its da*0to0da* affairs. 6he*assist in confidential caacities and ha!e comlete access to the )an&>sconfidential data. 6he* form the core of the )an&>s management team.

1 the Head or the oans 5eartment initiall* aro!es the loan alications

)efore the* are assed on to the Board for confirmation. As such% no loanalication is e!en considered )* the Board and aro!ed )* etitioner-ithout his stam of aro!al )ased uon his inter!ie- of the alicant anddetermination of his alicant>s credit standing and financial caacit*. 6hesame holds true -ith resect to rene-als or restructuring of loan accounts.He himself determines -hat account should )e collected% -hetherextraDudiciall* or Dudiciall*% and settles the ro)lem or comlaints of)orro-ers regarding their accountsF

2 the Cashier is one of the aro!ing officers and authoriGed signatories of)an&. He aro!es the oening of accounts% -ithdra-als and encashment%

and accetance of chec& deosits% He deals -ith other )an&s and% in thea)sence of the regular Manager% manages the entire office or )ranch andaro!es dis)ursements of funds for exensesF and

3 the Accountant% -ho heads the Accounting 5eartment% is also one of theauthoriGed signatories of )an& and% in the a)sence of the Manager orCashier% acts as su)stitute aro!ing officer and assumes the managementof the entire office. She handles the financial reorts and re!ie-s thede)it8credit tic&ets su)mitted )* the other deartments.

Ban&: resonsi)ilities of the emlo*ees in!ol!ed constitute the L!er* core of

the )an&>s )usiness% lending of mone* to clients and )orro-ers% e!aluatingtheir caacit* to a*% aro!ing the loan and its amount% scheduling theterms of rea*ment% and endorsing delinuent accounts to counsel forcollection.

SC*SS+,

-%a is %e saus of %ese e'!oyees/


7/25

ot confidential.

Ban&>s exlanation does not state -ho among the emlo*ees has access toinformation secificall* relating to its la)or relations olicies.

E!en Cashier $atricia Malu*a% -ho ser!es as the secretar* of the )an&>sBoard of 5irectors ma* not )e so classified. 6rue% the )oard of directors isresonsi)le for cororate olicies% the exercise of cororate o-ers% and thegeneral management of the )usiness and affairs of the cororation. Assecretar* of the )an&>s go!erning )od*% $atricia Malu*a ser!es the )an&>smanagement% )ut could not )e deemed to ha!e access to confidentialinformation secificall* relating to SB>s la)or relations olicies% a)sent aclear sho-ing on this matter.

6hus% -hile etitioner>s exlanation confirms the regular duties of the

concerned emlo*ees% it sho-s nothing a)out an* duties secificall*connected to la)or relations.

000

Sason vs. ,87C (2000)Pa'er ndusries vs. 8aguesa (2000)

(see 'revious diges)

000

Mero!a vs. 7o!dan=Confessor (1996)

FACTS

Excluded from the close sho ro!ision of the CBA are:

1. Executi!e Secretaries of Iice0$residents% or eui!alent ositions.2. Executi!e Secretar* of the $ersonnel Manager% or eui!alent ositions.3. Executi!e Secretar* of the 5irector for Cororate $lanning% or eui!alentositions.

4. Some ersonnel in the $ersonnel 5eartment% E5$ Staff at Head Kffice%$a*roll Staff at Head Kffice% Accounting 5eartment at Head Kffice% andBudget Staff% -ho )ecause of the nature of their duties and resonsi)ilitiesneed not Doin the Association as a condition for their emlo*ment.". e-l*0hired secretaries of Branch Managers and egional Managers.

Metrola)% ho-e!er% maintains that executi!e secretaries of the 9eneralManager and the executi!e secretaries of the 7ualit* Assurance Manager%


8/25

$roduct 5e!eloment Manager% ,inance 5irector% Management S*stemManager% Human esources Manager% Mar&eting 5irector% EngineeringManager% Materials Manager and $roduction Manager% w%o are a!!eers of %e $o'anys Manageen Coieeshould not onl*)e exemted from the closed0sho ro!ision )ut should )e excluded from

eers%i'in the )argaining unit of the ran& and file emlo*ees as -ellon grounds that their executi!e secretaries are $onfidenia! e'!oyees%ha!ing access to ?!ital la)or information.@

SC*SS+,

-%a is %e saus of %ese e'!oyees/

Confidential.

-%a is %e raiona!e for e#$!usion of $onfidenia! e'!oyees/

%ol$en )ars vs. )errer-Calle*a:6his rationale holds true also for confidentialemlo*ees such as accounting ersonnel% radio and telegrah oerators%-ho ha!ing access to confidential information% ma* )ecome the source ofundue ad!antage. Said emlo*ees ma* act as a s* or sies of eitherart* to a collecti!e )argaining agreement.

NATU-Republic Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres:A confidential emlo*eeis one entrusted -ith confidence on delicate matters% or -ith the custod*%handling% or care and rotection of the emlo*er/s roert*.

f confidential emlo*ees could unioniGe in order to )argain for ad!antagesfor themsel!es% then the* $ou!d e governed y %eir own oivesra%er %an %e ineres of %e e'!oyers. Moreo!er% unioniGation ofconfidential emlo*ees for the urose of collecti!e )argaining -ould meanthe extension of the la- to ersons or indi!iduals -ho are suosed to act?in the interest of the emlo*ers. t is not farfetched that in the course ofcollecti!e )argaining% the* might DeoardiGe that interest -hich the* aredut*0)ound to rotect. . . .

Pier + Arrastre , Steve$orin& Services( nc. vs. Rol$an-Confesor:


9/25

6here -ould )e no danger of coman* domination of the


10/25

?Art. 24". neligi)ilit* of managerial emlo*ees to Doin an* la)ororganiGationF right of suer!isor* emlo*ees.0 Managerial emlo*ees are noteligi)le to Doin% assist or form an* la)or organiGation. Suer!isor* emlo*eesshall not )e eligi)le for mem)ershi in a la)or organiGation of the ran&0and0

file emlo*ees )ut ma* Doin% assist or form searate la)or organiGations oftheir o-n.@

SC*SS+,

-+, %e su'ervisors5 union $an affi!iae wi% rank=and=fi!e unions/

Atlas Litho&raphic Services vs. La&uesa:

6hus% if the intent of the la- is to a!oid a situation -here suer!isors -ouldmerge -ith the ran&0and0file or -here the suer!isors/ la)or organiGation

-ould reresent conflicting interests% then a local suer!isors/ union shouldnot )e allo-ed to affiliate -ith the national federation of union of ran&0and0file emlo*ees -here that federation acti!el* articiates in union acti!it* inthe coman*.

xxx xxx xxx

6he rohi)ition against a suer!isors/ union Doining a local union of ran& andfile is relete -ith Durisrudence. 6he Court emhasiGes that the limitation isnot confined to a case of suer!isors/ -anting to Doin a ran&0and0file union.6he rohi)ition extends to a suer!isors/ local union al*ing for

mem)ershi in a national federation the mem)ers of -hich include localunions of ran& and file emlo*ees. 6he intent of the la- is clear eseciall*-here% as in this case at )ar% the suer!isors -ill )e co0mingling -ith thoseemlo*ees -hom the* directl* suer!ise in their o-n )argaining unit.@

-+, $onfidenia! e'!oyees $an oin %e !aor union of %e rankand fi!e/

n al*ing the doctrine of necessar* imlication% -e too& into considerationthe rationale )ehind the disualification of managerial emlo*ees exressedin Bulletin $u)lishing Cororation !. SancheG% thus ?xxx if these managerial

emlo*ees -ould )elong to or )e affiliated -ith a


11/25

)argaining in such a situation can )ecome one0sided. t is the same reasonthat imelled this Court to consider the osition of confidential emlo*ees asincluded in the disualification found in Art. 24" as if the disualification ofconfidential emlo*ees -ere -ritten in the ro!ision. f confidentialemlo*ees could unioniGe in order to )argain for ad!antages for themsel!es%

then the* could )e go!erned )* their o-n moti!es rather than the interest ofthe emlo*ers. Moreo!er% unioniGation of confidential emlo*ees for theurose of collecti!e )argaining -ould mean the extension of the la- toersons or indi!iduals -ho are suosed to act ?in the interest of@ theemlo*ers. t is not farfetched that in the course of collecti!e )argaining%the* might DeoardiGe that interest -hich the* are dut* )ound to rotect.Along the same line of reasoning -e held in 9olden ,arms% nc. !s. ,errer0CalleDa reiterated in $hilis ndustrial 5e!eloment% nc.% C% that?confidential emlo*ees such as accounting ersonnel% radio and telegrahoerators -ho% ha!ing access to confidential information% ma* )ecome thesource of undue ad!antage. Said emlo*ees ma* act as s* or sies of

either art* to a collecti!e )argaining agreement.@

-%a is %e saus of %e fo!!owing e'!oyees/

6he Court finds merit in the su)mission of the KS9 that 7oue Managersscontention that the thirt* se!en 3# emlo*ees -ho -ere originall* non0mem)ers of the cooerati!e can still !ote in the certification election sincethe* -ere onl* Lforced and comelled to Doin the cooerati!e on ain ofdiscilinar* action%L the certification election held on Kcto)er 1% 1(' is stillnull and !oid since e!en those -ho -ere alread* mem)ers of the cooerati!eat the time of the issuance of the med0ar)iter>s order% and therefore cannotclaim that the* -ere forced to Doin the union -ere allo-ed to !ote in the

election.

000

Cenra! ,egros "!e$ri$ (C","C+) vs. Se$reary

FACTS

CEECK entered into a collecti!e )argaining agreement -ith C


14/25

CENECO challenged the withdrawal. Ho-e!er% the -ithdra-al frommem)ershi -as denied )* CEECK on ,e)ruar* 2#% 1((+ under esolutiono. (+ Lfor the reason that the )asis of -ithdra-al is not among the groundsco!ered )* Board esolution o. "+23% dated o!em)er 22% 1('( and thatsaid reuest is contrar* to Board esolution o. "+33 dated 5ecem)er 13%

1('(% ...L

CURE files certification election. B* reason of CEECK>s refusal torenegotiate a ne- CBA% C


15/25

Right to withdraw. 6he argument of CEECK that the -ithdra-al -asmerel* to su)!ert the ruling of this Court in the BA6A9AS case is -ithoutmerit. 6he case referred to merel* declared that emlo*ees -ho are at thesame time mem)ers of the cooerati!e cannot Doin la)or unions for urosesof collecti!e )argaining. Ho-e!er% no-here in said case is it stated that

mem)er0emlo*ees are rohi)ited from -ithdra-ing their mem)ershi in thecooerati!e in order to Doin a la)or union.

Right to withdraw allowed by y!"aws.As discussed )* the Solicitor9eneral% Article % Section ( of the Articles of ncororation and B*0 a-s ofCEECK ro!ides that Lan* mem)er ma* -ithdra- from mem)ershi uoncomliance -ith such uniform terms and conditions as the Board ma*rescri)e.L 6he same section ro!ides that uon -ithdra-al% the mem)er ismerel* reuired to surrender his mem)ershi certificate and he is to )erefunded his mem)ershi fee less an* o)ligation that he has -ith thecooerati!e. 6here aears to )e no other condition or reuirement imosed

uon a -ithdra-ing mem)er. Hence% there is no Dust cause for etitioner>sdenial of the -ithdra-al from mem)ershi of its emlo*ees -ho are alsomem)ers of the union.

The right to #oin an organi$ation necessarily includes the e%uivalentright not to #oin the same.the resignation of the mem)er0 emlo*ees is an exression of theirreference for union mem)ershi o!er that of mem)ershi in thecooerati!e. 6he a!o-ed olic* of the State to afford fall rotection to la)orand to romote the rimac* of free collecti!e )argaining mandates that theemlo*ees> right to form and Doin unions for uroses of collecti!e )argaining

)e accorded the highest consideration.

000

7e'u!i$ of %e P%i!i''ines (SSC and SSS) vs. Asia'ro Coo'eraive(200:)

FACTSAsiaro% as a cooerati!e% is comosed of o-ners0mem)ers.


16/25

and a coman* )ased in Bu&idnon.

6he o-ners0mem)ers do not recei!e comensation or -ages fromthe cooerati!e. nstead% the* recei!e a share in the servi$e sur'!us-hichthe cooerati!e earns from different areas of trade it engages in% such as the

income deri!ed from the said Ser!ice Contracts -ith Stanfilco. 6he o-ners0mem)ers get their income from the ser!ice surlus generated )* the ualit*and amount of ser!ices the* rendered% -hich is determined )* the Board of5irectors of the resondent cooerati!e.

n order to enDo* the )enefits under the Social Securit* a- of 1((#%the o-ners0mem)ers of the cooerati!e% w%o were assigned o Sanfi!$oreuested the ser!ices of the latter to register them -ith etitioner SSS asse!f=e'!oyed and to remit their contri)utions as such. Also% to coml*-ith Section 1(0A of eu)lic Act o. 111% as amended )* eu)lic Act o.'2'2% the SSS contri)utions of the said o-ners0mem)ers -ere eual to the

share of )oth the emlo*er and the emlo*ee.SSSE )ased on the Ser!ice Contracts it executed -ith Stanfilco%

cooerati!e is actuall* a mano-er contractor sul*ing emlo*ees toStanfilco and for that reason% it is an emlo*er of its o-ners0mem)ers-or&ing -ith Stanfilco. T%us< $oo'eraive s%ou!d regiser ise!f wi%'eiioner SSS as an e'!oyerand ma&e the corresonding reort andremittance of remium contri)utions in accordance -ith the Social Securit*a- of 1((#.

Coo'eraiveE it is not an emlo*er )ecause its o-ners0mem)ers are

the cooerati!e itselfF hence% it cannot )e its o-n emlo*er.

SP*T"E -ho should register the emlo*ees under comulsor* SSSco!erageO

SC*SS+,,rom the foregoing arguments of the arties% the issues ma* )e

summariGed into:

. -%e%er %e 'eiioner SSC

%as urisdi$ion over %e 'eiion=$o'!ain fi!ed efore i y 'eiioner SSSagains %e res'onden $oo'eraive.

. -%e%er %e res'onden

$oo'eraive is eso''ed fro assai!ing%e urisdi$ion of 'eiioner SSC sin$e i%ad a!ready fi!ed an Answer wi% Moion


17/25

o isiss efore %e said ody.

$etitioner SSC/s Durisdiction is clearl* stated in Section " of eu)licAct o. '2'2 as -ell as in Section 1% ule of the 1((# SSS e!ised ules of

$rocedure.

Section " of eu)lic Act o. '2'2 ro!ides:

SEC. ". Settleent of isputes. a An*disute arising under this Act wi% res'e$ o$overage% )enefits% contri)utions and enaltiesthereon or any o%er aer re!aed %ereo< s%a!!e $ogniDa!e y %e Coission% x x x.Emhasis sulied.

Similarl*% Section 1% ule of the 1((# SSS e!ised ules of$rocedure states:

Section 1. 0uris$iction. An* disute arising

under the Social Securit* Act wi% res'e$ o$overage% entitlement of )enefits% collection andsettlement of contri)utions and enalties thereon% orany o%er aer re!aed %ereo< s%a!! e$ogniDa!e y %e Coission after the SSSthrough its $resident% Manager or Kfficer0in0charge of

the 5eartment8Branch8eresentati!e Kfficeconcerned had first ta&en action thereon in -riting.Emhasis sulied.

t is clear then from the aforesaid ro!isions that an* issue regardingthe comulsor* co!erage of the SSS is -ell -ithin the exclusi!e domain ofthe etitioner SSC. is i'oran o noe< %oug%< %a %eandaory $overage under %e SSS 8aw is 'reised on %ee#isen$e of an e'!oyer=e'!oyee re!aions%i' e#$e' in $ases of$o'u!sory $overage of %e se!f=e'!oyed.

is a#ioai$ %a %e a!!egaions in %e $o'!ain< no %edefenses se u' in %e Answer or in %e Moion o isiss

labor law 2 digest 10 dec.rtf

Documents