National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) v. Republic Planters Bank Digest, G. R. No. 93468

NATU v Republic
G. R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994


Facts of the Case:

Petitioner NATU filed a petition for certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of its supervisory employees.  The bank (Private respondent) moved to dismiss the petition alleging that the supervisory employees are actually managerial employees hence prohibited from joining unions.  The Med Arbiter granted the petition but the decision was modified by the Sec. of Labor on the ground that the ff employees are deemed as managerial and/or confidential employees and are therefore ineligible to join or form labor unions (Dept. Managers,  Asst. Managers,  branch Cashiers and Controllers).

ISSUE :  W/N the Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank are managerial and/or confidential employees hence ineligible to join or assist the union of petitioner.


RULING:
The subject employees are supervisory and not managerial.  As provided under 212 of the Philippine Labor Code,  a Managerial employee is;

a)   One vested with power to lay down and execute management policies,  or to hire,                   transfer,  suspend, lay off, recall, discharge,  assign or discipline employees, and 

b)  One vested with both the power or prerogative.

Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers, Department Managers do not possess the power to lay down policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. They occupy supervisory positions, charged with the duty among others to "recommend proposals to improve and streamline operations.

On one hand, a confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property.

Therefore only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent bank who are deemed as confidential employees are ineligible to join or assist petitioner NATU-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist or form any other labor organization

Doctrine of Necessary Implication
The disqualification of managerial employees from joining a union is due to the evident conflict of interest as they are supposed to be on the side of the management.  As to confidential employees,  their disqualification is due to the undue advantage they possess.
Branch managers/Cashiers/Controllers are all considered confidential employees and hence disqualified from joining a labor organization.  Do note that this is not applicable to all banks in general.

* The blogger is also graduate of Industrial Relations major in Human Resource Management hence Labor Relations is a topic within her sphere of interest.


  

Villuga v. NLRC Digest

Villuga v. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Villuga was employed by Private Respondent Zapanta (of Broad St. Tailoring) as a cutter.  He was also tasked to distribute work to other tailors and sewers when the shop manager or assistant is not around and makes sure that the work conform to the pattern given. The other petitioners  were ironers,  repairmen and sewers who were paid on piecerate basis.  The petitioners did not fill in any time record since they did not work on fixed hours,  they also work at home when job orders increased.  Villuga got ill and was not able to report to work for a few days but has notified the employer.  Subsequently,  he was considered to have abandoned his job.  This prompted Villuga to file a complaint on the ground that he was refused back to work due to an alleged participation to a union organized by the tailors.  The other petitioners claimed that they were dismissed due to union participation.  The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint,  the NLRC affirmed the dismissal.

Issue:   W/N petitioner Villuga is a managerial employee

RULING:   No.  Villuga's  primary work is to cut or prepare patterns and not to lay down management policies since there is already a manager/assistant in-charge of this exact responsibility.   Note that he only distributes or assigns work occasionally and does not take part in policy-making activities.
The test of 'supervisory' or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses the authority that is not merely routinary/clerical in nature but one that requires the use of independent judgement.  Note that your functions are not managerial if you only execute approved and established policies.

Requirements to be considered one to be part of the managerial staff is laid down in Rule 1,  Sec. 2(c)  Book III),  as follows:
1) Performance of work directly related to management policies.
2)  Customarily/regularly exercise discretion and independent judgement in the performance of his functions.
3)  Regularly/directly assists in managing the establishment.
4)  Does not devote 20% of his time to work other than those described above.

Finally,  there was no abandonment of work by Villuga,  1) to be considered as such, his act must be deliberate and an unjustified refusal and accompanied by overt acts,  mere absence is not a sufficient ground.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ
Labor Law Digests

About the Blogger
*She holds a postgraduate in Industrial Relations major in Human Resource Management from University of the Philippines (UP) School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) and is currently on-leave from her law studies.

Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men Digest

Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men

Facts:

1. The private respondents worked as sales route helpers for the petitioner (Coca Cola) for 5 months and thereafter they were hired on a daily basis. According to the petitioner, the respondents were merely hired as substitutes for regular helpers when the latter were unavailable or due to shortage of manpower/high volume of work. These workers would then wait every morning outside the gates and if hired, they would be paid their wages at the end of the day.

2. The respondents asked the petitioner to make them regular but the latter refused. Hence, 23 of these temporary workers filed a case for illegal dismissal.

Issue: W/N the respondents' work is deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the petitioner

RULING: Yes. The repeated hiring of the respondent workers and continuing need of their daily services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business/trade of petitioner.

In determining whether employment is regular or not, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between a particular activity performed in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The nature of work must be viewed from the perspective of the business in its entirety and not confined scope.

Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation Digest

Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation 

Facts:

The petitioner disfavored the fact that the private respondent employees have formed a union. When the union became the collective bargaining representative in the certification election, the petitioner refused to sit down to negotiate a CBA. Moreover, the respondents were not given work for a month amounting to unjustified dismissal. As a result, the complainants staged a strike to protest but was settled through a memorandum of agreement which contained a list of those considered as regular employees for the payroll.

The NLRC held that there was illegal dismissal and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: W/N the employees are regular workers

RULING: Yes, they are regular and not seasonal employees. For them to be excluded as regulars, it is not enough that they perform work that  is seasonal in nature but they also are employed for the duration of one season. The evidence only proved the first but not the second requirement.

The ruling in Mercado v. NLRC is not applicable since in that case, the workers were merely required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time, after which, their services are available to other employers. The management's sudden change of assignment reeks of bad faith, it is likewise guilty of ULP.

Abasolo v. NLRC Digest

Abasolo v. NLRC 

Facts:

1.  The private respondent La Union Tobacco (Lutorco), owned by See Lun Chan is engaged in buying/processing of tobacco and its by-products. The petitioners worked in respondent company but work was interrupted when Tabacalera took over the Lutorco operations due to alleged losses. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint for separation pay and dismissal. The respondent contended that it is exempt from payment of separation pay and denied that there was termination of employees' services.

2. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and held that the petitioners are not entitled to separation benefits since Lutorco ceased operations due to serious business losses. The NLRC affirmed said ruling.

Issue: W/N the petitioners are seasonal workers

RULING: No, the petitioners are considered regular and seasonal employees. They performed services necessary and indispensable to Lutorco's business. The nature of one's employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the employer nor on the procedure of hiring and manner of designating the employee but on the nature of the activity to be performed considering the employer's nature of business and the duration and scope of work to be done.

As held in previous decisions, seasonal workers are those who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not separated from service in said period but merely considered on-leave until re-employed.

Mercado v. NLRC Digest

Mercado v. NLRC 

Facts:

1. Petitioners were agricultural workers of the private respondent's sugar land who were dismissed. They had worked in all agriculture phases for several years in the said sugar land. The respondent denied that petitioners were regular employees alleging that their services were engaged through 'mandarols' or supply workers to do a  particular phase of the agricultural work.

2. As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that the petitioners were not regular employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling. 

Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers

RULING: No, they are project/seasonal employees. A project employee is one whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion has been determined at the time of engagement, or where work or service is seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the season.

As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal dismissal. The petitioners are free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.

Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot Digest

Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot 

Facts:

The petitioner company provided arrastre services at Pier 8 and employs stevedores for loading and unloading of cargoes from vessels. Private respondent Baclot was hires as a stevedore. When PPA took over PASSI, it absorbed its workers as well as the relievers. Baclot then filed a complaint alleging that he should be considered as a regular since he rendered a total of 1 year work to the company. On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that he was merely hired as a reliever stevedore and could not become regular.

Issue: W/N the private respondent is a regular employee

RULING: Yes, he is a regular employee but on a different basis. The standards in determining whether one is a regular or a casual or project employee is laid down in Art. 280 of the Labor Code. It is provided therein a regular employee is one who performs activities necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer except project or seasonal employees. 

Moreover, Art. 281 considers a regular employee as one who is allowed to work after a probationary period. The respondent is similar to that of a project/seasonal employee but on a daily basis. Finally, he is deemed as a casual under the 2nd par. of Art. 280, also under the CBA provisions between PASSI and the workers' union, where a union shop was adopted, it was provided that the petitioner shall agree to convert to regular status all incumbent probationary or casual employees of PASSI who served it for not less than 6 months from the date of hiring.

Kay Products v. CA Digest

Kay Products v. CA Digest

Facts:

1. The private respondents worked as factory sewers of the petitioner. They, together with other employees planned to form a union. When the petitioner learned of this plan, it announced the the concerned employees will be transferred to an employment agency (Gerico) with promised bigger and better benefits. The were however required to sign resignation letters.

2. The respondents still continued to report to the petitioner's factory and now enjoyed lesser wage rates. The petitioner again informed them that Gerico had been dissolved and as a result they need to sign separate contacts with another corporation (RCVJ). However, some of the employees refused to sign the new contract. Amidst all these developments, the employees were able to form a union. The 73 employees together with the union, filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice, underpayment and failure to classify then as regulars. Subsequently, these employees were asked to make a 2-week leave without pay and were no longer allowed to return back to work thereafter. Due to this development, the respondents amended the complain to one of illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter: There was voluntary resignation

NLRC: Affirmed.

CA: Respondents are regular employees and could only be terminated for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code

Issue: W/N the private respondents are regular employees

RULING:

Yes. The status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker in the day immediately after the end of his 1st year. There was bad faith with the dismissals entitling respondents to damages. Moreover, petitioner (Kay Lee) is liable solidarily with the corporation due to the termination done with malice and bad faith since she was the one who decided the transfers.

Pier 8 Arrastre v. Roldan-Confessor Digest

Pier 8 Arrastre v. Roldan-Confessor

Facts:

1. The corporation and private respondent union enetered into a collective bargaining agreement. During the freedom period, NAFLU questioned the majority status of the union by filing for a petition for certification election (CE). The private respondent union won the CE and was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees. However, the negotiations for the CBA collapsed. The Sec. of Labor took over the dispute and resolved the bargaining deadlock and ordered that the position of foremen, secretaries, and timekeepers were lumped together as part of the rank-and-file.

2. The petitioner contended that supervisors (foremen) and the legal secretary should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

Issue: W/N the foremen and secretaries should be excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit

RULING: Yes. Art. 245 of the Labor Code applies. The foremen and are supervisory employees and therefore cannot be part of the rank and file. Legal secretaries are neither managers or supervisors but confidential workers hence, they cannot be part of the ran and file as well. With respect to the timekeepers, they should not be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank and file. The test of supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, and such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. What determines the nature of the employment is not the title bu the job description.

National Federation v. NLRC Digest

National Federation of Labor v. NLRC

GR No. 103586 

Facts:

1. Wage orders 3, 4, 5 & 6 were implemented for a year which effectively icnreased the statutory minimum wages of workers. In the private respondent's company (Franklin Baker Corp.) the wage rates of the regular employees and casuals were such that there wasa positive differential between 2 in the amount of P4.56. After Wage Order No. 5, this differential is not zero. As a result, grievance meetings were held between the parties. It resulted to the following action on the part of the employer: a) regularization of casual employees, b) increase in the wages of the regular employees, and the c) grant of across the board increase of P2 to all the regular employees.

2. The company experienced output slowdown resulting to the dismissal of 205 employees. The petitioner union went on strike and demand the rectification of the wage distortion. The NLRC in its decision found the existence of a wage distortion and ordered the respondent company to increase wage by P1.00. However, the NLRC Fifth division held (after an MR) that the wage distortion only existed for 15 days and has ceased.

Issue: W/N it is within management prerogative or discretion to implement a new classification of its employees 

RULING:

Yes. It is a decision that lies outside the concept of 'wage distortion.' It is a decision that the company must make either in conjuction with employee negotiation. It is not therefore within the power of the NLRC to impose unilaterally a new scheme for the classification of employees under the guise of rectifying a wage distortion when none has been established either by CBA or by management decision.

 The court held that wage increases given by employers either unilaterally or as a result of collective bargaining negotiations should be validated as an action on the part of the employer to correct the wage distortion caused by the implementation of the wage orders.

Moreover, the regularization of the casual employees with the increases in the wages of the regulars made the issue on wage distortion academic

Linton Commercial v. Hillera Digest

Linton Commercial v. Hillera 

Facts:

1. Petitioner is engaged in the selling of by-products while private respondent Ong is the Vice President of the company. The petitioner implemented a compressed workweek schedule whereby work will only be on a 3-day rotation basis. The company's reason was the currency crisis and net loss it suffered. This was implemented without DOLE approval. 

2. Aggrieved, the employees herein co-respondents, all 68 of them filed a complaint for illegal reduction of workdays alleging the non-observance of Art. 280 requirement of 1-month notice. Pending the decision, 21 of the workers signed a waiver.

Labor Arbiter: Linton was guilty of illegal reduction

NLRC: Reversed the LA decision and held that the employer has the prerogative to control all aspects of employment in its business.

CA: Reversed the NLRC decision and held that there was constructive dismissal

Issue: W/N the management's decision was a valid exercise of management prerogative

RULING: No. The compressed workweek was unjustified and illegal. The management has the prerogative to come up with measures to ensure profitability or minimize loss. However, such prerogative is not absolute. It must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor. The petitioner committed illegal reduction of work hours. The records show that while the company suffered a loss, it retained a considerable amount of earnings and operating income.  Permitting the reduction of work hours or pay would be contrary to the state's policy to afford protection to labor and provide full employment.

Further, Linton failed to substantiate the alleged financial loss. For retrenchment to be justified, any claim of actual or potential business loss must satisfy the following standards:
1) the loss is substantial and not de minimis
2) the losses are actual or reasonably imminent
3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and effective in preventing the expected loss
4) the alleged losses, if already incurred or expected imminent loss sought to be forestalled must be proven by sufficient and convincing evidence.

Manila Electric v. Quisumbing Digest

Manila Electric v. Quisumbing 

G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000

Facts:

 Members of the Private respondent union were dissatisfied with the terms of a CBA with petitioner. The parties in this case were ordered by the Sec. of Labor to execute a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) wherein.The CBA allowed for the increase in the wages of the employees concerned. The petitioner argues that if such increase were allowed, it would pass off such to the consumers.

Issue: W/N matters of salary are part of management prerogative

RULING: Yes. There is no need to consult the Secretary of Labor in cases involving contracting out for 6 months or more as it is part of management prerogative. However, a line must be drawn with respect to management prerogatives on business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the workers. Employers must see to it that that employees are properly informed of its decisions to attain harmonious labor relations and enlighten the worker as to their rights.

The contracting out business or services is an exercise of business judgment if it is for the promotion of efficiency and attainment of economy. Management must be motivated by good faith and contracting out should not be done to circumvent the law. Provided there was no malice or that it was not done arbitrarily, the courts will not interfere with the exercise of this judgment.

International Harvester v. IAC Digest

International Harvester v. IAC

Facts: 

1. Private respondent Diosdado Joson was first employed as assistant attorney by the petitioner and was thereafter promoted to various positions until he became the GRO for Government Sales Department with a salary of P2,500.

2. After 17 years, the private respondent was informed of his transfer to Fleet Account Sales on the ground of redundancy caused by the phase out of his department. It was a lesser position with less salary and without allowances although there is commission. The petitioner refused to transfer which resulted to his termination. He then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner.

Lower Court: Found the dismissal illegal and ordered the payment of damages

Court of Appeals: Affirmed the decision.

3. Hence this appeal.

Issue: W/N there was a valid ground for the reduction of personnel (due to redundancy)

RULING: Yes, it is part of management prerogative to determine the need for ht existence of a department and thereby order the reduction of its personnel when necessary. The employer has therefore the right to demote or dismiss an employee provided it is not tainted with unfair labor practice or ULP. Herein, there was not bad faith in the part of the petitioner since it notified the employees of the management's decision to phase out the department.

PLDT v. Paguio Digest

PLDT v. Paguio

Facts:

1. Telecoms company PLDT (Petitioner) has 27 exchanges and respondent Paguio was the head of the Garnet Exchange. The petitioner conducted a performance evaluation which was criticized by the respondent due to an alleged unfair criteria used. Despite this, Garnet exchange obtained the top rating. Subsequently,  Paguio was transferred to another center based on a finding of insubordination. Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was later amended to one for illegal demotion.

Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint and upheld the validity of the transfer

NLRC: Reversed the LA decision and held that the transfer is unlawful

CA: Affirmed.

2. Hence this petition. Petitioner contended that the transfer was not a demotion.

Issue: W/N there was a valid transfer

RULING: No, the transfer constitutes a demotion. The exercise of management prerogative has its limits. It cannot be utilized to circumvent the laws and public policy on labor and social justice. It must be exercised with fair play and justice. The employer must show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. Not does it involve a demotion in the rank or diminution of salaries or other benefits.