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.


  

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.

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.