Digest:GENERAL RUBBER and FOOTWEAR CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNION OF MONTHLY PAID EMPLOYEES-NATU,

GENERAL RUBBER and FOOTWEAR CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNION OF MONTHLY PAID EMPLOYEES-NATU,

PARAS, J.:

 

FACTS; Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber sandals and oilier rubber products. In 1985, the Samahang Manggagawasa General Rubber Corporation — ANGLO was formed by the daily paid — rank and file employees as their union for collective bargaining, after the expiration on October 15, 1985 of the collective bargaining agreement previously executed by petitioner with General Rubber Workers Union (Independent) on October 15, 1982. Be it noted however that on July 17, 1985, the monthly — paid employees of the petitioner-corporation, after forming their own collective bargaining unit the National Association of Trade Unions of Monthly Paid Employees-NATU, filed a petition for direct certification with tile Bureau of Labor Relations which petition was opposed by herein petitioner.

 

Med-Arbiter issued an Order for the holding of a certification election after finding that a certification election is in order in this case and observing that it is the fairest remedy to determine whether employees of petitioner desire to have a union or not.

 

ISSUE:

1.    The Bureau of Labor Relations committed serious error of law in holding that managerial employees or those employees exercising managerial functions can legally form and join a labor organization and be members of the new bargaining unit.

2.    The Bureau of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that supervisors, employees perform- ing managerial, confidential and technical functions and office personnel, who are negotiated by petitioner to be excluded from the existing bargaining unit because they are performing vital functions to management, can form and join a labor organization and be members of the new bargaining unit.

 

HELD:

1.    No. Regarding the second issue, we deem it necessary to examine the respective functions of the employees. It appears therefrom that they perform supervisory functions. Verily they make recommendation petitions as to what Managerial actions to take in disciplinary cases. However, that fact alone does not make them managerial employees already, It is more a question of how effective are those recommendations which aspect has not been clearly established in this case. As defined in the Labor Code, a "managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions." Thus, employees who do not fall within this definition are considered rank-and-file employees.

2.    No.

Employees who occupy managerial, confidential or technical positions, supervisors, contract employees, monthly-paid employees, security as wen as office personnel are excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit (emphasis supplied).

 

In view of the above, the monthly-paid rank-and-file employees ran form a union of their own, separate and distinct from the existing rank-and-file union composed of daily-paid workers. (Rollo, pp. 1920)

 

Thus, it can be readily seen from the above findings of the Bureau of labor Relations that the members of private respondent are not managerial employees as claimed by petitioners but merely considered as rank-and-file employees who have every right to self-organization or to be heard through a duly certified collective bargaining union. The Supervisory power of the members of private respondent union consists merely in recommending as to what managerial actions to take in disciplinary cases. These members of private respondent union do not fit the definition of managerial employees. These members of private respondent union are therefore not prohibited from forming their own collective bargaining unit since it has not been shown by petitioner that "the responsibilities (of these monthly-paid-employees) inherently require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment as supervisors" or that "they possess the power and authority to lay down or exercise management policies." Similarly, he held in the same case that "Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees shall become eligible to loin or assist the rank-and-file labor organization, and if none exists, to form or assist in the forming of such rank-and-file organizations.