TOPIC: Worker’s Right of
Self-Organization; Supervisors
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation (CAPASCO) hired
private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the Personnel Manager for its
Cainta Plant on 16 February 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position
of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel
Superintendent.
2. Sometime
in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize
a union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CAPASCO Union of
Supervisory Employees (CUSE).
3. Private
respondent Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of the union
and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation. Consequently,
petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo to private respondent Tamondong requiring him to
explain and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a
continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment in the company.
Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter, invoking
his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union.
4. In view
of that, on 6 February 1997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo terminated the
employment of private respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty
to the company.
Private respondent Tamondong challenged his
dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving unfair labor According to
him, there was no just cause for his dismissal and it was anchored solely on
his involvement and active participation in the organization of the union of
supervisory personnel in CAPASCO. He
claimed that such was not a valid ground to terminate his employment because it
was a legitimate exercise of his constitutionally guaranteed right to
self-organization.
In contrast, petitioner CAPASCO contended that by
virtue of private respondent Tamondongs position as Personnel Superintendent
and the functions actually performed by him in the company, he was considered
as a managerial employee, thus, under the law he was prohibited from joining a
union as well as from being elected as one of its officers.
LA – in favor of
Tamondong
NLRC – modified the
decision
CA – Granted the
petition for certiorari of Tamandong
ISSUE: Whether or not Tamandong was illegally dismissed
for joining the said union.
RULING:
Yes. The dismissal of Tamondong was illegal because he was deprived of his
right of self-organization, joining a union.
The Court
of Appeals cannot be said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the Decision of the
NLRC because the findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondent
Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and not a managerial employee,
thus, eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private
respondent CUSE, were supported by evidence on record.
In the
Decision of the Court of Appeals t made reference to the Memorandum, which
required private respondent Tamondong to observe fixed daily working hours from
8:00 am to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. This imposition upon private
respondent Tamondong, according to the Court of Appeals, is very
uncharacteristic of a managerial employee.
To
support such a conclusion, the Court of Appeals cited the case of Engineering
Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC where this Court held that one of the essential
characteristics of an employee holding a managerial rank is that he is not
subjected to the rigid observance of regular office hours or maximum hours of
work.
DISPOSITIVE:
TAMONDONG won.
DOCTRINE:
Supervisors can join unions. Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as
amended, differentiates supervisory employees from managerial employees, to
wit: supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees.
Thus,
from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that
private respondent Tamondong was just a supervisory employee. Private
respondent Tamondong did not perform any of the functions of a managerial
employee as stated in the definition given to it by the Code. Hence, the Labor
Code provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from
joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein
private respondent Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he
cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of
private respondent CUSE, and in making such a conclusion, the Court of Appeals
did not act whimsically, capriciously or in a despotic manner, rather, it was
guided by the evidence submitted before it.
Thus, given the foregoing findings of the
Court of Appeals that private respondent is a supervisory employee, it is
indeed an unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss
him on account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his constitutionally
guaranteed right to self-organization,
No comments:
Post a Comment