Topic: Determination of Appropriate
Bargaining Unit; Factors – Unit Determination
QUICKIE FACTS: San Miguel Foods has
factory/branches in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and
Otis. The employees from these three branches wanted to form a single
bargaining unit. This was opposed by the company as being against the “one
company, one union” policy. SC ruled that applying the mutuality of interest test, there should only be one bargaining
unit.
FACTS:
In the case of San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, the Court held that even if they handle confidential data regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. are not to be considered confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly, negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Court also declared that the employees belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community or mutuality of interests, constitute a single bargaining unit.
A certification election was conducted. On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
Based on the results of the election, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the Yes vote received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution, affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter.
CA affirmed the Resolution of DOLE Undersecretary with modification stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Hence, this petition by the San Miguel Foods
In the case of San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, the Court held that even if they handle confidential data regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. are not to be considered confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly, negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Court also declared that the employees belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community or mutuality of interests, constitute a single bargaining unit.
A certification election was conducted. On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
Based on the results of the election, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the Yes vote received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution, affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter.
CA affirmed the Resolution of DOLE Undersecretary with modification stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Hence, this petition by the San Miguel Foods
ISSUE: W/N CA departed from
jurisprudence when it expanded the scope of the bargaining unit.
RULING: No. In San Miguel vs Laguesma,
the Court explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia
Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An
appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to
the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
It
held that while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be
reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not
decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping
is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally
the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights. Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among
the employees. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other
in the same way that the company needs them both. There may be differences as
to the nature of their individual assignments, but the distinctions are not
enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
The
Court affirms the finding of the CA that there should be only one bargaining
unit for the employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry
Products Plant involved in dressed chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry
Farms engaged in live chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific
line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and
other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of
interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the
specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists
mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining
unit.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent won
DOCTRINE: An appropriate bargaining unit
is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of
all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best
suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.
It
held that while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be
reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not
decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping
is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally
the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights. Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among
the employees. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other
in the same way that the company needs them both. There may be differences as
to the nature of their individual assignments, but the distinctions are not
enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
No comments:
Post a Comment