TOPIC: Right to
Self-Organization: Confidential Employees
FACTS:
1. In G.R. No. 110399, entitled 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. (SMFI) 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.
2. Pursuant to the Court's decision in G.R. No. 110399,
the Department of Labor and Employment National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR)
conducted pre-election conferences. However, there was a discrepancy
in the list of eligible voters, i.e., petitioner submitted a list of 23
employees for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while
respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively.
3. On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L.
Daquigan issued an Order directing Election Officer Cynthia Tolentino to
proceed with the conduct of certification election in accordance with Section
2, Rule XII of Department Order No. 9.
4. 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. Specifically, it argued that
certain employees should not be allowed to vote as they are: (1) confidential
employees; (2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not
covered by the bargaining unit; (3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but
are performing managerial work and scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who
belong to the Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who
are members of other unions.
5. Med-Arbiter issued order directing the respondents
to submit proof that the abovementioned are eligible to vote. Respondent
complied.
6. Petitioner appealed to DOLE Secretary, then to CA,
averring its sentiments regarding eligibility. Respondent counters that petitioners
proposed exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit was a rehashed
issue, which was already settled in G.R. No. 110399. It maintains that the
issue of union membership coverage should no longer be raised as a
certification election already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein
respondent won with 97% votes.
7. The Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the Resolution 9 of the DOLE
Undersecretary, stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource
Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
8. Petitioner
asserts that the CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master in
the definition of a confidential employee and, thus, prays that the said
position and all other positions with access to salary and compensation data be
excluded from the bargaining unit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled regarding the
status of Payroll Master, Human Resource Assistant and Personal Assistant as
Confidential employees.
RULING:
Yes to Human Resource assistant and Personal Assistant only.
Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.
Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.
A confidential employee is one
entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care
and protection of the employers property. Confidential employees, such as
accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their
access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.
However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the
whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary
and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll
Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information
in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work
does not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor
relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining
unit.
Corollarily, although Article 245
of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor
organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to Confidential employees or those
who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or
act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence, are likewise
privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. Confidential employees are
thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their
separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is
similar to the inhibition for managerial employees, because if allowed to be
affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in
view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become
company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the union
membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees
may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy
or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.
In this
regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant
and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of confidential employees and,
hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective
positions and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of ones
work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of
employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation package, and
human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work
includes the recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining
negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and
administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from
the petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs.
Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor
relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition is denied, Private respondent won.
DOCTRINE: Confidential
employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are
cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a
confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist
between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from
bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become
aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal
objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment