labor bar q&a

7/25/2019 labor bar q&a

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-bar-qa 1/7

Money Claims; Reinstatement (1996)

Sara has been working as housemaid for the Bojilov spouses for three (3) years. Inthe early morning of July !" the spouses and Sara were wat#hing the live #overageof the $nals of an %lympi# bo&ing mat#h between a Bulgarian and a 'ilipino whi#hthe foreign $ghter won on points. eeved by Saras angry remarks that the s#oring

was unfair" the Bojilov spouses $red her on the spot. Sara thereafter $led a#omplaint with the *egional +ire#tor of the +%,- for unpaid salaries totaling"//.//. 0he Bojilov spouses moved to dismiss the #omplaint on the belief thatSaras #laim falls within the Jurisdi#tion of the ,abor 1rbiter. Sara" however" #laimedthat the *egional +ire#tor #an de#ide on her #laim by virtue of his plenary visitorialpowers under 1rt. 2! and of 1rt. 2 of the ,abor 4ode" as amended" whi#hempowers the *egional +ire#tor to hear and de#ide" among others" mattersinvolving re#overy of wages.

2. 5hose position will you sustain6 -&plain.

. 5ill your answer be the same if Saras #laim is 7"//.// with reinstatement6

-&plain.

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;2) I will sustain the position of the Bojilov spouses. 1rt. 2! is not appli#able

be#ause the #ase did not arise as a result of the e&er#ise of visitorial andenfor#ement powers by the *egional +ire#tor" as the duly authori<edrepresentative of the Se#retary of ,abor and -mployment. Instead" the #aseis a simple money #laim under 1rt. 2" whi#h #ould be under the jurisdi#tionof the *egional +ire#tor if the #laim does not e&#eed "///. But the #laime&#eeds "///.//. 0hus" it is the ,abor 1rbiter who has jurisdi#tion under1rt. 2=(a) of the ,abor 4ode.

) I will still hold that it is the ,abor 1rbiter that has jurisdi#tion. It is true thatthe money #laim no longer e&#eeds "///. But there is a #laim forreinstatement. 0hus" this #laim is under the jurisdi#tion of a ,abor 1rbiter" per1rt. 2 of the ,abor 4ode.

Secretary of Labor; Dismissal of Employees (1998)

0he Se#retary of ,abor and -mployment" after re#eipt of a :oti#e to 0erminate -mployment of one hundred (2//) workers" enjoined the employerfrom implementing their termination. >as the Se#retary of ,abor and-mployment the authority to enjoin the employer from terminating theemployment of the workers6 If so" on what grounds6 ?@)

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*; 0he Se#retary of ,abor and -mployment has the authority to enjoin anemployer from terminating the employment of workers. 0he ,abor 4ode (in1rti#le 3==(b) provides that the Se#retary of ,abor and -mployment maysuspend the eAe#tivity of the termination of workers pending the resolutionof a labor dispute in the event of a prima fa#ie $nding of an appropriateo#ial of the +epartment of ,abor and -mployment before whom su#h



dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a mass lay o.

CB; Con!"ential Employees (199#)

2. 4an an employer legally oppose the in#lusion of #on$dentialemployees in the bargaining unit of rankCandC$le employees6

. 5ould your answer be diAerent if the #on$dential employees aresought to be in#luded in the supervisory union6

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;2) Des" an employer #an legally oppose the in#lusion of #on$dential

employees in the bargaining unit of the rankCandC$le. 0his issue hasbeen settled in the #ase of 9olden 'arms vs. 4alleja" and reiterated inthe #ase of hilips Industrial +ev. In#. vs. :,*4.

1,0-*:10IE- 1:S5-*S;a) Des" an employer #an legally oppose the in#lusion of the #on$dential

employees in the bargaining unit of rankCandC$le employees be#ause#on$dential employees are ineligible to form" assist or join a laborunion. By the nature of their fun#tions" they assist and a#t in a#on$dential #apa#ity to" or have a##ess to #on$dential matters of"persons who e&er#ise managerial fun#tions in the $eld of laborrelations" and the union might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident #onFi#t of interest.

b) 1n employer #an legally oppose the in#lusion of #on$dential employees

in the bargaining unit of rank CandC$le employees be#ause #on$dentialemployees are #onsidered part of management. (hiltran#o vs. B,*"2=7 S4*1 3!!).

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;) 0he answer would be the same if #on$dential employees are sought

to be in#luded in the supervisory union be#ause #on$dentialemployees" being a part of management would not Gualify to join"mu#h less form a labor union. (hiltran#o vs. B,*" 2=7 S4*1 3!!)

1,0-*:10IE- 1:S5-*;

Hy answer would remain the same" even if the #on$dential employees weresought to be in#luded in the supervisory union. 4on$dential employeeswould have the same adverse impa#t on the bargaining unit of supervisors;4on$dential employees a##ess to highly sensitive information may be#omethe sour#e of undue advantage by the union over the employer. (hilipsIndustrial +evelopment In#." vs. :ational ,abor *elations 4ommission" et. al"9.* :o. !!=" June 2)



CB; Mana$erial Employees; S%per&isory Employees (199')

1 supervisors union $led a petition for #erti$#ation ele#tion to determine thee&#lusive bargaining representative of the supervisory employees of 'armersBank. In#luded in the list of supervisory employees atta#hed to the petition

are the +epartment Hanagers" Bran#h Hanagers" 4ashiers and 4omptrollers.'armers Bank Guestioned this list arguing that +epartment Hanagers" Bran#hHanagers" 4ashiers and 4omptrollers inherently possess the powersenumerated in 1rt. 2" par. (m)" of the ,abor 4ode" i.e." the power andprerogative to lay down and e&e#ute management poli#ies andor to hire"transfer" suspend" layCoA" re#all" dis#harge" assign or dis#ipline employees.

2. Is the #ontention of 'armers Bank #orre#t6 +is#uss fully.

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*; 0he #ontention of the 'armers Bank is not #orre#t" if" on e&amination of the

a#tual powers e&er#ised by the Department Managers, Bank Managers,Cashiers and Comptrollers, they are not vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies or tohire, transfer, suspend, layo, recall, discharge, assign or disciplineemployees. If their powers are to #arry out their duties and responsibilitiesin a##ordan#e with the poli#ies promulgated by the Board of +ire#tors of theBank" or by e&ternal authorities" like the 4entral Bank" then" they are notmanagerial but may be supervisory personnel. But this may be noted!"he Bank o#cials mentioned in the case, have control, custody and$or access to con%dential matters. 0hus" they are #on$dentialemployees and in a##ordan#e with earlier Supreme 4ourt de#isions" as

con%dential employees, the Branch Manager, Cashier, Controller aredis&uali%ed from 'oining or assisting the supervisor(s union of theBank.

1,0-*:10IE- 1:S5-*; 0he #ontention of the 'anners Bank is partially #orre#t. 0he +epartmentmanagers and Bran#h managers" if they in fa#t have the powers implied bytheir titles" are managerial personnel. In a##ordan#e with the ,abor 4ode"managerial personnel are not eligible to join and form labor unions. %n theother hand" #ashiers who are in #harge of money re#eived or e&pended" and#omptrollers who e&amine and supervise e&penditures" are not managerial

personnel" and if they supervise personnel" they #ould be supervisors" andare therefore to be in#luded in the bargaining unit of supervisors.

. Is there any statutory basis for the petition of the union6 -&plain.

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;



0here is statutory basis for the petition of the supervisors union. 8nder the,abor 4ode" supervisors have the right to form and join unions" but onlyunions of supervisory employees.

CB; Mana$erial Employees; S%per&isory Employees (1999)

'140S; Samahan ng mga Hanggagawa sa 4ompanya ng 0aba#o (SH40) $leda etition for 4erti$#ation -le#tion among the supervisory employees of the 0aba#o Hanufa#turing 4ompany (0aba#o) before the :4* *egional %#e of the +epartment of ,abor and -mployment. It alleged" among other things"that it is a legitimate labor organi<ation" a duly #hartered lo#al of :1',8 that 0aba#o is an organi<ed establishment and that no #erti$#ation ele#tion hasbeen #ondu#ted within one year prior to the $ling of its petition for#erti$#ation ele#tion. 0he etition $led by SH40 showed that out of its /members" 2 were rankCandC$lers and two () were managers. 0aba#o $led aHotion to +ismiss on the ground that SH40 union is #omposed of supervisory

and rankCandC$le employees and" therefore" #annot a#t as bargaining agentfor the proposed unit. SH40 $led an opposition to the said Hotion allegingthat the in$rmity" if any" in the membership of the union #an be remedied inthe preCele#tion #onferen#e thru the e&#lusionCin#lusion pro#eedings whereinthose employees who are o##upying rankCandC$le positions will be e&#ludedfrom the list of eligible voters.

2. Should the Hotion to +ismiss $led by the 0aba#o be granted or denied6-&plain. (3@)

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;

0he Hotion to +ismiss $led by 0aba#o should be granted. 1##ording to the,abor 4ode (in 1rti#le 7)" supervisory employees shall not be eligible formembership in a labor organi<ation of rankCandC$le employees but may joinor form separate labor organi<ations of their own. Be#ause of the aboveCmentioned provision of the ,abor 4ode" a labor organi<ation #omposed of both rankCandC$le and supervisory employees is no labor organi<ation at all.It #annot" for any guise or purpose" be a legitimate labor organi<ation. :otbeing a legitimate labor organi<ation" it #annot possess the reGuisitepersonality to $le a petition for #erti$#ation ele#tion. (See 0oyota Hotorhilippines 4orp. vs. 0oyota Hotor hilippines 4orp. ,abor 8nion" K! S4*1=3)

1,0-*:10IE- 1:S5-*; 0he Hotion to +ismiss should be denied. In the $rst pla#e" the general rule isthat in a #erti$#ation ele#tion the employer is a mere bystander. 1nemployer has no legal standing to Guestion a #erti$#ation ele#tion as it is thesole #on#ern of the workers. 0he e&#eptions to the general rule of whi#h are2) when the e&isten#e of an employer employee relationship is denied and



) when the employer Guestions the legal personality of the union be#ause of irregularities in its registration are not present in this #ase.

. 4an the two () Hanagers be part of the bargaining unit6 5hy6 (@)

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;

:o" the two () Hanagers #annot be part of the bargaining unit #omposed of supervisory employees. 1 bargaining unit must eAe#t a grouping of employees who have substantial" mutual interests in wages" hours" working#onditions and other subje#ts of #olle#tive bargaining. (San Higuel 4orp.Supervisors and -&empt -mployees 8nion v. ,aguesma" = S4*1 3=%) 0he,abor 4ode (in 1rti#le 7) provides that managerial employees are noteligible to join" assist or form any labor organi<ation.

0he above provision shows that managerial employees do not have the same

interests as the supervisory employees whi#h #ompose the bargaining unitwhere SH40 wishes to be the e&#lusive #olle#tive bargaining representative.

D%e rocess; Disciplinary Cases (199')

2. 9ary" a salesman of 1stro 4hemi#al 4ompany (1S0*%)" was reported tohave #ommitted some serious anomalies in his sale and distribution of #ompany produ#ts. 1S0*% designated its 4hief ,egal %#er to investigate9ary. Instead of submitting to the investigation" 9ary $led a petition to enjointhe investigation on the ground that 1S0*% would appear to be his a##user"prose#utor and judge at the same time. 5ill the petition to enjoin the

investigation prosper6 +is#uss fully.

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*; 0he petition to enjoin the investigation will not prosper. It is inevitable that indis#iplinary #ases" the employer would appear to be a##user" prose#utor" and judge at the same time sin#e it is the employer who #harges an employee forthe #ommission of an oAense he is also the person who dire#ts theinvestigation to determine whether the #harge against the employee is trueor not and he is the one who will judge if the employee is to be penali<ed ornot. But if the employee is given ample opportunity to defend himself" he#ould not validly #laim that he was deprived of his right to due pro#ess of

law.

1,0-*:10IE- 1:S5-*;:o. 0he employer is merely #omplying with the legal mandate to aAord theemployee due pro#ess by giving him the right to be heard and the #han#e toanswer the #harges against him and a##ordingly to defend himself beforedismissal is eAe#ted.



Employees; $ro%ps of employees (1996)

2) 5ho are the managerial" supervisory and rankCandC$le employees6

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;

LH1:19-*I1, -H,%D--M is one who is vested with powers or prerogativesto lay down and e&e#ute management poli#ies or to hire" transfer" suspend"layoA" re#all" dis#harge" assign or dis#ipline employees.

S8-*EIS%*D -H,%D--S are those who" in the interest of the employer"eAe#tively re#ommend su#h managerial a#tions if the e&er#ise of su#hauthority is not merely routinary or #leri#al in nature but reGuires the use of independent judgment. 1ll employees who are neither managerial orsupervisory employees are #onsidered *1:NC1:+C'I,- -H,%D--S. (1rt.2(m) of the ,abor 4ode)

Employees; Mana$erial Employee &s Mana$erial Sta* (199#)

+istinguish the rights of managerial employees from members of amanagerial staA.

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;H1:19-*I1, -H,%D--S have no #olle#tive bargaining rights be#ause" they#annot join or form any other labor organi<ation while o#ers of amanagerial staA are not prohibited from joining" assisting or forming orarresting a supervisors union hen#e" they #an bargain #olle#tively. (1rt.7",abor 4ode :ational Sugar *e$neries 4orp. vs. :,*4" / S4*1 7)

-mployees managerial employees vs. supervisory employees (//)

+istinguish managerial employees from supervisory employees" (3@)

S899-S0-+ 1:S5-*;1 H1:19-*I1, -H,%D-- is one who is vested with powers or prerogativesto lay down and e&e#ute management poli#ies andor to hire" transfer"suspend" layCoA" re#all" dis#harge" assign or dis#ipline employees.S8-*EIS%*D -H,%D--S" on the other hand" are those who in theinterest of the employer, eectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or

clerical in nature but re&uires the use of independent 'udgment ?1rt.2 (m)" ,abor 4odeO In a #ase" the Supreme 4ourt said; LIn the petitionbefore us" a thorough disse#tion of the job des#ription of the #on#ernedsupervisory employees and se#tion heads indisputably show I4%s#ontention that the subje#t se#tion heads and unit managers e&er#ise theauthority to hire and $re is ambiguous and Guite misleading for the reasonthat any authority they e&er#ise is not supreme but merely advisory in#hara#ter. 0heirs is not a $nal determination of the #ompany poli#ies



Inasmu#h as any a#tion taken by them on matters relative to hiring"promotion" transfer" suspension and termination of employees is still subje#tto #on$rmation and approval by their respe#tive superior. ?See 1tlas,ithographi# Servi#es" In#. v. ,aguesma" / S4*1 2" 2= (2)O 0hus"where su#h power" whi#h is in eAe#t re#ommendatory in #hara#ter" is subje#t

to evaluation" review and $nal a#tion by the department heads and highere&e#utives of the #ompany" the same" although present" is not eAe#tive andnot an e&er#ise of independent judgment as reGuired by law. ?hilippine1pplian#e 4orp. v. ,aguesma" S4*1 =3/" =3= (23) #iting 'ranklinBaker 4ompany of the hilippines v. 0rajano" 2= S4*1 72K" 7C733(2!!)O.M (aper Industries 4orp. of the hilippines v. Bienvenido -.,aguesma 33/ S4*1 " (///)O

labor bar q&a

Documents