San Miguel Foods Inc v San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union bargaining unit which respondent

ing unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no

G.R. No. 146206 | August 1, 2011 | Peralta, J. | Group 2 existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
o It argued that certain employees should not be allowed to vote as
Petitioner: San Miguel Foods, Incorporated they are: (1) confidential employees; (2) employees assigned to the
Respondent: San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union live chicken operations, which are not covered by the bargaining unit;
(3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing
Topic: Factors in Unit Determination managerial work and scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who
belong to the Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6)
Facts employees who are members of other unions.
 San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma [G.R.
No. 110399]  the Court held that even if they handle confidential data Med-Arbiter: [Oct 21, 1998] directed respondent to submit proof showing that the
regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory employees in the submitted list are covered by the original petition for certification
employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner SMFI are not election and belong to the bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise, directing
to be considered confidential employees, because the same do not petitioner to substantiate the allegations contained in its Omnibus Objections and
pertain to labor relations, particularly, negotiation and settlement of Challenge to Voters.
grievances.
o Consequently, they were allowed to form an appropriate bargaining  In compliance thereto, respondent averred that
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. o (1) the bargaining unit contemplated in the original petition is the
o The Court also declared that the employees belonging to the three Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation, now known as SMFI
different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products o (2) it covered the operations in Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and
Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community or Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San
mutuality of interests, constitute a single bargaining unit. Fernando, Pampanga; and
 They perform work of the same nature, receive the same o (3) it submitted individual and separate declarations of the
wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a employees whose votes were challenged in the election.
common stake in concerted activities.  Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the September
 It was immaterial that the three plants have different 30, 1998 certification election, the final tally showed that: number of eligible
locations as they did not impede the operations of a single voters 149; number of valid votes cast 121; number of spoiled ballots - 3; total
bargaining representative. number of votes cast 124, with 118 (46 + 72 = 118 ) Yes votes and 3 No votes.
 Pursuant to the Court's decision in the above case, DOLE-NCR conducted
pre-election conferences. Med-Arbiter: [Feb 17, 1999] directed the parties to appear before the Election Officer
o However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters of the Labor Relations Division on March 9, 1999 10AM for the opening of the
 Petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees for the San segregated ballots.
Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while
respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively.  April 12, 1999  the segregated ballots were opened. Out of the 76
segregated votes, 72 were cast for Yes and 3 for No, with one spoiled ballot.
Med-Arbiter: [Aug 31, 1998] issued an Order directing Election Officer Cynthia
Tolentino to proceed with the conduct of certification election in accordance with Med-Arbiter: [Apr 13, 1999] since the Yes vote received 97% of the valid votes cast,
Section 2, Rule XII of DO 9. 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
 September 30, 1998  certification election was conducted Fernando, and Otis.
Cabuyao Plant San Fernando Total
Plant  [July 30, 1999] On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary affirmed the
Yes 23 23 46 Order, with modification that George C. Matias, Alma Maria M. Lozano,
No 0 0 0 Joannabel T. Delos Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be excluded from the
Spoiled 2 0 2 bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent.
Segregated 41 35 76 o Matias and Lozano are members of Magnolia Poultry Processing
Total Votes Cast 66 58 124 Plants Monthly Employees Union, while Delos Reyes and Pajaron
are employees of San Miguel Corporation, which is a separate and
 On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and distinct entity from petitioner.
Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its  Petitioners filed Partial Motion for Reconsideration; denied
employees on the grounds that some employees do not belong to the
  CA affirmed with modification the July 30, 1999 Resolution of the DOLE o While the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be
Undersecretary, stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the
Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit. same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be
 Petitioners filed Motion for Partial Reconsideration; denied by CA considered.
 Hence, petitioner filed this present petition o The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest.
o The basic test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is
Issues + Held whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective
W/N CA departed from jurisprudence when it expanded the scope of the bargaining rights.
bargaining unit defined by this Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 110399 - NO o Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the
Sawmill Division and the Logging Division.
 Petitioner:  Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs
o With the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 110399 identifying the specific the other in the same way that the company needs them
employees who can participate in the certification election (i.e. the both. There may be differences as to the nature of their
supervisors [levels 1 to 4] and exempt employees of San Miguel individual assignments, but the distinctions are not enough
Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis), the to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
CA erred in expanding the scope of the bargaining unit so as to  Applying the ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the finding of the CA
include employees who do not belong to or who are not based in its that there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao,
Cabuyao or San Fernando plants. San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in
o The employees of the Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis plants of dressed chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in live
petitioners predecessor (SMC), as stated in G.R. No. 110399, were chicken operations.
engaged in dressed chicken processing (handling and packaging of o Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions,
chicken meat), while the new bargaining unit, as defined by the CA location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant
in the present case, includes employees engaged in live chicken conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest.
operations (those who breed chicks and grow chickens). o Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the
 Respondent: specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there
o Petitioner’s proposed exclusion of certain employees from the exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single
bargaining unit was a rehashed issue which was already settled in bargaining unit.
G.R. No. 110399.
o The issue of union membership coverage should no longer be raised W/N CA departed from this Court’s definition of a confidential employee when it
as a certification election already took place on September 30, 1998, ruled for the inclusion of the payroll master position in the bargaining unit - NO
wherein respondent won with 97% votes.
 COURT: Petitioners contentions are erroneous.  Petitioner:
o In G.R. No. 110399, the Court explained that the employees of San o CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master in the
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, definition of a confidential employee
San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit, which is o Prays that the said position and all other positions with access to
not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. salary and compensation data be excluded from the bargaining unit
o Appropriate bargaining unit  a group of employees of a given  This argument must fail.
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of  Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a
employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the o Both criteria must be met
collective bargaining provisions of the law.  The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course
 National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor
Company Workers Union United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential
o The Court, taking into account the community or mutuality of employee rule.
interests test, ordered the formation of a single bargaining unit o Confidential employee  one entrusted with confidence on delicate,
consisting of the Sawmill Division in Butuan City and the Logging or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employers
Division in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao, Agusan [Del] Norte of the property.
Mainit Lumber Development Company.
 o Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be o General rule: an employer has no standing to question the process
excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential of certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers.
information may become the source of undue advantage.  Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-
 However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the off stance in certification elections.
whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to  The bargaining representative of employees should be
salary and compensation data. chosen free from any extraneous influence of management.
o The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe
involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.
course of the performance of his functions. o Exception: where the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant
to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain
W/N those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel collectively.
Assistant should be excluded from the bargaining unit – YES
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court writes finis to the issues raised so
 Although Art 245 LC limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor as to forestall future suits of similar nature.
organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2000 and
or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to Resolution dated November 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No.
managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly 55510, which affirmed with modification the Resolutions dated July 30, 1999 and
confidential records. August 27, 1999 of the Secretary of Labor, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
o Rationale: 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.
o 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 CBA.
 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to
vital labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them
from union membership.
 The proceedings for certification election are quasi-judicial in nature and,
therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain finality.
o Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the present case
pertaining to the coverage of the employees who would constitute
the bargaining unit is now a foregone conclusion.
 It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers;
hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same.