66. U.P. v FERRER-CALLEJA Sec. 1, Rule IV.
For purposes of registration, an appropriate
G.R. No. 96189
July 14, 1992
ANG
TOPIC:PART IV- APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT
PETITIONER: University of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, Department of Labor and Employment, and THE ALL U.P. WORKERS'
UNION, represented by its President, Rosario del Rosario
PONENTE: NARVASA, J.
FACTS:
 The Organization of Non-Academic Working Personnel of UP (ONAPUP)
filed a petition for certification election with the BLR.
o It claimed to have a membership of 3,236 members—more
than 33% of the 9,617 persons constituting the non-academic
personnel of four UP campuses (Diliman, Manila, Los Baños,
and Visayas).
o UP did not object to the petition.
 Another labor union, the All UP Workers’ Union (All UP) filed a motion
for intervention.
o It alleged that its membership covers both academic and non-
academic personnel, and that it aims to unite all rank-and-file
employees in one union.
o It assented to the holding of the certification election provided
the appropriate organizational unit was first clearly defined.
o It observed in this connection that the Research, Extension and
Professorial Staff (REPS), who are academic non-teaching
personnel, should not be deemed part of the organizational
unit.
 UP’s General Counsel was of the stand that there should be two
unions—one for the non-academic/administrative, and one for the
academic personnel.
 BLR Director Calleja: The appropriate organizational unit should
embrace all the regular rank-and-file employees.
o No evidence to justify the grouping of non-academic personnel
separate from academic personnel.
o The Director quoted the pertinent provisions of EO 180 and its
IRRs:
Section 9. The appropriate organizational unit shall be the
employer unit consisting of rank-and-file employees, unless
circumstances otherwise require.
organizational unit may refer to:
d. State universities or colleges, government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters.
o General intent of the EO is not to “fragmentize” the employer
unit, as can be gleaned from the definition of the term
“accredited employees’ organization,” which refers to:
“x x x a registered organization of the rank-and-file employees
as defined in these rules recognized to negotiate for the
employees in an organizational unit headed by an officer with
sufficient authority to bind the agency, such as x x x state
colleges and universities.”
o She thus ordered the holding of a certification among all rank-
and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching.
 At the pre-election conference, UP sought clarification of the term “rank-
and-file.” It claimed that there were some teaching and non-teaching
employees whose functions were in fact managerial and policy-
determining.
 It sought the exclusion of high-level employees, pursuant to Sec. 3 of EO
180:
SEC. 3. High-level employees whose functions are normally considered
as policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of a highly
confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the organization of rank-
and file government employees;
 It claims that the following should not be considered rank-and-file:
o Those with the rank of Assistant Professor or higher;
o Those administrative employees holding positions Grade 18 or
higher.
 The University claims that these employees perform supervisory
functions and are vested with effective recommendatory powers. As to
the professors, UP notes that these academic staff are members of the
University Council, a policy-making body.
 ONAPUP did not oppose UP’s classification. All UP remained firm in its
stance to unite all the rank-and-file employees under a single
organizational unit.
 BLR Director Calleja (Second Order): Declared that the professors are
rank-and-file employees.
o Sec. 1, Rule I, IRRs of EO 180:
High Level Employee — is one whose functions are normally
considered policy determining, managerial or one whose duties
are highly confidential in nature. A managerial function refers
to the exercise of powers such as:

1. To effectively recommend such managerial actions;
2. To formulate or execute management policies and decisions;
or
3. To hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, dismiss, assign or
discipline employees.
o A careful perusal of the University Code shows that the policy-
making powers of the Council are limited to academic matters,
namely, prescribing courses of study and rules of discipline,
fixing student admission and graduation requirements,
recommending to the Board of Regents the conferment of
degrees, and disciplinary power over students.
o On the other hand, the policies referred to in the definition of
high level employees refers to labor-related policies like hiring,
firing, discipline, labor standards and benefits, and terms and
conditions of employment.
o MR filed by UP was denied.
ISSUES : W/N the professors, associate professors and assistant professors are
high-level employees?NO.
W/N the academic employees comprise a bargaining unit separate and distinct
from that of the non-academic employees of UP? YES.
RULING:
 The College Academic Personnel Committee, through which the
academic personnel purportedly perform their supervisory functions, is
actually tasked to:
1. Assist the Dean in setting up the details for the implementation of
policies, rules, standards or general guidelines as formulated by the
University Academic Personnel Board;
2. Review the recommendations submitted by the DAPCs with regard
to recruitment, selection, performance evaluation, tenure, staff
development, and promotion of the faculty and other academic
personnel of the College;
 On the other hand, the University Academic Personnel Board performs
the following functions:
1. Assist the Chancellor in the review of the recommendations of the
CAPC'S.
2. Act on cases of disagreement between the Dean and the CAPC.
3. Formulate policies, rules, and standards with respect to the
selection, compensation, and promotion of members of the
academic staff.
4. Assist the Chancellor in the review of recommendations on
academic promotions and on other matters affecting faculty status
and welfare.
 It is clear that the high-level employees are those who comprise the
UAPB. These would refer to the deans, assistants for academic affairs,
and the chief of personnel. They formulate rules, polices and standards
respecting selection, compensation and promotion of members of the
academic staff.
 The functions of the DAPC and UAPB are merely recommendatory.
 Ultimately, the power to hire, fire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
dismiss, assign or discipline employees rests with the Board of Regents.
 It is also clear that ALL academic personnel cannot be considered high-
level employees, because not all of them are members of the
DAPC/UAPB. They must be appointed or elected.
2nd ISSUE
 Bargaining unit – 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 the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of
the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
 Labor laws do not provide criteria for determining the proper collective
bargaining unit.
 Sec. 12 of RA 875 merely required an “appropriate bargaining unit.” This
was retained in the Labor Code.
 Thus, the Court turned to American jurisprudence for guidance.
o Rothenberg:
1. Will of the employees (Globe doctrine);
2. Affinity and unit of employees’ interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation
and working conditions;
3. Prior collective bargaining history; and
4. Employment status, such as temporary, seasonal, and
probationary employees.
o 10th Annual Report of the NLRB:
1. History, extent and type of organization of employees;
2. History of their collective bargaining;
3. History, extent and type of organization of employees in
other plants of the same employer, or other employers in
the same industry;
4. The skill, wages, work and working conditions of the
employees;
5. The desires of the employees;
 6. The eligibility of the employees for membership in the
union/s involved; and
7. The relationship between the unit/s proposed and the
employer’s organization, management and operation.
o BASIC TEST: “A unit, to be appropriate, must affect a grouping
of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages,
hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective
bargaining.”
 Test applied: “community or mutuality of interests” test.
 In the case at bar, the employees can easily be categorized into two
general classes:
o First—non-academic—janitors, messengers, typists, clerks,
receptionists, carpenters, electricians, ground-keepers,
chauffeurs, mechanics, plumbers; and
o Second—academic—full professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, instructors, research, extension and
professorial staff.
 It would seem obvious that teachers would find very little in common
with the University clerks and other non-academic employees as regards
responsibilities and functions, working conditions, compensation rates,
social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural activities,
etc.
 On the contrary, the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the
nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working
conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the
separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of
collective bargaining.
.