Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, Labor Arbiter: It is hereby declared that the Division Secretaries
vs. and all Staff of general management, personnel and industrial
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPS relations department, secretaries of audit, EDP, financial system are
EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (FFW), respondents. confidential employees and as such are hereby deemed excluded in
the bargaining unit.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
o As a result PEO-FFW appealed from the decision to the NLRC.
Facts:
NLRC: Reversed the decision. Declaring respondent company's
o PIDI is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and Service Engineers, Sales Force, division secretaries, all Staff of
marketing of electronic products Since 1971, it had a total of six General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations
(6) collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with private Department, Secretaries of Audit, EDP and Financial Systems are
respondent Philips Employees Organization-FFW (PEO-FFW), a included within the rank and file bargaining unit.
registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all
the rank and file employees of PIDI. Likewise, the Executive Labor Arbiter's declaration that the Division
Secretaries and all Staff of general management, personnel and
1st CBA Supervisors referred to in R.A. industrial relations department, secretaries of audit, EDP and
No. 875, confidential financial system "are confidential employees and as such are hereby
employees, security guards, deemed excluded in (sic) the bargaining unit" is contrary to law for
temporary employees and sales the simple reason that the law, as earlier quoted, does not mention
representatives were excluded them as among those to be excluded from the bargaining unit only
from the bargaining unit. (sic) managerial employees and security guards.
2nd to 5th CBA The sales force, confidential
employees and heads of small Petitioners contention OSG
units, together with the 1) The inclusion of the group 1) It holds the view that the
managerial employees, in the existing bargaining division Secretaries; the staff
temporary employees and unit would run counter to members of General
security personnel, were the history of this parties Management, Personnel and
specifically excluded from the CBA. The parties' five (5) the Industrial Relations
bargaining unit. previous CBAs Department; and the
6th CBA It was agreed upon, among consistently excluded this secretaries of Audit, EDP
others, that the subject of group of employees from and Financial Systems, are
inclusion or exclusion of service the scope of the disqualified from joining the
engineers, sales personnel and bargaining unit. PEO-FFW as they are
confidential employees in the confidential employees.
coverage of the bargaining unit 2) The rationale for such
would be submitted for exclusion is that these 2) They cannot even form a
In the first place, all these employees, with the exception of the
employees hold positions union of their own. service engineers and the sales force personnel, are confidential
which are highly sensitive, employees. Their classification as such is not seriously disputed by
confidential and of a highly PEO-FFW; the five (5) previous CBAs between PIDI and PEO-FFW
fiduciary nature; to include explicitly considered them as confidential employees. By the very
them in the bargaining unit nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity
may subject the company to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise
to breaches in security managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the
and the possible revelation rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form,
of highly sensitive and assist or join a labor union equally applies to them.
confidential matters. It
would cripple the Rationale behind the prohibition:
company's bargaining Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Hon Augusto Sanchez
position and would give
undue advantage to the Doctrine: The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be,
union. because if these managerial employees would belong to or be
affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their
3) The absence of mutuality loyalty, to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The
of interests between this Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of
group of employees and managerial employees in Union membership.
the regular rank and file
militates against such
Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja
inclusion
Doctrine: This Court explicitly made this rationale applicable to
confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and
Issue (1): WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in telegraph operators, who having access to confidential
holding confidential employees qualified to be part of the existing information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said
bargaining unit. employee(s) may act as a spy or, spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement. This is specially true in the
Held: Yes present case where the petitioning Union is already the bargaining
agent of the rank-and-file employees in the establishment. To
Ratio: It is quite obvious that respondent NLRC committed grave allow the confidential employees to join the existing Union of the
abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the Executive Labor rank-and-file would be in violation of the terms of the Collective
Arbiter and in decreeing that PIDI's "Service Engineers, Sales Force, Bargaining Agreement wherein this kind of employees by the
division secretaries, all Staff of General Management, Personnel and nature of their functions/ positions are expressly excluded.
Industrial Relations Department, Secretaries of Audit, EDP and
Financial Systems are included within the rank and file bargaining
unit.
As regards the service engineers and the sales representatives: SO ORDERED.
Ratio: Suffice it to state here that since the only issue is the subject
employees' inclusion in or exclusion from the bargaining unit in
question, and PIDI never questioned the decision of the Executive
Labor Arbiter, the Globe Doctrine finds no application. Besides, this
doctrine applies only in instances of evenly balanced claims by
competitive groups for the right to be established as the bargaining
unit, which do not obtain in this case.