GR 110399; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. PONCE, petitioners, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, HON. DANILO L. REYNANTE AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner union filed a petition for certification election among the supervisors and exempt employees of three SMC Magnolia Poultry Plants. The Med-Arbiter ordered an election for these employees as one bargaining unit. Respondent SMC appealed, arguing the three plants should not constitute a single unit and that supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3 & S4) and exempt employees, being confidential, should be excluded. Undersecretary Laguesma initially directed separate elections per plant but later, upon SMC’s motion for reconsideration, excluded S3, S4, and exempt employees from any election. He ruled they were confidential employees, citing the Philips Industrial Development, Inc. doctrine which bars such employees from union membership due to their access to sensitive labor relations information.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether S3 and S4 supervisors and the exempt employees of SMC are confidential employees and are therefore ineligible to join, assist, or form a labor union.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled they are not confidential employees and are eligible for union membership. The Court clarified the test for confidential employees: they must (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity to (2) persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. Both criteria must concur. The Court found that while these employees might have access to confidential data, the records failed to substantiate that their principal duties involved a confidential capacity to managerial employees specifically handling labor relations. Their functions were more operational and administrative. Merely having access to confidential information, such as financial records, is insufficient if it is not related to the employer’s labor relations policies. The prohibition aims to prevent conflicts of interest where union members might have advance knowledge of management’s position in collective bargaining or grievance handling. Since petitioners do not assist managerial staff on labor relations matters, they are not barred from forming their own supervisory union under Article 245 of the Labor Code. The Court set aside the Undersecretary’s order and directed the conduct of a certification election.