G.R. No. 80882. April 24, 1989.
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (SPFL), petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER CALLEJA, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner SPFL filed a petition for a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Apex Mining Company. During a pre-election conference, SPFL objected to the inclusion of 197 employees in the voters’ list, specifically those holding Supervisor I, II, and III positions, employees under confidential/special payrolls, and non-union members not paying dues. SPFL argued these employees were either managerial or otherwise disqualified. The Med-Arbiter excluded only 19 managerial and 73 probationary employees, but allowed the 197 challenged employees to vote, subject to challenge. In the election, SPFL initially led, but 197 ballots were challenged. The Med-Arbiter ordered these ballots opened. SPFL appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), arguing the challenged voters were ineligible. Director Calleja denied the appeal and affirmed the order to canvass the ballots. The canvass showed most challenged ballots favored intervenor MMEU-Sandigan, which then won the election. The BLR subsequently certified MMEU-Sandigan as the exclusive bargaining agent. SPFL filed this certiorari petition, contesting the inclusion of the 197 employees.
ISSUE
Whether public respondent Director Calleja committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the 197 employees, particularly the Supervisors and those in confidential payrolls, were rank-and-file employees qualified to vote in the certification election.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the BLR’s determination that the Supervisors (I, II, and III) were not managerial employees. The legal test for managerial status hinges on whether the employee exercises independent judgment in formulating or executing management policies. The job descriptions for these supervisory positions, as cited in the records, showed their functions were merely to assist foremen, execute and coordinate work plans from superiors, and carry out approved policies. Their recommendatory powers were subject to evaluation and final action by higher executives, negating the exercise of independent judgment required by law. They implemented ready policies, leaving them little freedom of action. Regarding employees in the confidential payroll, petitioner failed to substantiate that their duties were managerial. Mere allegation of their being “highly confidential” was insufficient. Finally, non-payment of union dues does not disqualify an employee from being part of the bargaining unit or from voting, as the union shop provision in a CBA typically applies only to new hires. Thus, the challenged employees were correctly considered rank-and-file. Director Calleja’s orders were based on substantial evidence and correct legal principles, constituting a valid exercise of discretion.