G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. 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, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition for certification election filed by the Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) among non-academic employees of the University of the Philippines. The All UP Workers’ Union intervened, asserting its membership covered both academic and non-academic personnel and aiming to unite all UP rank-and-file employees in one union. The University of the Philippines, through its General Counsel, posited that there should be two separate unions: one for academic and another for non-academic personnel, citing a dichotomy of interests, conditions, and rules. Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja ruled that the appropriate organizational unit should embrace all regular rank-and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching, of the University. The University subsequently sought clarification, specifically seeking the exclusion of employees holding supervisory positions among non-academic personnel and teaching staff with the rank of Assistant Professor or higher, arguing they were “high-level employees” performing policy-making, managerial, or confidential functions under Section 3 of Executive Order No. 180 and thus ineligible to join rank-and-file unions. Director Calleja, in an Order dated October 30, 1990, ruled that professors, associate professors, and assistant professors are rank-and-file employees qualified to join unions. The University’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether professors, associate professors, and assistant professors are “high-level employees” whose functions are normally considered policy-determining, managerial, or highly confidential in nature, and thus ineligible to join rank-and-file employee organizations.
2. Whether employees performing academic functions should comprise a collective bargaining unit distinct from that of non-academic employees of the University.

RULING

1. NO. The Supreme Court upheld the respondent Director’s ruling that professors, associate professors, and assistant professors are rank-and-file employees. The Court examined Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules, the University’s charter, and relevant regulations. It found that the policy-making powers of the University Council, wherein these professors participate, are limited to academic matters such as prescribing courses of study, rules of discipline, and student admission requirements. The policy-determining functions contemplated in the definition of a “high-level employee” pertain to managerial or organizational policies directly affecting terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, disciplining employees, salaries, and working hours. Since the Council’s powers do not extend to these employment-related managerial policies, the professors cannot be considered high-level employees based on policy-determining functions. The Court also noted they do not exercise managerial or highly confidential functions regarding university labor relations.
2. NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent Director’s decision that there should be only one collective bargaining unit consisting of all rank-and-file employees of the University. The Court agreed that the circumstances did not require the fragmentation of the employer unit into separate academic and non-academic units. It cited the principle that the fundamental test of an appropriate bargaining unit is the mutuality or commonality of interests among its members. The Court found that while there are differences in specific conditions of work between academic and non-academic personnel, they share fundamental or basic common interests as employees of the same public employer, such as terms and conditions of employment like salaries, hours of work, benefits, and grievance procedures. The law (Executive Order No. 180, Section 9) establishes the employer unit as the appropriate organizational unit for rank-and-file employees, and the implementing rules designate state universities as such a unit. The Court concluded there was no compelling reason to depart from this statutory preference for a single, employer-wide unit.