G.R. No. L-18710. March 30, 1963.
NATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, GOODWILL LABOR ORGANIZATION-CCLU and NAMERCO EMPLOYEES and LABOR ASSOCIATION (FTLO), respondents.

FACTS

The National Merchandising Corporation (NAMERCO) petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to determine if the Goodwill Labor Organization could properly act as a bargaining agent for its employees. The parties agreed to hold a certification election but disagreed on the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit. NAMERCO sought to exclude eight employees—Cornelio Vitug, Eufronio Atienza, Ricardo Rodriguez, Edilberto Enriquez, Jesus Avila, Jose Padilla, Alejandro Justo, and Eulogio Candelaria—holding designations such as Chief Mechanic, Chief Welder, Chief Painter, and Chief Carpenter, on the ground that they were supervisors under Republic Act No. 875 (The Industrial Peace Act). The company argued these employees performed supervisory functions within the Repairs and Maintenance Department.
The CIR trial court found these eight employees to be, at most, minor supervisory employees who worked closely with the few men under them. It directed their inclusion in the Employer Unit for the certification election. This order was affirmed by the CIR en banc. NAMERCO elevated the case, contending that these employees were supervisors as legally defined and should therefore be excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

ISSUE

Whether the eight employees are supervisors as defined in Section 2(k) of Republic Act No. 875 , thereby warranting their exclusion from the appropriate bargaining unit for certification election purposes.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s ruling, holding that the eight employees are not supervisors but are properly included in the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The legal definition of a “supervisor” under Section 2(k) of R.A. 875 requires that a person must have authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign, recommend, or discipline other employees, or responsibly direct them, or effectively recommend such acts. Crucially, the exercise of such authority must not be merely routinary or clerical but must require the use of independent judgment.
The Court found that NAMERCO failed to substantiate its claim. The evidence showed that while the Personnel Manager testified these section heads could recommend hiring or dismissal, no concrete instance was presented where any of them had actually made such a recommendation. Their alleged recommendatory powers were subject to evaluation, review, and final approval by higher department heads. Furthermore, the work assignments for all personnel in the department were given by the Service Manager, Justo Sycip, indicating the eight employees did not “responsibly direct” their subordinates. Their designations as “chief” merely signified they were the lead workers among their peers, not that they possessed genuine supervisory authority requiring independent judgment. Consequently, they were correctly classified as minor supervisory employees or mere leadmen, properly belonging to the rank-and-file unit for collective bargaining.