Photo from Unsplash | charlesdeluvio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. (Article 255, Labor Code.)
It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 (now Article 255) as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the provision.
If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers.
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s property.
Confidential employees are defined as those who assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.
Jurisprudence says:
“Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee – that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule.” (San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors, G.R. 146206, August 01, 2011)
Right to Self-Organization
The right of self-organization refers to the right of employees to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining and to engage in lawful concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. This is grounded on the constitutional guarantee of the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
The 1987 Constitution provides that:
“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
xxx” (Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution)
Confidential Employee Rule, and its basis
The confidential employee rule provides that confidential employees are prohibited from exercising the right to self-organization. Otherwise stated, managerial employees and confidential employees are not eligible to join, form, or assist a labor organization.
An important element of the ‘confidential employee rule’ is the employee’s need to use labor relations information. (San Miguel Corporations Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997)
Confidential employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee or employees may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. (National Association of Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Hon. Ruben Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994)
If managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of the loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The same rationale was applied to confidential employees who by the very nature of their functions, assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.
Jurisprudence says:
“While Art. 245 [now Article 255] of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed.” (National Association of Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Hon. Ruben Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994)
Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in the same case of National Association of Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Hon. Ruben Torres that:
“[I]f these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.” Stated differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its interests are well protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided.
The Supreme Court added:
“It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 (now Article 255) as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the provision.
If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers.
Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act “in the interest of” the employers. It is not farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty-bound to protect.” (National Association of Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Hon. Ruben Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994)
Related article: Expanded benefits and privileges of persons with disability
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.