CHAM
Case No. 83 merely because they handle "confidential data". The information they
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION – Eligibility for membership;
Special Groups of Employees
San Miguel Corp. Supervisor Union v. Laguesma
FACTS
1. Petitioner filed before DOLE a Petition for Direct Certification
among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC as one
bargaining unit. DOLE issued the certification
2. San Miguel Corp appealed. They argued that Confidential
employees, like managerial employees, are not allowed to form,
join, or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining
3. In this case, S3 and S4 Supervisors and the so-called exempt
employees are admittedly confidential employees and therefore,
they are not allowed to form, join or assist a labor union for
purposes of collective bargaining. Consequently, they are not
allowed to participate in the certification election.
4. Petitioners also argue that there should exist more than one
bargaining unit because petitioner has three plants throughout
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
ISSUE
Whether or not, supervisors 3 and 4 are prohibited from joining
collective bargaining
RULING/MAIN POINT
No. The said employees do not fall within the term "confidential
employees" who may be prohibited from joining a union. They are not
vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies. They are not qualified to be classified as
managerial employees who, under Article 245 are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization
An important element of the "confidential employee rule" is the
employee's need to use labor relations information. Thus, in determining
the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question frequently
considered is the employee's necessary access to confidential labor
relations information.
Supervisors 3 and 4 may not be considered confidential employees
handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business
operations data which has no relevance to negotiations and settlement
of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are
invariably adversarial.
Further, with regards to the issue on the single-bargaining unit, the fact
that the three plants are in three different places, namely, in Cabuyao,
Laguna, in Otis, Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando,
Pampanga is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely
disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are
not sacrificed.
SC ruled that the distance among the three plants is not productive of
insurmountable difficulties in the administration of union affairs. They
all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation.
This means that, although they belong to three different plants, they
perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and
compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in
concerted activities.
CHAM
Case No. 84
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION – Eligibility for membership;
Special Groups of Employees
Standard Chartered Bank Employees’ Union v. Standard Chartered
FACTS
1. Petitioner and respondent began negotiations for a new CBA.
Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of
Strike.
2. The CBA provisions in dispute are the exclusion of certain
employees from the appropriate bargaining unit
3. Petitioner sought to remove from the list of exclusion the
following employees from the bargaining unit – all managers
who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees,
confidential employees, those with access to labor relations
 materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the
Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff

4. The Secretary of Labor ruled that petitioner failed to show that

the employees sought to be removed from the list qualify for
exclusion. CA affirmed

ISSUE
Whether the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of
the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees, thus,
must still be excluded from the bargaining unit

RULING/MAIN POINT
Yes. Chief cashiers and Asst. Cashiers are declared confidential
employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential
matters, e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial
condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers,
demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, and therefore,
disqualified from joining or assisting a union.

Further, confidential employees such as radio and telegraph

operators who, having access to confidential information, may become
the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as spy or spies
of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.

The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from

joining a bargaining unit for rank-and-file employees is already well-
entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits
the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to
managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to
confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or
nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to
managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and
highly confidential records.

Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim and did not even present
bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees.