Labor Report

LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS
LABOR RELATIONS
 Article 253: Coverage and Employee’s Right to Self-

Organization
 Article 254: Right of Employees in the Public Service
 Article 255: Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any
LABOR Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS
 Article 253: COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-

ORGANIZATION
All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural

enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical or educational
institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to
self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations
of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 252: COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION)
1. ORGANIZING IN GENERAL
The rights to organize and to bargain, in a general sense, arc given not
exclusively to employees. Even workers who are not employees of any particular
employer may form their organizations to protect their interests. Movie actors and
actresses, for instance, have their organization although most of them, as independent individual
“talents,” have no particular employer; young presidents as well as retired generals have their
organizations too. The organization enjoys protection under the Bill of Rights.
Under Article 253 of this Code, the right to organize refers also to forming, joining or
assisting a labor organization. Connected to Article 256 this right carries with it the right to engage
in group action, provided it is peaceful, to support the organization’s objective which is not
necessarily collective bargaining but, simply, to aid and protect its members. But this kind of group
action must be differentiated from strike which, because it is work stoppage, must observe certain
regulations; otherwise, the strike may be declared illegal and its leaders may be thrown out of their
jobs.
LABOR LAW
1. ORGANIZING IN GENERAL (Comments and Cases)
1. 1 Coverage of the Right to Organize;
The right to form, join or assist a labor organization is granted to all kinds of employees of
all kinds of employers — public or private, profit or nonprofit, commercial or religious. Their usual
form of organization is a union and the usual purpose is collective bargaining with their employers.
Consistent with the constitutional mandate, Article 253 of the Code allows “all persons
employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises” to form, join or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. The right is extended
even to those employed in traditionally nonprofit organizations like religious, charitable, medical or
educational institutions. This extension of the right departs from the policy under the old Industrial
Peace Act (R.A. No. 875) which withheld the right to organize from employees of nonprofit firms.
But the seemingly all-inclusive coverage of “all persons” in Article 243 actually admits of
exceptions. Under Article 255, for instance, managerial employees, regardless of the kind of
organization where they are employed, may not join, assist or form any labor organization, meaning
a labor union.
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 252: COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION) LABOR LAW
1. ORGANIZING IN GENERAL (Comments and Cases)
1. 1 Coverage of the Right to Organize;
Accordingly, managerial employees cannot, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,

be allowed to share in the concessions obtained by the labor union through collective negotiation.
Otherwise, they would be exposed to the temptation of colluding with the union during the
negotiations to the detriment of the employer. However, there is nothing to prevent the employer
from granting benefits to managerial employees equal to or higher than those afforded to union
members.
Supervisors are allowed to organize, but they cannot form, join or assist a rank-and-file
union.
2. RIGHT TO ORGANIZE CANNOT BE BARGAINED AWAY
Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) vs. Callgja, G.R. No. 80882,
April 24,1989
Said the Supreme Court: “Although we have upheld the validity of the CBA as the law
among the parties,! its provisions cannot override what is expressly provided by law that only
managerial employees are ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.? Therefore,
regardless of the challenged employees’ designations, whether they are employed as supervisors or
in the confidential payrolls, if the nature of their job does not fall under the definition of
“managerial” as defined in the Labor Code, they are eligible to be members of the bargaining unit
and to vote in the certification election. Their right to self-organization must be upheld in the
absence of an express provision of law to the contrary. It cannot be curtailed by a collective
bargaining agreement.”
LABOR LAW
3. EMPLOYEES OF NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS
Under Article 2 (b)2 of the Labor Code, the rank-and-file employees of nonprofit medical
institutions are permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of
collective bargaining. If the union has complied with the requisites provided by law for calling a
certification election, it is incumbent upon the [DOLE Regional] Director to conduct such certification
election to ascertain the bargaining representative of the hospital employees.
LABOR LAW
4. EXCEPTION: EMPLOYEE-MEMBERS OF A COOPERATIVE

San Jose Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. vs. Ministry of Labor, G.R. No. 77231, May 31, 1989
A cooperative is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either by persons,
partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business
while the others are its employees. Irrespective of the number of shares owned by its members they are
entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the affair of the cooperative, Their share capital earn limited
interests. They enjoy special privileges as exemption from income tax and sales taxes, preferential right to
supply their products to State agencies and even exemption from minimum wage laws.
the court clarified that it is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management
thereof, which disqualifies member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus,
irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members
thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.'
But member-employees of a cooperative may withdraw as members of the cooperative in order to join
a labor union. Membership in a cooperative is voluntary; inherent in it is the right not to join.
LABOR LAW
4. EXCEPTION: EMPLOYEE-MEMBERS OF A COOPERATIVE(Comments and Cases)
4. 1 Exception to Exception: Association, not Union
D.O. No. 40-03 allows and defines a “workers’ association” as one which is organized for
the mutual aid an protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining. The right to self-organize, says Article 246, cannot be abridged by any person. In a case
where the employer was a cooperative, some employees were compulsorily retired and some
officers of the employees’ association were singled out for early retirement. The association filed a
complaint with the NLRC against the cooperative. The court upheld the complainants, declared
them to have been illegally dismissed, and awarded them damages— all upon representation of the
employees’ Association (not union) against the cooperative.
5. EXCEPTION: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Like employee - members of a cooperative, employees of an organization immune from
Philippine jurisdiction cannot unionize. Thus, certification election cannot be conducted in an
international organization which the Philippine Government has granted immunity from local
jurisdiction.
Examples of such organizations are the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and
the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC).
The grant of such immunity is a political question whose resolution by the executive branch
of government is conclusive upon the courts.
LABOR LAW
Foreign Workers
• Foreigners, whether natural or Requisites:

juridical, as well as foreign corporations, a) He should have a valid working permit
are strictly prohibited from engaging issued by the DOLE; and
directly or indirectly in all forms of trade
union activities. However, aliens working b) He is a national of a country which
in the country with valid work grants the same or similar rights to
permits may exercise the right Filipino workers or which has ratified
either ILO Convention No. 87 or 98 as
of self-organization if they are ratified by DFA.
nationals of a country that
grants the same or similar
right to Filipino workers.
6. EXCEPTION: RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS;
Under the Industrial Peace Act (1953) which preceded the Labor Code (and even under the present
Code) the employer and the union could enter into a “closed shop” agreement which would compel
employees to become union workers as a condition of continued employment. But in 1961, RA. No.
3350 was passed to exempt from such compulsory union membership the followers of any
religious sect (such as the Iglesia ni Cristo) whose teachings forbid membership in labor unions. The
constitutionality of R.A. No. 3350 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Victoriano vs. Elizalde.
LABOR LAW
6. EXCEPTION: RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS; IGLESIA NI CRISTO MEMBERS
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, et al., G.R. No. L-25246,
September 12,1974
What the exception provides, therefore, is that members of said religious sects cannot be
compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with
the employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sectors
cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not
members of the collective bargaining union.
It may not be amiss to point out here that the free exercise of religious profession or belief
is superior to contract rights. In case of conflicts, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former. The
Supreme Court of the United States has also declared on several occasions that the rights in the
First Amendment, which include freedom of religion, enjoy a preferred position in the constitutional
system. Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty, and
has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must yield to
freedom of religion. It is only where unavoidably necessary o prevent an immediate and grave
danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be
justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.
LABOR RELATIONS
 Article 253: RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Employees of government corporations established under the

Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to
bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other
employees in the civil service shall have the right to form
associations for purposes not contrary to law.
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 253: RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE)
1. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE; LIMITATIONS

The highest law of the land guarantees to government employees the right to
organize and to negotiate, but not the right to strike.
Arizala, et. al. vs Court of Appeals, et. al ., G.R. Nos. L-43633-34, September 14,
1990
1) Presidential Decree No. 807

2) The 1987 Constitution
3) CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6
4) Executive Order No. 180
LABOR LAW
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE; LIMITATIONS (Comments and Cases)
(1) PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 807
…superseded the Civil Service Law of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) and repealed or modified
“all laws, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions
thereof.”
“Civil Service” as embracing “every branch, agency, supervision, and

instrumentality of the government, including every government-owned or controlled
corporation whether performing governmental or proprietary function.”
The effect was seemingly to prohibit government employees to “strike for the
purpose of securing changes of their terms and conditions of employment“
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 253: RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE) LABOR LAW
(2) THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
…“right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees”;
…“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”
…“shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage
xxx” (and) also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law”.
(3) CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6
…“xxx prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws

concerning strike by government employees, and considering that
there are existing laws which prohibit government officials and
employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves,
walkouts and other forms of mass action which will result in
temporary stoppage or disruption of public services. To allow
otherwise is to undermine or prejudice the government system.”
(4) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 180
…“employees of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and

agencies of the Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters; such as employees
“shall not be discriminated against in respect if their employment by
reason of their membership in employees’ organizations or
participation in the normal activities of their organization x x x (and
their) employment shall not be subject to the condition that they
shall not join or shall relinquish their membership in the employees’
organizations.”
1.1 Limited Purpose
…employees in the private sector: “to form, join or assist labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining,” admittedly includes the right to deal and
negotiate with their respective employers in order to fix the terms and conditions
of employment and also, to engage in concerted activities for the attainment of
their objectives, such as strikes, picketing, boycotts.
…employees in the government sector: “to form, join or assist employees’

organizations of their own choosing”, under Executive No. 180 is NOT regarded as
existing or available for “purposes of collective bargaining,” but simply “for
fiurtherance and protection of their interests.”
1.1 Limited Purpose
Excluded from negotiations by government employees are the “terms and

condition of employment… that are fixed by law,” it being only those terms and
conditions not otherwise fixed by law that “may be subject if negotiation between
duly recognized employees’ organization and appropriate government authorities.
Declared to be “NOT negotiable”:

(1) that require appropriation of funds
(2) that involve the exercise of management prerogatives
Considered “negotiable”
(1) schedule of vacation and other leaves
(2) work assignment of pregnant women
(3) recreational, social, athletic, and cultural activities and facilities, etc.
1.3 Exempted Employees
…”members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including police officers, policemen,
firemen, and jail guards.” (Sec. 4) For reasons of security and safety, they are not allowed to
unionize.
…“high level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy making or
managerial, or whose duties are of a highly confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the
organization of rank-and-file government employees. A “high level employee” is one “whose
functions are normally considered as policy determining, managerial or one whose duties are
highly confidential in nature. A managerial function refers to exercise of powers such as: (1) to
effectively recommend such managerial actions; (2) to formulate or execute management policies
and decisions; or (3) to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, dismiss, assign or discipline
employees.”
1.3a Professors as Rank-and-File Employees
University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 96189, July 14, 1992
Facts: The University of the Philippines seeks the nullification of the Order of the director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations holding that professors of the University of the Philippines are rank-and-
file employees and that, consequently, they should be represented by only one labor organization
together with the so-called non-academic employees.
Issues: 1) Whether or not professors, associate professors and assistant professors are “high-level”
or “rank-and-file” employees; 2) Whether or not, they, and other employees performing academic
functions, should comprise a bargaining unit distinct from that of the non-academic employees.
Ruling: [First Issue] In the light of E.O. No. 180 and its implementing rules, as well as the
University’s charter and relevant regulations, the professors, associate professors and assistant
professors (thereafter simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as exercising such
managerial or highly confidential functions as would justify their being categorized as “high-level
employees” of the institution.
1.3a Professors as Rank-and-File Employees
University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 96189, July 14, 1992
[Second Issue] Be that as it may, does it follow, as public respondent would propose, that all rank-
and-file employees of the university are o be organized into a single collective bargaining unit?
The “community or mutuality of interests” test has provided the standard in determining the
proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.
The University employees may, as already suggested, quite easily be categorized into two
general classes: one, the group composed of employees whose functions are non-academic, i.e.,
janitors, messengers, typists, clerks, receptionists, carpenters, electricians, ground-keepers,
chauffeurs, mechanics, plumbers and, o, the group made up of those performing academic
functions, i.e., full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors — who may be
judges or government executives — and research, extensions and professional staff. Not much
reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality of interests which justifies the
formation of a single collective bargaining unit is wanting between the academic and non-academic
personnel of the University.
1.4 Right to Strike
E.O. No. 180 also concedes to government employees, like their counterparts in the private
sector, the right to engage in concerted activities, including the right to strike. But the executive
order quickly adds that those activities must be exercised in accordance with law, i.e., subject both
to “Civil Service Law and rules” and “any legislation that may be enacted by Congress.” It further
states that “the resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees” is
not ordinarily left to collective bargaining or other related concerted activities, but to “Civil Service
Law and labor laws and procedures whenever applicable.”
In case “any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all available remedies under
existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the (Public Sector Labor-
Management) Council for appropriate action; ”What is more, the Rules and Regulations
implementing E.O. No. 180 explicitly provide that since the “terms and conditions of employment in
the government, icluding any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government-
owned and -controlled corporations with original charter are governed by law, the employees
therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes thereof.”
2. REGISTRATION
Government employees' organizations shall register with the Civil Service
Commission and the Department of Labor and Employment. The application shall be
filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department which shall process the
same in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended. Applications may also be filed with the Regional Offices of the Department
of Labor and employment which shall immediately transmit the said applications to
the Bureau of Labor Relations within three (3) days from receipt thereof.
Upon approval of the application, a registration certificate shall be issued to
the organization recognizing it as a legitimate employees’ organization with the right
to represent its members and undertake activities to further and defend its interests.
The corresponding certificates of registration shall be jointly approved by the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and Secretary of Labor and Employment.
3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION

A certification election to choose the union that will represent the employees may be
conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations in a government corporation, whether
governed by the Labor Code or the Civil Service rules.
Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. National Housing Corporation,
G.R. No. 49677, May 4, 1989
Facts: Respondent National Housing Corporation is a corporation organized in 1959 under

Executive Order No. 339, known as the Uniform Charter of Government Corporations, dated January
1, 1951. Tt shares of stock are and have been one hundred percent owned by the Government from
its incorporation under Act No. 459, the former corporation law.
Ruling: The 1987 Constitution declares that “the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.”
3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION
Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. National Housing Corporation,
G.R. No. 49677, May 4, 1989
Consequently, the civil service now covers only government-owned or -controlled

corporations with original or legislative charters, that is, those created by an act of Congress or by
special law, and not those incorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation.
There is, therefore, no impediment to the holding of a certification election among the
workers of NHC for it is clear that they are covered by the Labor Code, the NHC being a
government-owned and/or -controlled corporation without an original charter.
Whether the employees of NHC are covered by the Labor Code or by the civil service laws,
a certification election may be conducted.
5. Union-Busting in a Government Agency, U.L.P.
In the previous-cited case of Pamantasan, the Civil Service Commission adopted the
findings and conclusion of the Public Sector Labor-Management Council. The CSC's resolution
described union busting, in a government office and the Supreme Court sustained it.
In the arbitration proceedings, the PSLMC found that PLM committed unfair labor practice
(U.L.P.) when it terminated the services of the complainants. It is undisputed that the PLM
Management did not renew the appointments of these members of the faculty with temporary
contracts but those who were hired as replacements possess even lesser qualifications than the 16
complainants. Further, the PLM Management refused and still refuses to produce the results of their
evaluation of the performance of the complainants which can be an indication that presentation of
such evidence would be detrimental to its case. Hence, this issue before us.
5.1 Even Temporary Employees May Organize
Pamantasang Lungsod ng Maynila faculty Organization vs.CSC et al..GR. No.107590
Even temporary employees enjoy the basic right to form organization or association for purposes not contrary
to law. PLMFO is that organization. Thus, its members cannot be separated from the service for the simple
reason of membership in the said organization. And when the appointment status of these members happens
to be temporary in nature, such becomes merely incidental and the doctrine that temporary employees have no
security of tenure must yield or is not applicable. When the clear intent therefore of PLM Management in
terminating the services of these employees is to abridge their constitutional right to self organization, the
Commission has the duty to give them protection and uphold their basic right. This constitutional right of
employees is superior to the right of management not to renew the temporary appointment of its employees.
When the exercise of discretion by the management is calculated to bust the union as what PLM Management
had done, the Commission has no choice but to declare it as a grave abuse of discretion.
Under the Labor Code, “any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning
on his first day of service, be considered an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union.
LABOR RELATIONS
 Article 255: INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES TO

JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION; RIGHT OF SUPERVISION
EMPLOYEES
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. The rank-and-file union and the supervisors’ union
operating within the same establishment may join the same
federation or national union.
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS
1. CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES
three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-Veloso

law).
1.managerial,
2.supervisory, and
3. rank-and-file.
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS

law).
1.Managerial, ‘Managerial employee’ is one who is

vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down
and execute management policies and/or to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees.”
LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS
three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-

Veloso law).
1. Supervisory, , Supervisory employees are those

who, in the interest of the employer, effectively
recommend such managerial actions if the exercise
of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical
in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment. LABOR LAW
LABOR RELATIONS

law).
1. Rank-and-file employees are those who are not

managerial employees nor supervisory employees.
LABOR LAW
2. INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERS (Comments and Cases)
The term “manager,”, generally refers to “anyone who is responsible for subordinates and
other organizational resources.” As a class, managers constitute three levels of pyramid, namely, top
management, middle management, and first-line management which is also called supervisor. Below
his third level are the operatives or operating employees who, we may add, are also called rank-and-
file.
First-line Managers — The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible
for the work of others is called first-line or first level management. First-line managers direct operating
employees only; they do not supervise other managers. Examples of first-line managers are the
“foreman” or production supervisor in a manufacturing plant, the technical supervisor in a research
department, and the clerical supervisor in a large office. First-level managers are often called
supervisors.
Middle Managers — The term middle manager can refer to more than one level in an
organization. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of
operating employees. Middle managers' principal responsibilities are to direct the activities that
implement their organizations’ policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the
capacities of their subordinates. A plant manager in an electronics firm is an example of a middle
manager.
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 255: EFFECT OF INCLUSION AS MEMBERS OF EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT) LABOR LAW
2. INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERS (Comments and Cases)
2.2 Constitutionality of the Prohibition

In Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Augusto Sanchez,
“... The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if 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.” (Id. at 347.345)
To be sure, the Court in Philips Industrial was dealing with the right of confidential employees
to organize. But the same reason for denying them the right to organize justifies even more the ban
can managerial employees from forming unions. After all, those who qualify as top or middle
managers are executives who receive from their employers information that not only is confidential but
also is not generally available to the public, or to their competitors, or to other employees.
3. EVOLUTION OF SUPERVISORS’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
Unlike managers, supervisors can unionize. This right is now established
after evolving through three periods searching for definitions.
3.1 First Period: Under the Industrial Peace Act

The first period is from 1953 under the Industrial Peace Act up until 1974 when the Labor
Code took effect. During that period, supervisors could unionize separately from rank-and-file workers.
The term “supervisor” was defined as ‘any person having authority in the interest of an employer, to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign, recommend, oh. Discipline other employees,
or responsibly to direct them, and to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such acts if,
in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routinary or clerical
nature but requires the use of independent judgment.
LABOR LAW
3. EVOLUTION OF SUPERVISORS’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
3.1 First Period: Under the Industrial Peace Act

Upholding the supervisors’ right to organize, the Court ruled in Filoil Refinery Corp. vs. Filoil
Supervisory and Confidential Employees Association and CIR (46 SCRA 522) in August 1972:
it is well settled that “in relation to his employer,” a foreman or supervisor “is an employee
within the meaning of the Act. ” x x x For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union
activities and any discrimination against then by reason thereof constitutes an unfair labor practice.
Could managers also unionize? In a case involving Caltex managers, the Court answered
affirmatively,
3. EVOLUTION OF SUPERVISORS’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE (Comments and Cases)
3.2 Second Period: Under the Labor Code Before Amendment by R.A.
No. 6715
The second period in the evolution of the supervisors’ right to organize is from the effectivity
of the Labor Code in 1974 until March 21, 1989 when RA. No. 6715 (known as the Herrera-Veloso
amendments) came into force.
The Labor Code as issued in 1974 dropped the old term “supervisor” but replaced it with
“managerial employee.” Managerial employees were not allowed to unionize. The Code defined a
“managerial employee” as “one who is vested with power or prerogative to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.
3.2 Second Period: Under the Labor Code Before Amendment by R.A.
No. 6715
This time the question was: Did “managerial employee” include “supervisor"? Were supervisors also
banned from unicnizing?
Yes. The prohibition was applied to supervisors in the case of Bulletin Publishing Corp. vs. Sanchez,
144 SCRA 428, decided on October 7, 1986:
Said the Court:
The supervisory employees of petitioner finn may not, under the law, form a
supervisors’ union, separate and distinct from the existing bargaining unit composed of the
rank-and-file employees. It s distinctly stated in Sec. 11, Rule I, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code that supervisory unions are presently no longer recognized nor
allowed to exist and operate as such.
3.3 Third Period: Under the Labor Code as Amended by R.A. No. 6715
The labor sector could not bear losing a right it had enjoyed for more than twenty years prior to the
Labor Code; hence, it sought its restoration through the Herrera-Veloso amendments. Taking effect on
March 21, 1989, R.A. No. 6715 marks the third stage in the evolution of the supervisors’ right to
organize.
R.A. No. 6715 presents a compromise formula: retain the ineligibility of managerial employees
but revive the right of supervisory employees to unionize.
Now, under the aegis of RA. No. 6715, the Supreme Court sighs in relief: “Thus, the right of
supervisory employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act is once more recognized under the
present amendments to the Labor Code.”
LABOR RELATIONS (ARTS 255: EFFECT OF INCLUSION AS MEMBERS OF EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT)
COMMENTS and CASES
4. DEFINITIONS OF MANAGER AND SUPERVISORS
It is now settled that to avoid the mix-up that “managerial employee” includes “supervisor”
and “supervisor” includes “manager,”
A supervisor has the power only to recommend while a managerial employee has the power
to decide and do those acts. the recommendation is (1) discretionary or judgmental (not
clerical), (2) independent (not a dictation of someone else), and (3) effective (given
particular weight in making the management decision.
LABOR LAW
5. TEST OF SUPERVISORY STATUS
The test of “supervisory” or “managerial status” depends on whether a person possesses

authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 219(m) of the Labor
Code and Sec. 1(m) of its Implementing Rules [now Sec. 1(t)] and whether such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Thus, where
such recommendatory powers are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department
heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are not effective and
not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.‘
The fact alone that a supervisor makes recommendations as to what managerial actions to
take in disciplinary cases by itself does not make one a managerial employee.
LABOR LAW
5. TEST OF SUPERVISORY STATUS (Comments and Cases)
It is the nature of an employee’s functions and not the nomenclature or title given to his job which
determines whether he has a rank-and-file or managerial status. Among the characteristics of
managerial rank are: 1) he is not subject to the rigid observance of regular office hours; 2) his work
requires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; 3) the output
produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; 4)
he manages a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the establishment, customarily
and regularly directing the work of other employees there; 5) he either has the authority to hire or
discharge other employees or his suggestions and recommendations as to hiring and discharging,
advancement and promotion or other change of status of other employees are given particular
weight; and 6) as a rule, he is not paid hourly wages nor subjected to maximum hours of work.
5.1 The Power to Recommend
The power to recommend, in order to qualify an employee as a supervisor, must not only be
effective but should require the use of independent judgment. It should not be merely of a routi
nary or clerical nature. In the case at bar, it appears in the first place that, as found by the trial court,
there are no clear appointments in favor of the employees in question including the alleged power to
recommend, and while the Personnel Manager of the petitioner company, declared that these
employees as section heads could recommend the hiring, expulsion, or dismissal of the workers under
their respective shops, the fact remains that, as admitted by him, no such recommendations have
ever been made by them. There is also evidence that other employees have been appointed,
transferred, or discharged and laid-off without any recommendation of the employees involved in
these proceedings. Furthermore, such recommendatory powers are subject to evaluation, review, and
final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company. It, therefore,
appears that the conclusion of the trial court that the authority to recommend, even if present, is not
effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law, is not incorrect.
5.2 Examples of Ineffective or Clerical Recommendation
The assistant principal and general supervisor admitted that the recommendations of the area
supervisors are subject to evaluation, review and final approval by the principal, as “x x x most
recommendations of area supervisors are considered with a grain of salt.” It is established by the
evidence that even as the efficiency ratings given by an area supervisor are based on his own
observations of the teachers under him, he was prevailed. upon by the principal to change them,
which he did, and that his remarks and observations of some of the teachers under him were deleted
in the copy furnished the Bureau of Private Education. In the case of area supervisor Neri, as was
admitted by the assistant principal and general supervisor, his recommendations, indeed, arc
considered with a grain of salt. Neri’s testimony is not denied that when he recommended a teacher
to teach biology, his recommendation was rejected and when he assigned a teacher to teach Science,
without so much as notifying him, the teacher was given Arithmetic. The preparation of program of
supervision by area supervisors is, likewise, not indicative that they are supervisors, for, as testified by
Lainez, which testimony is not rebutted, it is nothing more than the enumerations of activities in the
area, many of them merily routinary, as for instance, the checking of the formal themes, notebooks,
survey of textbooks, and regulating the number of students in a class. For all the foregoing reasons, it
is believed that Lainez, Belen, Neri, Brioncs, Cortez, Sr., Torres, Pisigan, and Almanzor are not
supervisors.
6. SEGREGATION OF RANK-AND-FILE AND SUPERVISORS

Article 255 allows supervisory employees to form, join, or assist separate labor organizations
of their own, but they are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees. Neither may a rank-and-file join a union of supervisors.
This policy of segregating the supervisors’ union from that of the rank-andfile is founded on
fairness to the employer and the employees themselves. It will be doubly detrimental to the employer
if the supervisors and the rank-and-file, as members of only one union, could take a common stand
against the employer.
“a company foreman, while in the performance of supervisory functions, may be the

extension or alter ego of the management. Adversely, the foreman, by his actuation, may influence
the workers under his supervision to engage in slowdown or similar activities detrimental to the policy,
interest or business objectives of the company or corporation.’
LABOR LAW

Labor Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Labor Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR LAW

 Article 253: Coverage and Employee’s Right to Self-

 Article 253: COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-

All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural

1. 1 Coverage of the Right to Organize;

1. 1 Coverage of the Right to Organize;

Accordingly, managerial employees cannot, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,

2. RIGHT TO ORGANIZE CANNOT BE BARGAINED AWAY

3. EMPLOYEES OF NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS

4. EXCEPTION: EMPLOYEE-MEMBERS OF A COOPERATIVE

4. 1 Exception to Exception: Association, not Union

5. EXCEPTION: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

• Foreigners, whether natural or Requisites:

6. EXCEPTION: RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS;

 Article 253: RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Employees of government corporations established under the

1. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO ORGANIZE; LIMITATIONS

1) Presidential Decree No. 807

(1) PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 807

“Civil Service” as embracing “every branch, agency, supervision, and

(2) THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

…“right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees”;

…“shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining

(3) CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6

…“xxx prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws

(4) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 180

…“employees of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and

1.1 Limited Purpose

…employees in the government sector: “to form, join or assist employees’

1.1 Limited Purpose

Excluded from negotiations by government employees are the “terms and

Declared to be “NOT negotiable”:

1.3 Exempted Employees

1.3a Professors as Rank-and-File Employees

1.3a Professors as Rank-and-File Employees

1.4 Right to Strike

3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION

Facts: Respondent National Housing Corporation is a corporation organized in 1959 under

3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION

Consequently, the civil service now covers only government-owned or -controlled

5. Union-Busting in a Government Agency, U.L.P.

5.1 Even Temporary Employees May Organize

Pamantasang Lungsod ng Maynila faculty Organization vs.CSC et al..GR. No.107590

 Article 255: INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES TO

three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-Veloso

three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-Veloso

1.Managerial, ‘Managerial employee’ is one who is

three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-

1. Supervisory, , Supervisory employees are those

three-tiered classification is made by RA. No. 6715 (popularized as Herrera-Veloso

1. Rank-and-file employees are those who are not

2.2 Constitutionality of the Prohibition

3.1 First Period: Under the Industrial Peace Act

3.1 First Period: Under the Industrial Peace Act

COMMENTS and CASES

4. DEFINITIONS OF MANAGER AND SUPERVISORS

5. TEST OF SUPERVISORY STATUS

The test of “supervisory” or “managerial status” depends on whether a person possesses

5.1 The Power to Recommend