FACTS: Sugbuanon Rural Bank employed some 5 supervisory employees. APSOLTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization, then filed a petition for certification election of the said supervisory employees. The bank opposed the petition on the ground that the supervisory employees were actually managerial/confidential employees. In addition, the union was represented in the petition by ALU-TUCP, and since according to the Bank the latter also sought to represent the rank and file members, granting the petition would violate the principle of separation of unions.
ISSUE: Should the petition for certification election be granted, or denied?
HELD: It should be granted. For one, the supervisory employees cannot be considered managerial or confidential employees. While the nature of the employees’ work (evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving loans, scheduling terms of repayment of the latter, and endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel for collection) indeed constituted the core of the bank’s business, their functions did not fall within the definition of either a managerial employee (lay down and execute management policies related to labor relations) or a confidential employee (they did not act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and execute management policies related to labor relations). Secondly, granting the petition would not be violative of the separation of union doctrine. The petition for certification election was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization. True, it was assisted to some extent by ALU and the national federation TUCP. However, APSOTEU-TUCP had separate legal personality from ALU and TUCP, under the principle that a local union maintains its separate legal personality despite affiliation with a national federation.
ISSUE: Should the petition for certification election be granted, or denied?
HELD: It should be granted. For one, the supervisory employees cannot be considered managerial or confidential employees. While the nature of the employees’ work (evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving loans, scheduling terms of repayment of the latter, and endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel for collection) indeed constituted the core of the bank’s business, their functions did not fall within the definition of either a managerial employee (lay down and execute management policies related to labor relations) or a confidential employee (they did not act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and execute management policies related to labor relations). Secondly, granting the petition would not be violative of the separation of union doctrine. The petition for certification election was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization. True, it was assisted to some extent by ALU and the national federation TUCP. However, APSOTEU-TUCP had separate legal personality from ALU and TUCP, under the principle that a local union maintains its separate legal personality despite affiliation with a national federation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment