Metrolab Industries, Inc., V. Roldan-Confesor G.R. No. 108855 / 254 Scra 182 Topic: Confidential Employees Facts

METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No.
108855 / 254 SCRA 182
Topic: Confidential Employees
FACTS:
Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers

(hereinafter referred to as the Union) is a labor organization representing the rank and file employees of
petitioner Metrolab Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Metrolab/MII) and also of Metro Drug,
Inc.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Metrolab and the Union expired. The negotiations
for a new CBA, however, ended in a deadlock.
The Union filed a notice of strike against Metrolab and Metro Drug Inc.
The parties failed to settle their dispute despite the conciliation efforts of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board.
SECRETARY OF LABOR Ruben D. Torres: issued an assumption order of jurisdiction over the entire labor
dispute at Metro Drug, Inc. - Metro Drug Distribution Division and Metrolab Industries Inc.
SECRETARY OF LABOR: issued an order resolving all the disputed items in the CBA and ordered the
parties involved to execute a new CBA.
The Union filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
During the pendency of the MR, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file employees.
The Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to enjoin Metrolab from implementing the mass
layoff, alleging that such act violated the prohibition against committing acts that would exacerbate the
dispute as specifically directed in the assumption order.
Metrolab contended that the layoff was temporary and in the exercise of its management prerogative.
Thereafter, on various dates, Metrolab recalled some of the laid off workers on a temporary basis due to
availability of work in the production lines.
ACTING SEC. OF LABOR Nieves Confesor: a resolution declaring the layoff of Metrolabs 94 rank and file
workers illegal and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages.
After exhaustive negotiations, the parties entered into a new CBA. The execution, however, was without
prejudice to the outcome of the issues raised in the reconsideration and clarification motions submitted
for decision to the Secretary of Labor.
The Union filed a motion for execution. Metrolab opposed.

Hence, the present petition for certiorari with application for issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not public respondent Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded
her jurisdiction in declaring the subject layoffs instituted by Metrolab illegal on grounds that these
unilateral actions aggravated the conflict between Metrolab and the Union who were, then, locked in a
stalemate in CBA negotiations.
2. Whether or not the Public Respondent Secretary of DOLE gravely abused her discretion in including
executive secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees
RULING:
1. NO, because the Secretary of Labor is expressly given the power under the Labor Code to assume
jurisdiction and resolve labor disputes involving industries indispensable to national interest. The
disputed injunction is subsumed under this special grant of authority.
Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code specifically provides that:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has
already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of
Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
2. NO, because Article I (b) of the 1988-1990 CBA provides:
b)Close Shop. - All Qualified Employees must join the Association immediately upon regularization as a
condition for continued employment. This provision shall not apply to: (i) managerial employees who
are excluded from the scope of the bargaining unit; (ii) the auditors and executive secretaries of senior
executive officers, such as, the President, Executive Vice-President, Vice-President for Finance, Head of
Legal, Vice-President for Sales, who are excluded from membership in the Association; and (iii) those
employees who are referred to in Attachment I hereof, subject, however, to the application of the
provision of Article II, par. (b) hereof. Consequently, the above-specified employees are not required to
join the Association as a condition for their continued employment.
On the other hand, Attachment I provides:
Exclusion from the Scope of the Close Shop Provision
The following positions in the Bargaining Unit are not covered by the Close Shop provision of the CBA
(Article I, par. b):
1. Executive Secretaries of Vice-Presidents, or equivalent positions.
2. Executive Secretary of the Personnel Manager, or equivalent positions.
3. Executive Secretary of the Director for Corporate Planning, or equivalent positions.
4. Some personnel in the Personnel Department, EDP Staff at Head Office, Payroll Staff at Head Office,
Accounting Department at Head Office, and Budget Staff, who because of the nature of their duties and
responsibilities need not join the Association as a condition for their employment.
5. Newly-hired secretaries of Branch Managers and Regional Managers.
Both Metro Drug and Metrolab read the exclusion of managerial employees and executive secretaries as
exclusion from the bargaining unit. They point out that managerial employees are lumped under one
classification with executive secretaries, so that since the former are excluded from the bargaining unit,
so must the latter be likewise excluded.
The exclusion of managerial employees, in accordance with law, must therefore still carry the qualifying
phrase from the bargaining unit in Article I (b)(i) of the 1988-1990 CBA. In the same manner, the
exclusion of executive secretaries should be read together with the qualifying phrase are excluded from
membership in the Association of the same Article and with the heading of Attachment I. The latter
refers to Exclusions from Scope of Close Shop Provision and provides that [t]he following positions in
Bargaining Unit are not covered by the close shop provision of the CBA.
The basis for the questioned exclusions, it should be noted, is no other than the previous CBA between
Metrolab and the Union. If Metrolab had undergone an organizational restructuring since then, this is a
fact to which we have never been made privy. In any event, had this been otherwise the result would
have been the same. To repeat, we limited the exclusions to recognize the expanded scope of the right
to self-organization as embodied in the Constitution.
The Court concurs with Metrolab contention that executive secretaries of the General Manager and the
executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance
Director, Management System Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering
Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager, who are all members of the company’s
Management Committee should not only be exempted from the closed-shop provision but should be
excluded from membership in the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees as well on grounds that
their executive secretaries are confidential employees, having access to vital labor information.
Confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. The nature of employment of confidential
employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category. Excluding
confidential employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to
discrimination.
DISPOSITIVE: Metrolab Industries Inc. partially won. The executive secretaries of petitioner Metrolabs
General Manager and the executive secretaries of the members of its Management Committee are
excluded from the bargaining unit of petitioners rank and file employees.
DOCTRINE: Although 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.

Metrolab Industries, Inc., V. Roldan-Confesor G.R. No. 108855 / 254 Scra 182 Topic: Confidential Employees Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metrolab Industries, Inc., V. Roldan-Confesor G.R. No. 108855 / 254 Scra 182 Topic: Confidential Employees Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Metrolab Industries, Inc., V. Roldan-Confesor G.R. No. 108855 / 254 Scra 182 Topic: Confidential Employees Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No.

108855 / 254 SCRA 182

Topic: Confidential Employees

Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers

The Union filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).

The Union filed a motion for execution. Metrolab opposed.

Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code specifically provides that:

xxx xxx xxx

2. NO, because Article I (b) of the 1988-1990 CBA provides:

On the other hand, Attachment I provides:

Exclusion from the Scope of the Close Shop Provision

1. Executive Secretaries of Vice-Presidents, or equivalent positions.

2. Executive Secretary of the Personnel Manager, or equivalent positions.

3. Executive Secretary of the Director for Corporate Planning, or equivalent positions.

5. Newly-hired secretaries of Branch Managers and Regional Managers.

You might also like