Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    TPMA V ABI

    Uploaded by

    Gail Cariño
    1. ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees who they claimed violated the CBA based on their job positions. 2. The court ruled the 81 employees were eligible for union membership. While some positions like confidential secretaries are excluded, ABI did not prove the jobs in question required access to sensitive information. 3. The inspectors and clerks performed routine tasks and ABI did not show they had access to confidential information. Therefore, they were considered rank-and-file employees eligible to join the union.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TPMA V ABI

    Uploaded by

    Gail Cariño
    49 views2 pages
    1. ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees who they claimed violated the CBA based on their job positions. 2. The court ruled the 81 employees were eligible for union membership. While some positions like confidential secretaries are excluded, ABI did not prove the jobs in question required access to sensitive information. 3. The inspectors and clerks performed routine tasks and ABI did not show they had access to confidential information. Therefore, they were considered rank-and-file employees eligible to join the union.

    Original Description:

    LABOR DIGEST

    Original Title

    TPMA v ABI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees who they claimed violated the CBA based on their job positions. 2. The court ruled the 81 employees were eligible for union membership. While some positions like confidential secretaries are excluded, ABI did not prove the jobs in question required access to sensitive information. 3. The inspectors and clerks performed routine tasks and ABI did not show they had access to confidential information. Therefore, they were considered rank-and-file employees eligible to join the union.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    TPMA V ABI

    Uploaded by

    Gail Cariño
    1. ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees who they claimed violated the CBA based on their job positions. 2. The court ruled the 81 employees were eligible for union membership. While some positions like confidential secretaries are excluded, ABI did not prove the jobs in question required access to sensitive information. 3. The inspectors and clerks performed routine tasks and ABI did not show they had access to confidential information. Therefore, they were considered rank-and-file employees eligible to join the union.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY VS.

    ASIA
    BREWERY, INC.
    Topic: Eligibility for Membership; Special Groups of Employees

    FACTS:
    1. Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
    effective for five (5) years from August 1, 1997 to July 31, 2002, with Bisig at Lakas
    ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the
    exclusive bargaining representative of ABI's rank-and-file employees. On October
    3, 2000, ABI and BLMA-INDEPENDENT signed a renegotiated CBA effective from
    August 1, 2000 to July 31, 2003.
    2. Article I of the CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit, as follows:
    Section 1. … The UNION shall not represent or accept for membership
    employees outside the scope of the bargaining unit herein defined.

    Section 2. Bargaining Unit. The bargaining unit shall be comprised of all


    regular rank-and-file daily-paid employees of the COMPANY. However, the
    following jobs/positions as herein defined shall be excluded from the bargaining
    unit, to wit:
    xxx
    6. Confidential and Executive Secretaries
    xxx
    12. Purchasing and Quality Control Staff
    3. A dispute arose when ABI's management stopped deducting union dues from
    eighty-one (81) employees, believing that their membership in BLMA-
    INDEPENDENT violated the CBA. 18 employees are QA Sampling
    Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician who formed part of the
    Quality Control Staff. 20 checkers are assigned at the Materials Department of the
    Administration Division, Full Goods Department of the Brewery Division and
    Packaging Division. The rest are secretaries/clerks directly under their respective
    division managers.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the 81 employees are eligible to be members of the Union of the
    rank-and-file employees.

    HELD: YES. They are eligible to be members of the union.

    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. Confidential employees are
    thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

    The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization
    is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees because if allowed to be affiliated
    with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of
    interests and the Union can also become company-denominated with the presence of
    managerial employees in the Union membership. Having access to confidential
    information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage.
    Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining
    agreement.

    In this case, perusal of the job descriptions of these secretaries/clerks reveals that their
    assigned duties and responsibilities involve routine activities of recording and monitoring,
    and other paper works for their respective departments while secretarial tasks such as
    receiving telephone calls and filing of office correspondence appear to have been
    commonly imposed as additional duties. ABI failed to indicate who among these
    numerous secretaries/clerks have access to confidential data relating to management
    policies that could give rise to potential conflict of interest with their Union membership.
    Clearly, the rationale under the SC’s previous rulings for the exclusion of executive
    secretaries or division secretaries would have little or no significance considering the lack
    of or very limited access to confidential information of these secretaries/clerks. It is not
    even farfetched that the job category may exist only on paper since they are all daily-paid
    workers. Quite understandably, Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia (TPMA),
    incumbent bargaining representative of ABI's rank-and-file employees, had earlier
    expressed the view that the positions were just being "reclassified" as these employees
    actually discharged routine functions. Therefore, the secretaries/clerks, numbering about
    forty (40), are rank-and-file employees and not confidential employees.

    With respect to the Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge Machine


    Technician, there seems no dispute that they form part of the Quality Control Staff who,
    under the express terms of the CBA, fall under a distinct category. However, similar to
    the secretaries and clerks, they perform routine and mechanical tasks preparatory to the
    delivery of the finished products. There was no evidence was presented by ABI to prove
    that these daily-paid checkers actually form part of the company's Quality Control Staff
    who as such "were exposed to sensitive, vital and confidential information about
    [company's] products" or "have knowledge of mixtures of the products, their defects, and
    even their formulas" which are considered `trade secrets'. Therefore, the twenty (20)
    checkers may not be considered confidential employees under the category of Quality
    Control Staff who were expressly excluded from the CBA of the rank-and-file bargaining
    unit.

    There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or
    acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential
    information relating to labor relations policies. Not being confidential employees, the
    secretaries/clerks and checkers are not disqualified from membership in the Union of
    respondent's rank-and-file employees.

    You might also like