10/2/2020 Law School Notes and Digests: METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No.

NFESOR G.R. No. 108855 / 254 SCRA 182

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.

https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2016/12/metrolab-industries-inc-v-roldan.html 1/3
10/2/2020 Law School Notes and Digests: METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No. 108855 / 254 SCRA 182

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.

https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2016/12/metrolab-industries-inc-v-roldan.html 2/3
10/2/2020 Law School Notes and Digests: METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No. 108855 / 254 SCRA 182

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.

https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2016/12/metrolab-industries-inc-v-roldan.html 3/3