Manila Electric Company v. Labor
Manila Electric Company v. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, Staff and Technical Employees Association of Meralco (STEAM-PCWF), and First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES), G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991
- Labor Law
- certification election
- bargaining unit
- rank-and-file employees
- supervisory employees
- managerial employees
- security guards
- right to self-organization
- RA 6715
- Art. 245 Labor Code
- Art. 212(m)
- MEWA CBA
- Meralco
I. Facts of the Case
STEAM-PCWF and later FLAMES, unions of Meralco staff, technical and supervisory employees, petitioned for certification elections to represent employees excluded from or disqualified from membership under the MEWA rank-and-file CBA. Meralco opposed, arguing that the employees were managerial, security personnel, secretaries, or rank-and-file employees already represented by MEWA. The Secretary of Labor upheld the certification election, and Meralco brought this petition for grave abuse of discretion.
November 22, 1988
STEAM-PCWF, a labor organization of Meralco staff and technical employees, petitioned for certification election to represent non-managerial employees in Pay Grades VII and above, employees in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section, secretaries, and rank-and-file employees automatically disqualified from union membership. The petition relied on Art. I, Secs. 2 and 3 of the MEWA CBA, which excluded some employees from the bargaining unit and disqualified others from union membership. MEWA was the union for rank-and-file employees in Pay Grades I-VI.
Meralco moved to dismiss, arguing that the employees were managerial, security personnel, secretaries who did not consent, or rank-and-file employees already represented by MEWA. It also argued that the petition would disturb administration of the existing CBA under Art. 232 and lacked the 20% written consent requirement.
March 15, 1989
The Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election with STEAM-PCWF and No Union as choices. He reasoned that employees excluded from the CBA had the right to form their own union, except those performing managerial functions, and that an election would let those resenting involuntary CBA membership express their sentiment.
April 4, 1989
Meralco appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that STEAM-PCWF could not represent Pay Grade VII and above employees until a judicial finding that they were not managerial.
April 7, 1989
MEWA filed an appeal-in-intervention claiming that the Med-Arbiter's order violated Arts. 245 and 232 of the Labor Code and delineated an inappropriate bargaining unit. STEAM-PCWF opposed on May 4, 1989.
After RA 6715 was enacted, STEAM-PCWF renounced its representation of employees in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section and rank-and-file employees in Pay Grades I-VI.
September 13, 1989
FLAMES filed a similar petition to represent employees in Pay Grades VII to XIV, which was consolidated with STEAM-PCWF's petition.
November 3, 1989
Secretary of Labor Drilon affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order with modification. Employees covered by Sec. 3, Art. I of the CBA would remain in the existing rank-and-file unit and could exercise their right to self-organization, and FLAMES was added as a choice in the certification election.
January 16, 1990
The Secretary of Labor denied Meralco's motion for reconsideration.
February 9, 1990
Meralco filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion. It conceded that employees in Pay Grades VII and up are supervisory but argued that the Secretary should have set a demarcation line between supervisory and managerial employees. It also challenged allowing security guards to be represented by respondents under RA 6715 and its implementing rules.
February 26, 1990
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against implementation of the Secretary's resolution.
II. Issues
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in ruling that another rank-and-file bargaining unit can be established independent of the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit.
Whether or not employees in Pay Grades VII and above are supervisory rather than rank-and-file employees, and whether the Secretary was required to establish a demarcation line between supervisory and managerial employees.
Whether or not security guards or personnel may join or be lumped together with the rank-and-file union and/or the supervisory union under RA 6715 and its implementing rules.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in ruling that another rank-and-file bargaining unit can be established independent of the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit.
The Secretary did not authorize a separate rank-and-file unit. Employees under Sec. 3, Art. I of the CBA stay in the existing rank-and-file unit, and the clause automatically disqualifying them from union membership is deemed not written into the contract.
How the Court reasoned
- Art. 245, as amended by RA 6715, disqualifies only supervisory employees from membership in a rank-and-file union. It does not authorize other restrictions on membership.
- The CBA clause automatically disqualifying certain rank-and-file employees from union membership conflicts with the right to self-organization.
- The Secretary's modified resolution kept those employees in the existing rank-and-file unit and let them exercise their right to self-organize. It did not create a second rank-and-file unit.
- The disqualifying condition is therefore deemed not written into the CBA, so MEWA's existing bargaining unit is undisturbed.
- Meralco's claim that a separate rank-and-file unit was created thus has no basis, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown.
Rule applied
Art. 245, Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 18 of RA 6715; Art. 232, Labor Code
Whether or not employees in Pay Grades VII and above are supervisory rather than rank-and-file employees, and whether the Secretary was required to establish a demarcation line between supervisory and managerial employees.
Meralco itself conceded that employees in Pay Grades VII and up are supervisory, so the election is upheld only for supervisory employees. No demarcation line is needed because the law already gives the guidelines.
How the Court reasoned
- Meralco admitted in its petition that employees in Pay Grades VII and up are supervisory, and the Court recognized and accepted them as such.
- The certification election is therefore limited to supervisory employees, with STEAM-PCWF and FLAMES as the choices.
- Meralco argued that the Secretary should have set a line separating supervisory from managerial employees.
- Art. 212(m), as amended by RA 6715, already defines managerial, supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
- Since the statute supplies the guidelines, an additional parameter is not necessary.
“As to the alleged failure of the Secretary of Labor to establish a demarcation line for purposes of segregating the supervisory from the managerial employees, the required parameter is really not necessary since the law itself, Art. 212-m, (as amended by Sec. 4 of RA 6715) has already laid down the corresponding guidelines:”
Rule applied
Art. 212(m), Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 4 of RA 6715
Whether or not security guards or personnel may join or be lumped together with the rank-and-file union and/or the supervisory union under RA 6715 and its implementing rules.
Under RA 6715, security guards may freely join a rank-and-file or supervisory union depending on their rank. The implementing rules that disqualify them are void.
How the Court reasoned
- The old Art. 245 barred security personnel from joining a rank-and-file union.
- RA 6715 amended Art. 245 so that only supervisory employees are disqualified from rank-and-file membership. It no longer mentions security guards.
- The implementing rules of RA 6715 and EO 111 still disqualified security guards from a rank-and-file organization.
- Implementing rules cannot go beyond or add to what the statute provides, and a rule not germane to the purposes of the law is invalid.
- The disqualifying rules are therefore null and void, and security guards may join rank-and-file or supervisory unions according to their rank.
“The implementing rules of RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they disqualify security guards from joining a rank and file organization are null and void, for being not germane to the object and purposes of EO 111 and RA 6715 upon which such rules purportedly derive statutory moorings.”
Rule applied
Art. 245, Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 18 of RA 6715; Executive Order No. 111
Doctrines
Under Art. 245 as amended by RA 6715, only supervisory employees are disqualified from joining a rank-and-file union. Security guards may freely join a rank-and-file or supervisory labor organization depending on their rank, and implementing rules that disqualify them are void.
No separate demarcation line between managerial and supervisory employees needs to be set, because Art. 212(m), as amended by RA 6715, already provides the guidelines.
Implementing rules cannot extend or restrict a statute. Rules not germane to the purposes of the law they implement are null and void.
A CBA clause automatically disqualifying rank-and-file employees from union membership conflicts with the right to self-organization and is deemed not written into the contract.
Final Disposition
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is AFFIRMED with modification, and the temporary restraining order is lifted.
Notes
The Court sat en banc, and the decision was penned by Justice Medialdea.