368 Phil. 600
PURISIMA, J.:
On June 23, 1989, petitioner appealed from the aforesaid Order on the sole ground that the "Honorable Med-Arbiter erred in considering the petitioner union as vested with legal personality to seek certification election as the exclusive bargaining agent of the corporations supervisory employees."[6]
- Semirara Coal Corporation Union of Non-Managerial Employees (SCCUNME);
- No Union.[5]
"Further to our communication earlier made to your Office to the effect that we can not submit a list of non managerial supervisors because all of our supervisors are performing managerial function based on following definition of R.A. 6715 x x x"[9]On February 5, 1990, private respondent SCCUNME filed a Manifestation and Motion withdrawing its consent to the intervention of private respondent SECCSUN.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of intervenor-appellant Semirara Coal Corporation Supervisory Union (SECCSUN) is hereby granted, and the Order dated 18 April 1990 is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, a new Order is entered declaring the so-called supervisory employees of the respondent Semirara Coal Corporation as truly supervisory employees pursuant to the mandate of paragraph (m), Article 212, of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715.A motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid ruling was denied by the Secretary of Labor, on August 21, 1990.[14]
A certification election is hereby directed to be conducted within the context of our previous Resolution dated 3 August 1989 and 30 October 1989, with the inclusion of herein intervenor-appellant Semirara Coal Corporation Supervisory Union (SECCSUN) as one of the choices.
Let, therefore, the entire records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of the certification election aforestated subject to the usual pre-election conference.
SO ORDERED."[13]
"Managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank and file employees for purposes of this Book." (emphasis supplied)Are the supervisory employees of petitioner truly supervisory employees? The Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor in delving into this pivot of inquiry relied upon the: 1) April 10, 1984 Memorandum entitled "Guidelines on Disciplinary Actions;"[18] 2) August 29, 1988 Memorandum entitled "Processing of Disciplinary Action Cases;"[19] and 3) Standard Forms of the Company Disciplinary Memoranda.[20]
"A. PHILOSOPHYFrom the foregoing, it can be gleaned unerringly that the disciplinary actions of the immediate superiors are truly supervisory, the same being recommendatory in nature. Note that their findings and decisions are subject to the approval of the Personnel Manager and Resident Manager. Obviously, then, they fall into the category of supervisory employees within the contemplation of Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act. No. 6715.xxx
3. The company shall take prompt and consistent disciplinary action on its erring employees. All offenses as a general rule, shall be investigated within 24 hours and shall be acted upon within three (3) working days.
4. While reporting person/s/immediate supervisor/s is/are responsible for reporting violations of the company rules and regulations, conducting preliminary investigation thereof, and making the appropriate recommendations in accordance with company rules and regulations, nevertheless all disciplinary actions should be reviewed and concurred by Personnel Manager who reserves the right and responsibility to conduct further investigation on violations committed as well as determine and administer the appropriate disciplinary action against erring employees, upon concurrence and approval of the Resident Manager. (emphasis supplied)xxx
C. PROCEDURESx x x
4. Recommendation
Here the immediate supervisor, after studying the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances recommends appropriate action based on company rules and regulations/policy/SOP.
5. Concurrences
All disciplinary actions must be concurred by the following officers in this order: Department Manager, Personnel Manager, Division Manager.
6. Approval
The disciplinary action as concurred goes for approval of the Resident Manager."
"POLICY:Petitioner has theorized that the abovecited August 29, 1988 memorandum supersedes the April 10, 1984 memorandum which expressly indicated the supervisory nature of the immediate supervisors' job. That the 1988 memorandum vested in the supervisory employees the power to discipline their subordinates is the bone of its contention. It is averred that by virtue of the August 29, 1988 memorandum, the immediate supervisors became managerial employees, and therefore, not entitled to participate in the certification election.
To practice due process of law in enforcing company discipline.
PROCEDURES:
1. Right after an employee allegedly committed an offense, the immediate superior shall inform the erring employee in writing of the charges against him using the REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION form. This is to be accomplished in four copies. xxx
At the same time, the immediate superior fills up the COMPANY RULE DEVIATION report form. This is to be accomplished in three copies. xxx
Should the employee who is charged of the offense refuse to acknowledge the REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION form, the immediate superior shall call the attention of a steward to acknowledge receipt of the form in behalf of the employee.
2. The employee charged has three days from receipt of the REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION form to submit his written explanation to the immediate superior. If no reply is given within the three-day limit, it is construed that the employee has waived the due process requirement and is admitting his guilt.
3. In case the employee charged of the offense submits a written explanation, the immediate superior together with the HRD representatives shall conduct an investigation. During the investigation the employee charged may challenge the statement of any witness to rebut any evidence presented against him. The proceedings of the investigation must be recorded. (emphasis supplied)
4. If it is indeed proven that the employee is guilty of the offense, the appropriate penalty will be given based on the existing table of penalties for offenses. The immediate superior will fill up the CORRECTIVE MEMO form in four copies. xxx In case of suspensions Accounting Department will be duly advised and suspension dates reflected in the employee's time-sheet, time-card or location sheet.
5. As much as possible, the immediate superior shall discuss with the employee the decision made regarding the offense.
HRD will be conducting a briefing with individual department heads to ensure proper implementation of these procedures. xxx"
"Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions x x x for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."[21]The claim of petitioner that the Memorandum of 1988 lodged on the supervisors the ultimate prerogative to determine the guilt of the erring employee and to impose the penalty on him without an express grant of such power in the same memorandum relied upon by the petitioner, creates a doubt as to the true status of the employees in the case. This doubt militates against petitioner's stand. Time honored is the rule that in interpreting the Constitution and labor laws or rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.[23]
"Sec. 3. The state shall afford full protection to labor... x x x
It shall guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. x x x"[22]
"Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. - Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own." (emphasis supplied)It is indeed decisively clear that the existence of supervisory employees and their corresponding right to organize under the Industrial Peace Act as been revived under the amendment so introduced by Republic Act 6715.[24]
"In view of the above and in accordance with rules, we shall impose on you the following penalty:The aforequoted memorandum fails to convince the court that the power to discipline erring employees is vested in their immediate supervisor. True it is, the immediate supervisor's signature appears on the said memorandum. But other than this, it cannot further be inferred therefrom that it is the immediate supervisor's sole power to decide the fate of erring employees and to impose on them the prescribed penalty. That the immediate supervisors' disciplinary action is not subject to review by the Personnel Manager and the Resident Manager is not provided by the aforestated disciplinary memorandum.
[x] REPRIMAND for committing the stated infraction.
[ ] SUSPENSION for ______ days without pay commencing on _________________
to _______________________
[ ] _____________________________
Please be informed that this is your _________ offense. Repetition of the same will subject you to a graver penalty if not dismissal."
E. A. LAPINIG
Immediate Supervisor
"It will be noted that if indeed it were true, as claimed by petitioner, that is memorandum of 10 April 1984 had already been repealed by that of 29 August 1988, why should there be a need for its (memorandum of 10 April 1984) express repeal by another memorandum (of 30 August 1990)?WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit; the Temporary Restraining Order of February 13, 1989 LIFTED and the July 30, 1990 Decision of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and affirmatory Orders, dated August 21, 1990 and September 19, 1990, respectively, AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
Moreover, even the title/subject of the latest memorandum ("Policy Empowering All The Junior Staff/Supervisors In The Company To Discipline The Erring Employees Under Them") indicates petitioner's tacit admission of the fact that prior to 30 August 1990 memorandum - and therefore even at the time of the questioned decision of the Secretary of Labor on 30 July 1990 - the company supervisors were not vested with the power to discipline"[26]