Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 268 views

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    bebebaa
    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation appealed a decision allowing Enrique Tamondong III to join a labor union for supervisory employees. Tamondong helped form the union after being promoted to personnel roles within the company. The company warned Tamondong his union activities could jeopardize his job, but he continued participating. He was fired shortly after for actions deemed disloyal to the company. Courts ruled in favor of Tamondong, finding his dismissal was an unfair labor practice as the labor code protects the rights of supervisory employees like Tamondong to join unions. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Tamondong's roles qualified him as a supervisory rather than managerial employee, so prohibitions on union participation did not apply to him

    Copyright:

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

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    bebebaa
    268 views1 page
    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation appealed a decision allowing Enrique Tamondong III to join a labor union for supervisory employees. Tamondong helped form the union after being promoted to personnel roles within the company. The company warned Tamondong his union activities could jeopardize his job, but he continued participating. He was fired shortly after for actions deemed disloyal to the company. Courts ruled in favor of Tamondong, finding his dismissal was an unfair labor practice as the labor code protects the rights of supervisory employees like Tamondong to join unions. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Tamondong's roles qualified him as a supervisory rather than managerial employee, so prohibitions on union participation did not apply to him

    Original Description:

    this is not my digest pls read the original credits to the owner of this digest

    Original Title

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. vs CA Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation appealed a decision allowing Enrique Tamondong III to join a labor union for supervisory employees. Tamondong helped form the union after being promoted to personnel roles within the company. The company warned Tamondong his union activities could jeopardize his job, but he continued participating. He was fired shortly after for actions deemed disloyal to the company. Courts ruled in favor of Tamondong, finding his dismissal was an unfair labor practice as the labor code protects the rights of supervisory employees like Tamondong to join unions. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Tamondong's roles qualified him as a supervisory rather than managerial employee, so prohibitions on union participation did not apply to him

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    268 views1 page

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    bebebaa
    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation appealed a decision allowing Enrique Tamondong III to join a labor union for supervisory employees. Tamondong helped form the union after being promoted to personnel roles within the company. The company warned Tamondong his union activities could jeopardize his job, but he continued participating. He was fired shortly after for actions deemed disloyal to the company. Courts ruled in favor of Tamondong, finding his dismissal was an unfair labor practice as the labor code protects the rights of supervisory employees like Tamondong to join unions. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Tamondong's roles qualified him as a supervisory rather than managerial employee, so prohibitions on union participation did not apply to him

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CATHAY PAClFlC STEEL CORPORATlON vs. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO


    UNlON OF SUPERVlSORY EMPLOYEES (CUSE) and ENRlQUE TAMONDONG lll, (G.R. No.
    l6456l, August 30, 20l0)
    Facts:Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the Personnel
    Manager for its Cainta Plant on l6 February l990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position
    of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Superintendent. Sometime in
    June l996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union
    among their ranks, later known as private respondent CUSE. Private respondent Tamondong
    actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was even elected as one of its officers
    after its creation. Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo dated 3 February l997, to
    private respondent Tamondong requiring him to explain and to discontinue from his union
    activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment in the
    company. Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter on 5
    February l997, invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union.
    ln view of that, on 6 February l997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo[l0] terminated the
    employment of private respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence,
    citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company.
    Acting Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent Tamondong,
    finding [petitioner CAPASCO] guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. On appeal, the
    NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision. Respondents Tamondong and CUSE filed a
    Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals which
    reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
    lssue: whether private respondent Tamondong is eligible to join union?
    Held: Accordingly, Article 2l2(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory
    employees from managerial employees, to wit: 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; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or
    prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay
    off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Thus, from the foregoing provision of the
    Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that private respondent Tamondong was just a
    supervisory employee. Private respondent Tamondong did not perform any of the functions of a
    managerial employee as stated in the definition given to it by the Code. Hence, the Labor Code
    33 provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from joining, assisting or
    forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private respondent Tamondong. Being a
    supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the
    union activities of private respondent CUSE, and in making such a conclusion, the Court of
    Appeals did not act whimsically, capriciously or in a despotic manner, rather, it was guided by
    the evidence submitted before it. Thus, given the foregoing findings of the Court of Appeals that
    private respondent is a supervisory employee, it is indeed an unfair labor practice 34 on the part
    of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss him on account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his
    constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. 35

    You might also like