San Miguel Foods Inc V SMU

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated v San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union
G.R. No. 146206 August 1 2011
Facts:
 In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v.
Laguesma, the Court held that even if they handle confidential data regarding technical
and internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt
employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered
confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly,
negotiation and settlement of grievances.
 Consequently, they were allowed to form an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining.
 The Court also declared that the employees belonging to the three different plants of San
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and
Otis, having "community or mutuality of interests," constitute a single bargaining unit.
They perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and
most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities. It was immaterial that the
three plants have different locations as they did not impede the operations of a single
bargaining representative.
 The union conducted pre-election conferences.
 However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters, i.e., petitioner submitted a
list of 23 employees for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while
respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively.
 On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to
Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that
some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent
or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
 They argued that certain employees should not be allowed to vote as they are: (1)
confidential employees; (2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which are
not covered by the bargaining unit; (3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are
performing managerial work and scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who belong to
the Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who are members
of other unions.
 The Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing respondent to submit proof showing that the
employees in the submitted list are covered by the original petition for certification
election and belong to the bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise, directing
petitioner to substantiate the allegations contained in its Omnibus Objections and
Challenge to Voters.
 In compliance thereto, respondent averred that (1) the bargaining unit contemplated in the
original petition is the Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation, now known as San
Miguel Foods, Inc.; (2) it covered the operations in Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and
Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San Fernando, Pampanga;
and (3) it submitted individual and separate declarations of the employees whose votes
were challenged in the election.
 Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order dated April 13, 1999, stating that
since the "Yes" vote received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the
exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
 The petitioners question the eligibility of some voters as they form part of the
confidential employees, and that the three units form three different places was not
allowed.
Ruling:
 The Court explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry
Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit,
which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An appropriate
bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised
of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of
all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited
to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective
bargaining provisions of the law.
 There shall only be one bargaining unit in the three plants. Certain factors, such as
specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and
other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although
they seem separate and distinct from each other, the specific tasks of each division are
actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation
of a single bargaining unit.
 Confidential employees do not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole
gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and
compensation data.
 The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with
confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions.
Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and
confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject
bargaining unit.
IMPORTANT KEY POINTS

1. “Community or mutuality of interests” Rule
- The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the
basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
2. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations.
3. A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the
custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s property. Confidential
employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit,
as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage
Reason why Confidential or managerial employees are not allowed to join the union?
- 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.

San Miguel Foods Inc V SMU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Foods Inc V SMU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Foods Inc V SMU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated v San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union

G.R. No. 146206 August 1 2011

IMPORTANT KEY POINTS

You might also like