GOLDEN FARMS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., seeks a
reversal of the resolution of public respondent Department of Labor and
Employment Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja
in BLR Case No. A-2-56-87
which affirmed on appeal the
decision of Labor Arbiter Conrado O. Macasa, Sr., in NLRC
Case No. R-418-ROXI-MED-UR-88-86, issuing
a directive as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, the herein petition for
certification election filed by the National Federation of Labor (NFL) is
hereby DISMISSED; whereas, its resultant and relevant consequence of its
recognized representation of the entire rank-and-file employees of the
bargaining unit should be given life and meaning, as it is hereby directed, and
Employer Golden Farms, Incorporated likewise enjoined to negotiate for a
supplementary collective bargaining agreement, or for the inclusion of the
herein monthly paid rank-and-file employees
at Luna, Kapalong, Davao
del Norte, and Lanang, Davao
City in the still existing negotiated contract, whichever the parties may
consider just and appropriate under the circumstances.”

SO ORDERED.  (p. 29, Rollo)

The case originated as a Petition for
Direct Certification Election or
Recognition filed by herein private respondent in behalf of certain office
employees and foremen before
Regional Office No. XI,
Davao City of the Ministry of Labor and Employment.  Petitioner herein opposed said petition on
the ground among others that a perusal of the names allegedly supporting the
said petition showed that said persons by the nature of
their jobs are performing managerial functions and/or occupying confidential
positions such that they cannot validly constitute a separate distinct group
from the existing collective bargaining unit also represented by private
respondent.

Petitioner is a corporation
engaged in the production of bananas for export.  Private respondent Union
represents the employees/workers of petitioner corporation,
who were the same signatories to an earlier Petition for Certification Election
filed in 1984 before the Ministry of Labor known as ROXI Case No. UR–70–84, which was
dismissed by a Resolution
issued by Med-Arbiter Conchita Martinez when it was
established that a collective bargaining unit (NFL) between the Corporation and
the rank-and-file employees was and is in existence at the time of the filing of the said petition for
certification election until the present filing.  However,
in the order of dismissal, it was stated:

“After taking
into consideration the functions exercised by the foremen as contained in their joint
affidavits (Annexes “A-1”,
“A-2” & “A-3”, Petitioner’s Position Paper) apparently,
they fall within the classification of rank-and-file employees.  For, as
consistently ruled in a long line of decisions, mere supervisory designations
in the position titles, do not make the holders of
such positions any less rank and filers, without the convincing proof that such
supervisory designations are coupled with actual performance of managerial
functions.  In the cases at bar, what was
submitted by the respondent companies are only lists of employees holding the
positions of foremen and confidential positions and as such are not covered by the bargaining
unit.  Such piece of evidence alone does
not constitute convincing proof for us to adapt respondents’ stance (Annexes
“A”, “B”, “C”, & “D”).  Comment on Petition).

(p. 13, Rollo)

Having had no opportunity to contest the abovementioned statement
in the order of dismissal, petitioner herein as private respondent therein, filed a “Manifestation” stating among
others:

“2.  That since the petitions
were dismissed the herein employees make clear for the record that said view
would run counter to the provision of the pertinent Collective Bargaining Agreement whereby the foremen were
already acknowledged and agreed upon to be managerial employees and accordingly excluded from the coverage of the
said CBA;

“3.  That with respect to
those employees holding confidential positions, it is a basic principle that
they cannot be included in any bargaining unit, the fact being that having
access to confidential informations, said employees
may be the source of undue advantage. 
Said employees may act as spies
for either parties to collective bargaining
agreement.  This is especially true in
this case where the petitioning union is already the bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees in the establishment. 
To allow confidential employees to join existing bargaining unit will
defeat the very purpose for which an employee
holding confidential position was in the first place excluded.” (p. 68, Rollo)

Private respondent herein as petitioner therein appealed the
order of dismissal which was accordingly opposed (Annex “L” p. 69, Rollo) by
Golden Farms, Inc., reiterating the grounds and arguments set forth in its
Manifestation filed earlier.  The appeal
was dismissed and subsequently the National Federation of Labor Union refiled the
Petition for Certification in NLRC Case No. R-418-ROX-MED-UR-88-86
which was also dismissed.  Said
order of dismissal is now the subject of this review for containing directives not within the
power of a Med-Arbiter to issue. 
Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., now poses the following questions:

I
–  HAS A MED-ARBITER THE
POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DIRECT MANAGEMENT TO ENTER INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH A CONTRACTING UNION.

II  –  MAY
SUPERVISORS, CASHIERS, FOREMEN, AND EMPLOYEES HOLDING CONFIDENTIAL/MANAGERIAL
FUNCTION COMPEL MANAGEMENT TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH
THEM.  (p. 14, Rollo)

The petition merits Our consideration.

Respondents relied heavily on the alleged finding of Med­-Arbiter
Martinez that the employees who were signatories to the petition for certification election and represented by
respondent Union are actually rank-and-file workers not
disqualified from entering into a collective bargaining agreement with management.  In said findings of fact, Med-Arbiter
Martinez singled out in her classification as rank-and-file employees the foremen of Petitioner Corporation
considered from their joint affidavits for lack of convincing proof that their
supervisory designations are coupled with the actual performance of managerial
functions.

Whether or not such finding is supported by the evidence is beside the point.  Respondents herein do not dispute that the
signatories (listed in Annex “A”, page 30, Rollo)
to the Petition for certification election subject of this case, were holding
the positions of cashier, purchasers, personnel officers, foremen and employees
having access to confidential information such as accounting personnel, radio
and telegraph operators and head of various sections.  It is also a fact that respondent Union
is the exclusive bargaining Unit of the rank-and-file employees of petitioner corporation
and that an existing CBA between petitioner corporation and the Union
representing these rank-and-file employees was still enforced at the time the Union
filed a petition for certification election in behalf of the aforementioned
signatories.  Under the terms of said CBA
(Annex “E”, p. 40, Rollo) it is expressly provided
that:

“Section 1.  The COMPANY and the UNION
hereby agree that the recognized bargaining unit for purposes of this agreement
shall consist of regular rank-and-file workers employed by the COMPANY at the
plantation presently situated at Alejal, Carmen, Davao.  Consequently, all managerial personnel like,
superintendents, supervisor, foremen, administrative, professional and
confidential employees, and those temporary, casual contractual, and seasonal
workers are excluded from the bargaining unit and therefore, not covered by this agreement.” (p. 41, Rollo)

Respondents do not dispute the existence
of said collective bargaining agreement. 
We must therefore respect this CBA which was freely and voluntarily entered
into as the law between the parties for the duration of the period agreed
upon.  Until then no one can be compelled
to accept changes in the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Furthermore, the signatories to the petition for certification
election are the very type of employees by the nature of their positions and
functions which We have decreed as disqualified from bargaining with management
in case of Bulletin Publishing Co. Inc. vs. Hon. Augusto
Sanchez, etc. (144 SCRA 628) reiterating herein the rationale for such ruling
as follows:  if these managerial
employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not
be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of
interests or that the Union can be company-dominated with the presence of
managerial employees in Union membership. 
A managerial employee is defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new Labor
Code as “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, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.  All employees not falling within this definitions are considered rank-and-rile employees for
purposes of this Book.”

This rationale
holds true also for confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio
and telegraph operators, who having access to confidential information, may
become the source of undue advantage. 
Said employee(s) may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.  This is
specially true in the present case where the
petitioning Union is already the bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees in the establishment. 
To allow the confidential employees to join the existing Union
of the rank-and-file would be in violation of the terms of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement wherein this kind of employees by the nature of their
functions/positions are expressly excluded.

As to the company foremen, while in the performance of supervisor
functions, they may be the extension or alter ego of the management.  Adversely, the foremen, by their actuation,
may influence the workers under their supervision to engage in slow down
commercial activities or similar activities detrimental to the policy, interest
or business objectives of the company or corporation, hence they also cannot
join.

WHEREFORE, finding the assailed directive of Med-Arbiter Conrado O. Macasa, Sr. which was
affirmed by Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja
reiterating the directive of Med-Arbiter Conchita
Martinez “to negotiate for a supplementary collective bargaining
agreement, or for the inclusion of the herein monthly paid rank-and-file
employees” to be erroneous as it is in complete disregard of the terms of
the collective bargaining agreement, the
same is hereby DECLARED to be without
force and effect.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.