Whole Text - LabRel_Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring v. Roldan-Confessor

8/12/2019 Whole Text - LabRel_Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring v. Roldan-Confessor

1/33

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaSECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995

PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORINGSERVICES, INC., petitioner,vs.HON. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR,in her capacity as Secretary of Labor

and Employment, and GENERALMARITIME & STEVEDORES UNION(GMSU), respondents.

PUNO, J .:

Petitioner corporation and privaterespondent labor union entered into athree-year Collective Bargaining Agreement(CBA) with expiry date on November 27,1991. During the freedom period the

National Federation of Labor Unions(NAFLU) questioned the majority status ofPrivate respondent through a petition forcertification election. The election


2/33

conducted on February 27, 1992 was wonby private respondent. On March 19, 1992,

private respondent was certified as the soleand exclusive bargaining agent ofpetitioner's rank-and-file employees.

On June 22, 1992, private respondent'sCBA proposals were received by petitioner.

Counter-proposals were made by petitioner.Negotiations collapsed, and on August 24,1992, private-respondent filed a Notice ofStrike with the National Conciliation andMediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB triedbut failed to settle the parties' controversy.

On September 30, 1992, public respondentSecretary of Labor assumed jurisdictionover the dispute. She resolved thebargaining deadlock between the partiesthrough an Order, dated March 4, 1993,

which reads, in part:

xxx xxx xxx

A. The non-economic issues

1. Scope/coverage of the CBA.

Article I of the 1988 CBA provides:

The Company recognizes theUnion as the sole and


3/33

exclusive collective bargainingrepresentative of all the

stevedores, dockworkers,gang bosses, foremen, rankand file employees working atPier 8, North Harbor and itsoffices and said positions are[sic] listed in ANNEX "A"

hereof.

As such representative theUNION is designated as thecollective bargaining agentwith respect to and

concerning the terms andconditions of employment andthe interpretations andimplementation of theprovisions and conditions ofthis Agreement.

Annex "A" of the CBA is the listing ofpositions covered thereby. Theseare:

1. Foremen;

2. Gang bosses;3. Winchmen;4. Signalmen;5. Stevedores;


4/33

6. Dockworkers;7. Tallymen;

8. Checkers;9. Forklift and craneoperators;10. Sweepers;11. Mechanics;12. Utilitymen;

13. Carpenters; and14. Other rank and fileemployees;

The company argues in the firstinstance that under Article 212(m) in

relation to Article 245 of the LaborCode, supervisors are ineligible for.membership in a labor organizationof rank and file. Being supervisors,foremen should be excluded fromthe bargaining unit.

The Company likewise seeks theexclusion on the ground of lack ofcommunity of interest anddivergence in functions, mode ofcompensation and workingconditions of the following:

1. Accounting clerk;2. Audit clerk;


5/33

3. Collector;4. Payroll clerk;

5. Nurse;6. Chief biller;7. Biller;8. Teller/biller;9. Personnel clerk;10. Timekeeper;

11. Asst. timekeeper;12. Legal secretary;13. Telephone operator;14. Janitor/Utility; and15. Clerk

These positions, the Companyargues, cannot be lumped togetherwith the stevedores or dockworkerswho mostly comprise the bargainingunit. Further, notwithstanding thecheck-off provisions of the CBA, theincumbents in these positions havenever paid union dues. Finally, someof them occupy confidential positionsand therefore ought to be excludedfrom the bargaining unit.

The Union generally argues that theCompany's proposed exclusionsretrogressive. . . .


6/33

We see no compelling justification toorder the modification of Article I of

the 1988 CBA as worded. For bylumping together stevedores andother rank and file employees, theobvious intent of the parties was totreat all employees not disqualifiedfrom union membership as members

of one bargaining unit. This isregardless of working conditions,mode of compensation, place ofwork, or other considerations. In theabsence of mutual agreement of theparties or evidence that the presentcompositions of the bargaining unit isdetrimental to the individual andorganizational rights either of theemployees or of the Company, thisexpressed intent cannot be set

aside.

It may well be that as a consequenceof Republic Act No. 6715, foremenare ineligible to join the union of therank and file. But this provision can

be invoked only upon proof that theforemen sought to be excluded fromthe bargaining unit are cloaked witheffective recommendatory powers


7/33

such as to qualify them under thelegal definitions of supervisors.

xxx xxx xxx

7. Effectivity of the CBA. The Uniondemands that the CBA should befully retroactive to 28 November1991. The Company is opposed on

the ground that under Article 253-Aof the labor code, the six-monthperiod within which the parties mustcome to an agreement so that thesame will be automatically

retroactive is long past.The Union's demand for fullretroactivity, we note, will result inundue financial burden to theCompany. On the other hand, theCompany's reliance on Article 253-Ais misplaced as this applies only tothe renegotiated terms of an existingCBA. Here, the deadlock arose fromnegotiations for a new CBA.

These considered, the CBA shall beeffective from the time we assumedjurisdiction over the dispute, that is,on 22 September 1992, and shall


8/33

remain e effective for five (5) yearsthereafter. It shall be understood that

except for the representation aspectall other provisions thereof shall berenegotiated not later than three (3)years after its effectivity, consistentlywith Article 253-A of the Labor Code.

B. The economic issuesThe comparative positions of theparties are:

COMPANY UNION

xxx xxx xxx. Vacation

and sick leave17 daysvacation andsick leave

i) For all coveredemployees

17 days sick

leave per year

and 17 days sick

than gangfor employmentwith at least

gang bosses:

five years ofservice.

15 working daysvacation and

15 working dayssick leave


9/33

for those with atleast 1 year

of service



for those withmore than one

year of service upto 5 years

of service



for those with

more than 5years of serviceup to 10

years of service




10/33

for those withmore than 10

years of service

Provided that inthe case

Provided that inthe case of a

of a rotationworker, he

rotation worker,he must have

must have workfor at

worked for 140days in a

least 160 daysin a year

calendar year asa condition

for availment for availment.

Provided, furtherthat in the

event a rotationworker fails

to complete 140

days work ina calendar year,he shall still

be entitled tovacation and

sick leave withpay, as follows:

139 - 120 daysworked: 90%


11/33

119 - 110 daysworked: 50%

ii) For Gangbosses:

Same as theabove schedule

except that:

1) the conditionthat a gang

bosses must haveworked for at

least 120 days in

a calendar

year shall bereduced to 110

days; and

2) where theabove number of

days worked isnot met, the

gang boss shallstill be entitled

to vacation andsick leave with

pay, as follows:


12/33


13/33

dwellingby fire

shall

deduction intwelve

beincluded

monthlyinstallments

b) cashbond

None Thecompany

shall put upa cash

for loss,damage

bond of notless thanP40,000.00

or accident forwinchmen,crane andforklift

operators.

xxx xxx xxx

Balancing the right of the Companyto remain viable and to just returns toits investments with right of the

Union members to just rewards fortheir labors, we find the followingaward to be fair and reasonable:


14/33

xxx xxx xxx

. Vacation

and SickLeave

a) Non-rotationworkers

17 daysvacation/17days sick

leavefor those withat least 1 yearof service

b) Rotation

workers other

17 days

vacation/17days sickleave,

than gang boss provided thatthe coveredworker

must haveworked for atleast 155days

in a calendar

year

c) Gang bosses 17 daysvacation/17


15/33

days sickleave,

provided thatthe gang bossmust have

worked for atleast 115days in a

calendar year

xxx xxx xxx

8. Death aid P3,000.00 to the heirsof each covered employee

xxx xxx xxx

12. Emergency loan 30 days pay,payable through payroll deductions

of 1/12 of monthly salary

WHEREFORE, the Pier 8 Arrastreand Stevedoring Services and theGeneral Maritime Services Union arehereby ordered to execute new

collective bargaining agreement theincorporating the dispositions hereincontained. These shall be in additionto all other existing terms, conditions


16/33

and benefits of employment, exceptthose specifically deleted herein,

which have previously governed therelations of the parties. All otherdisputed items not specificallytouched upon herein are deemeddenied, without prejudice to suchother agreements as the parties may

have reached in the meantime. Thecollective bargaining agreement soexecuted shall be effective from 22September 1992 and up to five yearsthereafter, subject to renegotiationon the third year of its effectivitypursuant to Article 253-A of theLabor Code.

1

Petitioner sought partial reconsideration ofthe Order. On June 8, 1993, publicrespondent affirmed her findings, except forthe date of effectivity of the CollectiveBargaining Agreement which was changedto September 30, 1992. This is the datewhen she assumed jurisdiction over thedeadlock.

Petitioner now assails the Order as follows:

I


17/33

THE HONORABLE SECRETARYOF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOTEXCLUDING CERTAIN POSITIONSFROM THE BARGAININGAGREEMENT UNIT

II

THE HONORABLE SECRETARYOF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVEABUSE OF DISCRETION INMAKING THE CBA EFFECTIVE ONSEPTEMBER 30, 1992 WHEN SHE

ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVERTHE LABOR DISPUTE AND NOTMARCH 4, 1993 WHEN SHERENDERED JUDGMENT OVERTHE DISPUTE

III

THE HONORABLE SECRETARYOF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVEABUSE OF DISCRETION INREDUCING THE NUMBER OFDAYS AN EMPLOYEE SHOULDACTUALLY WORK TO BEENTITLED TO VACATION ANDSICK LEAVE BENEFITS


18/33


19/33


20/33

"Managerial Employee" is one who isvested with powers or prerogatives

to lay down and executemanagement policies and/or to hire,transfer, suspend, layoff recall,discharge, assign or disciplineemployees. Supervisory employeesare those who, in the interest of the

employer, effectively recommendsuch managerial actions if theexercise of such authority is notmerely routinary or clerical in naturebut requires the use of independentjudgment. All employees not fallingwithin any of the above definitionsare considered rank-and-fileemployees for purposes of the Book.

This Court has ruled on numerousoccasions that the test of supervisory ormanagerial status is whether an employeepossesses authority to act in the interest ofhis employer which authority is not merelyroutinary or clerical in nature but requiresuse of independent judgment.

3What

governs the determination of the nature ofemployment is not the employee's title, buthis job description. If the nature of theemployee's job does not fall under the


21/33

definition of "managerial" or "supervisory" inthe Labor Code, he is eligible to be a

member of the rank-and-file bargaining unit.4

Foremen are chief and often especially-trained workmen who work with andcommonly are in charge of a group of

employees in an industrial plant or inconstruction work.5They are the persons

designated by the employer-managementto direct the work of employees and tosuperintend and oversee them.

6They are

representatives of the employer-

management with authority over particulargroups of workers, processes, operations,or sections of a plant or an entireorganization. In the modern industrial plant,they are at once a link in the chain ofcommand and the bridge between themanagement and labor. 7In theperformance their work, foremen definitelyuse their independent judgment and areempowered to make recommendations formanagerial action with respect to those

employees under their control. Foremen fallsquarely under the category of supervisoryemployees, and cannot be part of rank-and-file unions.


22/33


23/33

InBulletin Publishing Co., Inc., vs.Hon.Augusto Sanchez, this Court

elaborated on this rationale, thus:. . . The rationale, for thisinhibition has been stated tobe, because if thesemanagerial employees would

belong to or be affiliated withUnion the latter might not, beassured of their loyalty to theUnion in view of evidentconflict of interests. The Unioncan also become company-

dominated with the presenceof managerial employees inUnion membership.

In Golden Farms, Inc., vs.Ferrer-Calleja,

9this court explicitly made

this rationale applicable toconfidential employees:

This rationale holds true alsofor confidential employees . .., who having access to

confidential information, maybecome the source of undueadvantage. Said employee(s)may act as a spy or spies of


24/33

either party to a collectivebargaining agreement. . . .

We thus hold that public respondent actedwith grave abuse of discretion in notexcluding the four foremen and legalsecretary from the bargaining unitcomposed of rank-and-file employees.

As for the timekeeper and assistanttimekeeper it is clear from petitioner's ownpleadings that they are, neither managerialnor supervisory employees. They aremerely tasked to report those who commit

infractions against company rules andregulations. This reportorial function isroutinary and clerical. They do notdetermine the fate of those who violatecompany policy rules and regulationsfunction. It follows that they cannot be

excluded from the subject bargaining unit.

The next issue is the date when the newCBA of the parties should be given effect.Public respondent fixed the effectivity dateon September 30, 1992. when she

assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.Petitioner maintains it should be March 4.1993, when public respondent renderedjudgment over the dispute.


25/33

The applicable laws are Articles 253 and253- A of the Labor Code, thus:

Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectivelywhen there exists a collectivebargaining agreement.Whenthere is a collective bargainingagreement, the duty to bargain

collectively shall also mean thatneither party shall terminate normodify such agreement during itslifetime. However, either party canserve a written notice to terminate ormodify the agreement at least sixty

(60) days prior to its expiration date.It shall be the duty of both parties tokeep the status quo and to continuein full force and effect the terms andconditions of the existing agreementduring the 60-day period and/or untila new agreement is reached by theparties.

and;

Art. 253-A. Terms of a collective

bargaining agreement.

AnyCollective Bargaining Agreementthat the parties may enter into shall,insofar as the representation aspect


26/33

is concerned, be for a term of five (5)years. No petition questioning the

majority status of the incumbentbargaining agent shall be entertainedand no certification election shall beconducted by the Department ofLabor and Employment outside thesixty-day period immediately before

the date of expiry of such five yearterm of the Collective BargainingAgreement. All other provisions ofthe Collective Bargaining Agreementshall be renegotiated not later thanthree (3) years after its execution.Any agreement on such otherprovisions of the CollectiveBargaining Agreement entered intowithin six (6) months from the date ofexpiry of the term of such other

provisions as fixed in such CollectiveBargaining Agreement, shall retroactto the day immediately followingsuch date. If any such agreement isentered into beyond six months, theparties shall agree on the duration ofcollective bargaining agreement, theparties may exercise their rightsunder this Code.


27/33

In Union of Filipino Employees v.NLRC,192 SCRA 414 (1990), this court

interpreted the above law as follows:In light of the foregoing, this Courtupholds the pronouncement of theNLRC holding the CBA to be signedby the parties effective upon the

promulgation of the assailedresolution. It is clear and explicit fromArticle 253-A that any agreement onsuch other provisions of the CBAshall be given retroactive effect onlywhen it is entered into within six (6)

months from its expiry date. If theagreement was entered into outsidethe six (6) month period, then theparties shall agree on the duration ofthe retroactivity thereof.

The assailed resolution whichincorporated the CBA to be signedby the parties was promulgated June5, 1989, the expiry date of the pastCBA. Based on the provision ofSection 253-A, its retroactivity shouldbe agreed upon. by the parties. Butsince no agreement to that effectwas made, public respondent did not


28/33

abuse its discretion in giving the saidCBA a prospective effect. The action

of the public respondent is within theambit of its authority vested byexisting law.

In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation v.Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179

(1991), this Court reiterated the rule thatalthough a CBA has expired, it continues tohave legal effects as between the partiesuntil a new CBA has been entered into. It isthe duty of both parties to the to keep thestatus quo, and to continue in full force and

effect the terms and conditions of theexisting agreement during the 60-dayfreedom period and/or until a newagreement is reached by the parties.

10

Applied to the case at bench, the legaleffects of the immediate past CBA betweenpetitioner and private respondentterminated, and the effectivity of the newCBA began, only on March 4, 1993 whenpublic respondent resolved their dispute.

Finally, we find no need to discuss at lengththe merits of the third and fourthassignments of error. The questioned Orderrelevantly states:


29/33

In the resolution of the economicissues, the Company urges us to

consider among others, presentcosts of living, its financial capacity,the present wages being paid by theother cargo handlers at the NorthHarbor, and the fact that the presentaverage wage of its workers is

P127.75 a day, which is higher thanthe statutory minimum wage ofP118.00 a day. The Company'sevidence, consisting of its financialstatements for the past three years,shows that its net income wasP743,423.45 for 1989,P2,108,569.03 for 1990, andP1,479,671.84 for 1991, or anaverage of P1,443,885.10 over thethree-year period. It argues that for

just the first year of effectivity of theCBA, the Company's proposals onwages, effect thereof on overtime,13th month pay, and vacation andsick leave commutation, will costabout P520,723,44, or 35.19% of itsnet income for 1991. The Companylikewise urges us to consider themultiplier effect of its proposals on


30/33

the second and third years of theCBA. As additional argument, the

Company manifests that a portion ofits pier will undergo a six-month toone-year renovation starting January1993.

On the other hand, the Union's main

line of argument

that is, asidefrom being within the financialcapacity of the Company to grant, itsdemands are fair and reasonableis not supported by evidencecontroverting the Company's own

presentation of its financial capacity.The Union in fact uses statements ofthe Company for 1989-1991,although it interprets these data assufficient justification for its ownproposals. It also draws our attentionto the bargaining history of theparties, particularly the 1988negotiations during which thecompany was able to grant wageincreases despite operational losses.

Balancing the right of the Companyto remain viable and to just returns toits investments with right of the


31/33

Union members to justrewards for their labors, we find the

following award to be fair andreasonable . . . .11

It is evident that the above portion of theimpugned Order is based on well-studiedevidence. The conclusions reached by

public respondent in the discharge of herstatutory duty as compulsory arbitrator,demand the high respect of this Court. Thestudy and settlement of these disputes fallwithin public respondent's distinctadministrative expertise. She is especially

trained for this delicate task, and she haswithin her cognizance such data andinformation as will assist her in striking theequitable balance between the needs ofmanagement, labor and the public. Unlessthere is clear showing of grave abuse ofdiscretion, this Court cannot and will notinterfere with the labor expertise of publicrespondent Secretary of Labor.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, public respondentsOrder, dated March 4, 1993, andResolution, dated June 8, 1993, are herebyMODIFIED to exclude foremen and legalsecretaries from the rank-and-file


32/33

bargaining unit represented by privaterespondent union, and to fix the date of

effectivity of the five-year collectivebargaining agreement between petitionercorporation and private respondent unionon March 4, 1993. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado andMendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Order of the Secretary of Laborand Employment, dated March 4,1993. SeeAnnex "A" to Petition, p.27- 47 of Rollo.

2 Rollo, pp. 6-7.

3 SeePhilippine ApplianceCorporation v. Laguesma, 226SCRA 730 (1993); Pagkakaisa ngmga Manggagawa sa TriumphInternational-United Lumber and

General Workers of the Philippinesv. Ferrer-Calleja, 181 SCRA 119(1990). See alsoAtlas LithographicServices, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205


33/33

Whole Text - LabRel_Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring v. Roldan-Confessor

Documents

Transcript of Whole Text - LabRel_Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring v. Roldan-Confessor