2. Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit

Supervisory 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. [Art. 219(m)]

What is essential is the nature of the employee’s function and not the nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether the employee has rank-and-file or managerial status or whether he is a supervisory employee [Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, G.R. 142000 (2003)].

Managerial Employees

Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization [Art. 255].

Supervisory Employees

Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.

Rationale: Supervisory employees, while in the performance of supervisory functions, become the alter ego of the management in the making and the implementing of key decisions at the sub-managerial level. Certainly, it would be difficult to find unity or mutuality of interests in a bargaining unit consisting of a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees [Toyota Motor Phil. Corp. v. Toyota Motor Phil. Corp. Labor Union, G.R. No. 121084 (1997)].

Nature of Access Test

Confidential employees, by the nature of their functions, assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

Requisites

• The confidential relationship must exist between the employees and his supervisor, and
• The supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations [San Miguel Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399 (1997)].

Function Test: Nomenclature is not controlling

The mere fact that an employee is designated “manager” does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee [Paper Industries Corp. of the Philippines. v. Laguesma, G. R. No.101738 (2000)].

Rationale of Exclusion of Confidential Employees

If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers.

Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act in the interest of the employers. It is not far-fetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty bound to protect [Metrolab Industries Inc. v. Roldan-Confessor, G.R. No. 108855 (1996)].

Differential Treatment of Employees Not Similarly Situated

Discrimination per se is not unlawful. There can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated. The grant by the employer of profit-sharing benefits to the employees outside the bargaining unit falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative. (Wise and Co. v. Employees Union, G.R. No. 87672, 1989)

Confidential Information: Must relate to labor relations and not from a business standpoint

An employee must assist or act in a confidential capacity and obtain confidential information relating to labor relations policies. Exposure to internal business operations of the company is not per se a ground for the exclusion in the bargaining unit [Coca-Cola Bottlers v. IPTEU, G.R. No. 193798 (2015)].

Coverage of CBA

It is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, it would be a clear case of discrimination (PAL v. PALEA, G.R. 142399, 2008).

Single or “Employer Unit” Preferred

General Rule: The proliferation of unions in an employer unit is discouraged as a matter of policy unless there are compelling reasons which would deny a certain class of employees the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. (Philtranco v. BLR, G.R. No. 85343, 1989)

Exceptions:

• Supervisory employees who are allowed to form their own unions apart from the rank-and-file employees;
• Where the employees exercise their right to form unions or associations for purpose not contrary to law, to self-organization, and to enter into collective bargaining negotiations (Barbizon Phil. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon, G.R. Nos. 113204-05, 1996)