Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Philips Industrial Development, Inc.

vs NLRCFacts:-

PIDI is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of electronic products.Since 1971, it had a total of 6 collective bargaining agreements with private respondent PhilipsEmployees Organization-FFW (PEO-FFW), a registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of PIDI.- In the first CBA, the supervisors (referred to in RA 875), confidential employees, security guards,temporary employees and sales representatives were excluded in the bargaining unit. In the second to thefifth, the sales force, confidential employees and heads of small units, together with the managerialemployees, temporary employees and security personnel were excluded from the bargaining unit. Theconfidential employees are the division secretaries of light/telecom/data and consumer electronics,marketing managers, secretaries of the corporate planning and business manager, fiscal and financialsystem manager and audit and EDP manager, and the staff of both the General Management and thePersonnel Department.- In the sixth CBA, it was agreed that the subject of inclusion or exclusion of service engineers, sales personnel and confidential employees in the coverage of the bargaining unit would be submitted for arbitration. The parties failed to agree on a voluntary arbitrator and the Bureau of Labor Relationsendorsed the petition to the Executive Labor Arbiter of the NCR for compulsory arbitration.- March 1998, Labor Arbiter: A referendum will be conducted to determine the will of the serviceengineers and sales representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion in the bargaining unit. It was alsodeclared that the Division Secretaries and all staff of general management, personnel and industrialrelations department, secretaries of audit, EDP, financial system are confidential employees are deemedexcluded in the bargaining unit.- PEO-FFW appealed to the NLRC; NLRC declared PIDI's Service Engineers, Sales Force, divisionsecretaries, all Staff of General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations Department, Secretariesof Audit, EDP and Financial Systems are included within the rank and file bargaining unit, citing theImplementing Rules of E.O 111 and Article 245 of the Labor Code (all workers, except managerialemployees and security personnel, are qualified to join or be a part of the bargaining unit)Issue:-Whether service engineers, sales representatives and confidential employees of petitioner are qualified to be part of the existing bargaining unit- Whether the "Globe Doctrine" should be appliedHeld: NLRC decision is set aside while the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter is reinstated. Confidentialemployees are excluded from the bargaining unit while a referendum will be conducted to determine thewill of the service engineers and sales representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion from the bargaining unit, but those who are holding supervisory positions or functions are ineligible to join a labor organization of the rank and file employees but may join, assist or form a separate labor organization of their own.Ratio:The exclusion of confidential employees:The rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to confidential employees. With the presence of managerial employees in a union,the union can become company-dominated as their loyalty cannot be assured. In Golden Farms vs Calleja,the Court states that confidential employees, who have access to confidential information, may becomethe source of undue advantage. As regards to the sales representatives and service engineers, according to the OSG, there is no doubt thatthey are entitled to form a union as they are not disqualified by law from doing so.Globe

Doctrine:Globe Doctrine states that in determining the proper bargaining unit, the express will or desire of the employees shall be considered, they should be allowed to determine for themselves what union to joinor form. The best way is through a referendum, as decreed by the Executive Labor Arbiter. However, inthis case, since the only issue is the employees' inclusion in or exclusion from the bargaining unit inquestion, the Globe Doctrine has no application in this case. The doctrine applies only in instance of evenly balanced claims by competitive groups for the right to be established as the bargaining unit. (manyunions 'competing' to be the bargaining representative?)