Grading:

Spotting of issue - 37
General correctness of the digests - 29
Organization - 29
Total - ​95%

1.​ G
​ ENERAL MILLING CORP VS. CASIO, MARCH 10, 2010

FACTS: The labor union Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM)-Local 31 Chapter was the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of GMC in
Lapu-Lapu City.

Casio, et al. were regular employees of GMC with a length of service varying from 8 to
25 years. Casio was elected IBM-Local 31 President for a three-year term in June 1991,
while his co-respondents were union shop stewards. Casio was charged of "acts
inimical to the interest of the union." Casio failed to answer the charges. Prompting
Pino, et al., as officers and members of the IBM-Local 31, to issue a Resolution
expelling Casio, et al. from the union. Gabiana then wrote a letter addressed to GMC,
informing the company of the expulsion of Casio, et al. from the union pursuant to the
Resolution of IBM-Local 31 officers and board members. Gabiana likewise requested
that Casio, et al. be immediately dismissed pursuant to the “closed shop” clause of the
CBA. Demanding that GMC terminate the employment of Casio, et al. on the basis of
the closed shop clause in the CBA; and the threat of being sued by IBM-Local 31 for
unfair labor practice, GMC terminate the employment of Casio.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal was illegal?

RULING: YES. Union Security clauses are recognized and explicitly allowed under
Article 259(e) of the Labor Code. It is State policy to promote unionism to enable
workers to negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more
persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately bargain with the
employer. For this reason, the law has allowed stipulations for union shop and closed
shop as means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of their choice in
the protection of their rights and interest vis--vis the employer.

In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause,

the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is
applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security
provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the
union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for
terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.

However, in the present case, the demand letter sent by IBM to GMC made no mention
at all of the evidence supporting the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel Casio, et al. from
the union. GMC never alleged nor attempted to prove that the company actually looked
into the evidence of IBM-Local 31 for expelling Casio, et al. and made a determination
on the sufficiency thereof. Without such a determination, GMC cannot claim that it had
terminated the employment of Casio, et al. for just cause. Hence, the dismissal was
illegal.

FYI:

"Union security" is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends "closed

shop," "union shop," "maintenance of membership," or any other form of agreement
which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as
a condition affecting employment. There is ​union shop when all new regular
employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their
continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees,
who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter
become members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued
employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the
agreement is terminated. ​A closed shop​, on the other hand, may be defined as an
enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their
representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of
the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement,
remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the
employees in interest are a part.

2.​ P
​ ICOP RESOURCES, INC(PRI). VS. TANECA, AUGUST 9, 2010

FACTS: Respondents filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and
money claims against petitioner ​PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI) and its
officers. They were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide members of
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern Philippines Federation of Labor
(NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file
employees of petitioner PRI. PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with
NAMAPRI-SPFL. It contained a union security clause. NAMAPRI-SPFL sent a letter to
the management of PRI demanding the termination of employees who allegedly
campaigned for, supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of the
Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA.
NAMAPRI-SPFL contended that it is an act of disloyalty and a valid basis for termination
for a cause in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws and CBA terms. PRI
thereafter terminate the respondents.

Respondents filed a case for Unfair Labor Practice against PRI. They alleged that none
of them ever withdrew their membership from NAMAPRI-SPFL or submitted to PRI any
union dues and check-off disauthorizations against NAMAPRI-SPFL. They claimed that
they continue to remain on record as bona fide members of NAMAPRI-SPFL. They also
claimed that there was lack of procedural due process. The Labor Arbiter declared the
respondents’ dismissal to be illegal.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are validly terminated pursuant to Union

Security clause provided in the CBA

RULING: No. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union

security clause, the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security
clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security
provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the
union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for
terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.

As to the first and second requisites, it was complied. However, as to the third requisite,
we find that there is no sufficient evidence to support the decision of PRI to terminate
the employment of the respondents.

The mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for Certification Election
of FFW before the "freedom period," is not sufficient ground to terminate the
employment of respondents. Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed
to maintain their membership in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not resign
or withdraw their membership from the Union to which they belong. Respondents
continued to pay their union dues and never joined the FFW. Hence, the third requisite
is lacking.

3.​ V
​ ICTORIANO VS. ELIZALE ROPE WORKERS UNION, 59 SCRA 54

FACTS: Benjamin Victoriano is a member of the religious sect known as the "Iglesia ni
Cristo" and had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. He was also a
member of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union). The Company has a CBA
containing a “closed shop” provision. Victoriano tendered his resignation from EPWU
claiming that as per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the closed shop agreement by
virtue of his being a member of the INC because apparently in the INC, one is forbidden
from being a member of any labor union. The company moved to terminate Victoriano
due to his non-membership from the EPWU. EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not
exempt from the close shop agreement because RA 3350, which provides that closed
shop agreements shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit
affiliation of their members in any such labor organization, is unconstitutional and that
said law violates the EPWU’s and ERF’s legal/contractual rights. Appellant Union,
furthermore, asserted that a "closed shop provision" in a collective bargaining
agreement cannot be considered violative of religious freedom.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is unconstitutional.

RULING: No. Republic Act No. 3350 is constitutional. The Act classifies employees
and workers, as to the effect and coverage of union shop security agreements, into
those who by reason of their religious beliefs and convictions cannot sign up with a
labor union, and those whose religion does not prohibit membership in labor unions.
The classification introduced by said Act is also germane to its purpose. The purpose of
the law is precisely to avoid those who cannot, because of their religious belief, join
labor unions, from being deprived of their right to work and from being dismissed from
their work because of union shop security agreements. The act also applies equally to
all members of said religious sects; this is evident from its provision. The fact that the
law grants a privilege to members of said religious sects cannot by itself render the Act
unconstitutional.

The ​right to religion prevails over contractual or legal rights. As such, an INC
member may refuse to join a labor union and despite the fact that there is a closed shop
agreement in the factory where he was employed, his employment could not be validly
terminated for his non-membership in the majority therein. ​Further, the right to join a
union includes the right not to join a union. The law is not unconstitutional. It
recognizes both the rights of unions and employers to enforce terms of contracts and at
the same time it recognizes the workers’ right to join or not to join union. RA 3550
recognizes as well the primacy of a constitutional right over a contractual right.

4. KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIVISION VS. FERRER-CALLEJA,

​

162 SCRA 367

FACTS: ​TUPAS was the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
workers in the Meat and Canning Division of the Universal Robina Corporation, with a
3-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA). ​Prior to its expiration as such, it staged a
strike to pressure the employer to extend its contract. Now, within the freedom period,
another union ​"NEW ULO" belonging to the same unit filed for certification election. The
same was challenged by herein petitioner on the ground that the union petitioning for
certification election is mostly composed of Iglesia ni Cristo members who once refused
to affiliate with it. It then contends that, by virtue of their prior religious objection, the
said union (mostly composed of INC members) are not eligible to file for certification
election.

ISSUE: Whether or not INC members, who deliberately and previously refused to
affiliate with a union, may organize by themselves.

RULING: Yes. This Court's decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59
SCRA 54, upholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a
labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that
sect from forming their own union. The public respondent correctly observed that the
"recognition of the tenets of the sect ... should not infringe on the basic right of
self-organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious
affiliation."

5. SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG

​

KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA) VS. SAMMA

CORPORATION, MARCH 13, 2009

FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001 in the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). It claimed that: it was a local chapter of
the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE; it
sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation;
there was no other legitimate labor organization representing these rank-and-file
employees; respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement; and no
certification or consent election had been conducted within the employer unit for the last
12 months prior to the filing of the petition.

Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that LIKHA Federation failed
to establish its legal personality; it failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; it
failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and it had a prohibited mixture of
supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondent as employer may opposed the holding of
a certification election among its rank-and-file employees.
RULING: ​NO. The court already declared that, in certification elections, the employer is
a bystander; it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election. The
choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The only
exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification
election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain
collectively, which exception finds no application in the case before us. Its role in a
certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the Philippines and
Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere bystander. It has no legal
standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the
Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto.

6. MARIWASA VS. SEC OF DOLE, DECEMBER 21, 2009

FACTS: Respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics,

Inc. (SMMSC Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor
organization by the DOLE.

Petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union
Registration against respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the Labor
Code for not complying with the 20% requirement. The petitioner insists that respondent
failed to comply with the 20% union membership requirement for its registration as a
legitimate labor organization because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union
members of 102 employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership.
The Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the
registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). BLR granted
respondent’s appeal.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it. Petitioner sought
recourse with the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari; but the CA
denied the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the CA
Decision was likewise denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the affidavit of recantation would result to the

non-compliance of the private respondent union with the 20% membership
requirement.

RULING: ​No. Examining closely the affidavits executed by these affiants, evidently, the
affidavits were written and prepared in advance, and the pro forma affidavits were ready
to be filled out with the employees’ names and signatures. The affidavit does not
mention the identity of the people who allegedly forced and deceived the affiant into
joining the union, much less the circumstances that constituted such force and deceit.
The logical conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence, is that the employees were
not totally free from the employer's pressure, and so the voluntariness of the employees'
execution of the affidavits becomes suspect. The court cannot give full credence to
these affidavits, which were executed under suspicious circumstances, and which
contain allegations unsupported by evidence.
7. THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA VS. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE
HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) G.R. NO. 178296, JANUARY 12,
2011

FACTS: The respondent’s petition for certification election was granted. Petitioner then
discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
its annual financial report for several years and the list of its members since it filed its
registration papers in 1995. Consequently, it filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-submission of the said documents.
Petitioner prayed that respondent’s Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled
and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further
requested the suspension of the certification election proceedings. Nevertheless, the
certification election pushed through and the respondent won.

The Regional Director of DOLE-NCR and DOLE Secretary both held that
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to
self-organization outweighed respondent’s noncompliance with the statutory
requirements to maintain its status as a legitimate labor organization.

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to comply with the statutory requirement (filing
financial reports and the list of its members) sufficient ground for the cancellation
of registration of the respondent as a labor union.

HELD: No​, the non-compliance should not be a ground for the cancellation. Articles 238
and 239 of the Labor Code provide that failure to file financial reports and the list of its
members are grounds for the cancellation of Union Organization. However,
consideration must be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII,
Section 3 of the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities should
bear in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of legitimacy and the
concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization,
particularly the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit.
Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the
life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses – as a rule – its rights
under the Labor Code.

Furthermore, that the Labor Code’s provisions on cancellation of union registration and
on reportorial requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers’ Constitutional Right to Self-Organization,
Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, which says that failure to file financial
reports and list of union members shall not be a ground for cancellation of union
registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion
from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

8. LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS V. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG

LEGEND FEBRUARY 23, 2011

FACTS: On June 6, 2001, KML filed with the Med-Arbitrater a Petition for Certification
Election. KML alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization of the rank and file
employees of Legend International Resorts Limited (LEGEND). LEGEND
moved to dismiss the petition alleging that KML is not a legitimate labor organization
because its membership is a mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees in
violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code. LEGEND also claimed that KML
committed acts of fraud and misrepresentation when it made it appear that certain
employees attended its general membership meeting when in reality some of them were
either at work; have already resigned as of March 2001; or were abroad. In its
Comment, KML argued that even if 41 of its members are indeed supervisory
employees and therefore excluded from its membership, the certification election could
still proceed because the required number of the total rank and file employees
necessary for certification purposes is still sustained. KML also claimed that its
legitimacy as a labor union could not be collaterally attacked in the certification election
proceedings but only through a separate and independent action for cancellation of
union registration. Finally, as to the alleged acts of misrepresentation, KML asserted
that LEGEND failed to substantiate its claim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML may be
collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election?

HELD: No. the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked
in a petition for certification election proceeding. This is in consonance with our ruling in
Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment that such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral
attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of
assailing it. The Court further held therein that to raise the issue of the respondent
unions legal personality is not proper in this case. The pronouncement of the Labor
Relations Division Chief, that the respondent union acquired a legal personality x x x
cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election. The discussion of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment on this point is also enlightening. Section 5, Rule V
of D.O. 9 is instructive on the matter. It provides that the legal personality of a union
cannot be the subject of collateral attack in a petition for certification election, but may
be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of union registration. This
has been the rule since NUBE v. Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274 (1981). What applies
in this case is the principle that once a union acquires a legitimate status as a labor
organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or
revoked in an independent action for cancellation. The legal personality of a legitimate
labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on
this matter. x x x The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be
deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its
certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal
personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. In may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of
the Implementing Rules.

9. ​REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) VS. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG.,
PHILIPPINES, JULY 23, 2008

FACTS: KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted
in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent.

Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU
did not acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and
supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code.

Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and dismissed its petition
for certification election, stating that, Since petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and
file and supervisory employees, petitioner union, at this point in time, has not attained
the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the
supervisory employees from its membership before it can attain the status of a
legitimate labor organization. Respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a
Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU. The final outcome of
which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the records.
KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal; ordered the case be remanded
to the office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election xxx CA reversed.
MR denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a

union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election in view
of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the
phraseology in the old rule that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security
guards;” and

2. Whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be

collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a motion to
dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile Manufacturing Phils.,
Inc.

RULINGS:
(1) No. T​he labor code does not provide for the effects of mingling of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization. The court explained that after
a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges
of a legitimate labor organization. ​Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that
is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such
 mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under Article 239 of the Labor Code.

​ o. Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an ​employer is a mere

(2) N
bystander to any petition for certification election​; such proceeding is non-
adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which
organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot
interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an
appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a
petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an
employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer’s only
right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. The amendments to the
Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.

10. DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION UNITED RANK AND FILE

ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW) VS. BUKLOD
NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,

FACTS: ​Petitioner was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank
and file employees of the DHL corporation pursuant to the November 25, 1997
Certification election. Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines
Corporation (BUKLOD) filed a petition for the nullification for the certification election of
the petitioner on the ground of fraud and deceit, particularly by misrepresenting to the
employees that it was an independent union even if it was an affiliate of the Federation
of Free Workers (FFW). On May 18, 1998, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the
November 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the holding of another one with
the following contending choices: petitioner, respondent, and "no choice." DOLE
Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz set aside the decision of the Med-Arbiter
stating that the issue of representation had already been settled with finality in favor of
petitioner, and that no petitions for certification election would be entertained within one
year from the time the election officer had issued the Certification Order. On appeal, CA
reversed the DOLE ruling. The CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the
members of petitioner -- 704 out of 894 of them -- provided a compelling reason to
conduct a certification election anew in order to determine, once and for all, which union
reflected their choice. Under the circumstances, the issue of representation was not put
to rest by the mere issuance of a Certification Order by the election officer.

ISSUE: Whether or not the holding of the new certification election is valid?

RULING: ​Yes. Although petitioner won in the Novemebr 25, 1997 Certification election,
it is clear that it does not represent the majority of the bargaining employees, owing to
the affiliation of its members with respondent. The present uncertainty as to which
union has their support to represent them for collective bargaining purposes is a salient
factor that this Court has seriously considered. It is essential that the employees be
accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor organization
shall act on their behalf. ​The making of false statements or misrepresentations that
interfere with the free choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest.

The purpose of the new certification election is precisely to ascertain the majority of the
employees' choice of an appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be represented by
a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which one.

11. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT vs. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION, G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017.
FACTS: Petitioner Asian Institute of Management (AIM) is a duly registered non-stock,
non-profit educational institution. Respondent Asian Institute of Management Faculty
Association (AFA) is a labor organization composed of members of the AIM faculty, duly
registered under Certificate of Registration. On May 16, 2007, AFA filed a petition for
certification election seeking to represent a bargaining unit at AIM consisting of 40
faculty members. AIM opposed the petition claiming that the members are neither
rank-and-file nor supervisory, but managerial employees. On July 11, 2007, AIM filed a
petition for cancellation of AFA’s certificate of registration on the grounds of
misrepresentation in registration and that they are composed of managerial employees
who are prohibited from organizing as a union. On August 30, 2007, the Med-Arbiter
issued an order denying the petition for certification election on the ground that AIM’s
faculty members are managerial employees. The Order was appealed by AFA before
the Labor Secretary and was reversed. In another order, the DOLE-NCR RD granted
the petition of AIM for cancellation of the certificate of registration of AFA and ordered
the delisting from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. AFA appealed before the
Bureau of Labor Relations where it reversed the same and ordered retention of AFA in
the roster. AIM appealed both orders to the CA and the CA ruled that with regard to
petition for certification election, the bargaining unit with AIM sought to be represented
is composed of managerial employees who are not eligible to join, assist, or form a
labor organization. AFA is not a legitimate labor organization that may conduct a
certification election. With regard to the petition for cancellation of certificate of
registration, there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Bureau of Labor
Relations. The grounds for cancellation under the Labor Code are exclusive. No other
grounds are acceptable except for the 3 grounds under Article 239.

ISSUE:​ ​Whether the certificate of registration of AFA should be cancelled.

RULING: ​No. Article 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The following
may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (a) Misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution
and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members
who took part in the ratification; (b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of
voters; (c) Voluntary dissolution by the members. ​In this case, AIM did not allege any
specific act of fraud or misrepresentation committed by AFA. What is clear is that
the Institute seeks the cancellation of the registration of AFA based on Article 245
of the Labor Code on the ineligibility of managerial employees to form or join
labor unions.

It should be stressed that a Decision had already been issued by the DOLE in the
Certification Election case; and the Decision ordered the conduct of a certification
election among the faculty members of the Institute, basing its directive on the finding
that the ​members of AFA were not managerial employees and are therefore
eligible to form, assist and join a labor union​. As a matter of fact, the certification
election had already been held on October 16, 2009, albeit the results have not yet
been resolved as inclusion/exclusion proceedings are still pending before the DOLE.
The remedy available to the Institute is not the instant Petition, but to question the
status of the individual union members of the AFA in the inclusion/exclusion
proceedings pursuant to Article 245-A of the Labor Code, which reads: Article 245-A.
Effect of inclusion as members of employees outside the bargaining unit. - The inclusion
as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for
the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically
deemed removed from the list of membership of said union. Petitioner insists that Article
245-A is not applicable to this case as all AFA members are managerial employees.
Unfortunately for the petitioner, even assuming that there is a violation of Article
245, such violation will not result in the cancellation of the certificate of
registration of a labor organization.

12. DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC. v BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE

OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC.G.R. No. 192648 March 15, 2017

FACTS​: De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly-organized

and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Under De Ocampo Memorial Medical
Center and De Ocampo Memorial College is Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo
Medical Center a union which was granted Union Registration No. on September 26,
2003. Another permit was issued for Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial
School, Inc. dated December 5, 2003; Union Registration/Certificate of Creation of
Local Chapter No. NCR-l 2-CC-002-2003, declaring that they are legitimate
organization.

A Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the DOLE - National Capital
Region was filed by De Ocampo against Bigkis Manggagawa. Stating in the petition the
grounds of revocation of registration 1.) Misrepresentation of declaring the officers and
members 2.) Mixed membership of rank file 3.) Inappropriate bargaining unit. A
Comment-Opposition was then filed by Bigkis Manggagawa, denying De Ocampo's
allegations and claiming that the latter only wants to impede the formation of the union.
A decision of the DOLE-NCR ruled that Bigkis Manggagawa committed
misrepresentation by making it appear that the bargaining unit is composed of faculty
and technical employees.
The respondents then filed an appeal to Bureau of Labor Relations. BLR reversed the
Regional Director's finding of misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in BMDOMSI’s
application for registration. According to BLR the petitioner failed to present proof to
support its allegation of mixed membership within respondent union. Certiorari was filed
by the petitioner to the CA seeking to annul and set aside the BLR Decision as well as
the Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. CA affirmed the Decision of the
BLR.

Although, the CA observed that the members of the union, who are from academic,
non-academic, and general services, do not perform work of the same nature and these
factors dictate the separation of the categories of employees for purposes of collective
bargaining, the CA reasoned that such lack of mutuality and commonality of interest of
the union members is not among the grounds for cancellation of union registration
under Article 247 of the Labor Code.

ISSUE​: ​Whether De Ocampo Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial

School, Inc. Union Registration should be revoked.

HELD: No. ​The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to have grounds for
cancelation of their Union Registration. Art. 247 provides for the Grounds for
Cancellation of Union Registration. These are the following; 1.) Misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and
by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who
took part in the ratification; 2.) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of
voters; and 3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

​The respondents were able to substantiate that there has been no

misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes of the general
membership meeting BMDOMSI Union, and the list of members who attended the
meeting and ratified the union constitution and by-laws, are in truth employees of
the school, though some service the hospital. ​The petitioner was not able to
establish to the court the violation alleged to the respondents​, wherefore CA
decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the petition denied for lack of merit.

13. ATLAS LITOGRAPHIC SERVICES vs. LAGUESMA, JANUARY 6, 1992

FACTS: ​Respondent Kampil-Katipunan is a supervisory union of petitioner and an

affiliate of the national federation representing the rank and file employees of the same
petitioner. Said national federation sought for certification election for the supervisors’
unit. However, petitioner opposed the certification election on the ground that conflict of
interest would arise since the same federation would represent two adverse and distinct
units, that of the rank and file and supervisors.

ISSUE: Whether the union of rank and file employees and union of supervisory
employees can be members of the same federation.

RULING: NO. ​The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of
rank-and-file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is
not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The
intent of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be
co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining
unit.

We agree with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of interest may arise in the areas
of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. Members of the supervisory union might
refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co- member rank-and-file
employees. In the area of bargaining, their interests cannot be considered identical. The
needs of one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the
national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy strike
on the sole basis of affiliation.

14. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

VS. LAGUESMA, AUGUST 12, 1999

FACTS: Petitioner is a hospital and medical school at Dasmariñas, Cavite. Private

respondent Federation of Free Workers-De La Salle University Medical Center and
College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC), on the other
hand, is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner
DLSUMCCM.

On April 17, 1991, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a national federation of labor
unions, issued a certificate to private respondent FFWDLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it
as a local chapter. On the same day, it filed on behalf of private respondent
FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. I​ts petition was opposed by petitioner
DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees who signed the petition for
certification election were managerial employees and that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC
was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company​. The
respondent however denied the petitioner’s allegations and contended that it is not true
that supervisory employees are joining the rank-and file employees' union. While it is
true that both regular rank-and-file employees and supervisory employees of herein
respondent have affiliated with FFW, yet there are two separate unions organized by
FFW. The supervisory employees have a separate charter certificate issued by FFW.

ISSUE: Whether supervisory union and rank-and-file union can affiliate in the
same federation.

RULING: YES​. Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other

classes of employees save only managerial ones. Conformably with the constitutional
mandate, Art. 255 of the Labor Code now provides for the right of supervisory
employees to self-organization, subject to the limitation that they cannot join an
organization of rank-and-file employees.

The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a

company with respect to the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in
their interests. Supervisory employees are more closely identified with the employer
than with the rank-and-file employees. If supervisory and rank and-file employees in a
company are allowed to form a single union, the conflicting interests of these groups
impair their relationship and adversely affect discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.
These consequences can obtain not only in cases where supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in the same company belong to a single union but also where unions formed
independently by supervisory and rank and file employees of a company are allowed to
affiliate with the same national federation.

we explained in the case of Atlas vs. Laguesma, however, such a situation would obtain
only where two conditions concur: First, the rank-and-file employees are directly under
the authority of supervisory employees and second, the national federation is actively
involved in union activities in the company. Although private respondent
FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rank-and-file employees of
petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same national federation, the FFW,
petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file
employee composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory
employees.

15. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES

UNION-PTGWO, JANUARY 22, 2003

FACTS: ​On October 16, 1997, t​he Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
(THEU)–Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO)
representing majority of the rank-and-file employees of the Petitioner, filed a petition for
certification election before the DOLE​.

Petitioner, opposed THEU’s petition on the ground that the list of union members
submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures
of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as
well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from
THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual
rank-and-file employees of THIGCI.
Petitioner also alleged that some of the signatures in the list of union members were
secured through fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the
handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the
petition. THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation
and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE D.O. No.
9, series of 1997,on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by
DOLE and said Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot
be subject to collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it
continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees

in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election.
2. ​Whether the mingling of supervisory employees with rank-and-file employees nullifies the
legal personality of the union?

RULING:

​ o. ​After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and
(1) N
privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not
among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought
about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor
Code.
 ​ o. ​While Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly prohibits supervisory employees from
(2) N
joining a rank-and-file union, it does not provide what would be the effect if a rank-and-file
union counts supervisory employees among its members, or vice-versa. Thus, the SC held that
after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in
its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of
its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement,
or fraud under Art. 239 of the Labor Code.

16​. ​SAN MIGUEL CORP. VS HON. LAGUESMA and NORTH LUZON MAGNOLIA
SALES LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT G.R. No. 100485.​ ​September 21, 1994

FACTS: ​The respondent North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union filed with the
Department of Labor a petition for certification election. ​They sought to represent the
sales personnel in the various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is
similarity of employment status and the same duties and responsibilities and
substantially similar compensation and working conditions. ​Petitioner opposed the
petition and questioned the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be
represented by respondent union. I​t claimed that its bargaining history in its sales
offices, plants and warehouses is to have a ​separate bargaining unit for each sales
office.​

ISSUE: Whether or not there should be a separate bargaining unit for each sales
office.

HELD: No. The court ruled in accordance with the tests in determining an appropriate
bargaining unit, the following factors shall be observed​: (1) the will of the employees
(Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions
(Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4)
similarity of employment status. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the Court has
categorically ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining history ​is neither
decisive nor conclusive ​in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate
bargaining unit.

Indeed, the test of grouping is ​mutuality or commonality of interests which is

present at the case at bench. ​Petitioner insists that each of the sales offices in northern
Luzon should be considered as a separate bargaining unit for negotiations would be
more expeditious. Petitioner obviously chooses to follow the path of least resistance. It
is not, however, the convenience of the employer that constitutes the determinative
factor in forming an appropriate bargaining unit. Equally, if not more important, is the
interest of the employees. In choosing and crafting an appropriate bargaining unit,
extreme care should be taken to prevent an employer from having any undue
advantage over the employees’ bargaining representative. Our workers are weak
enough and it is not our social policy to further debilitate their bargaining representative.

A bargaining unit is a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less

than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate
to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.”

17. DE LA SALLE V. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, 330 SCRA 363

FACTS: ​Dela Salle University (hereinafter referred to as UNIVERSITY) and Dela Salle
University Employees Association — National Federation of Teachers and Employees
Union (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), which is composed of regular non-academic rank and file
employees, (hereinafter referred to as UNION) entered into a collective bargaining
agreement. During the freedom period the Union initiated negotiations with the
University for a new collective bargaining agreement. Among others, the Union sought
to include the Computer Operators assigned at the CSC [Computer Services Center],
the University's discipline officers and the employees of the College of St. Benilde in the
same bargaining unit. The Union also demanded the inclusion of a Union Shop Clause
in the parties’ CBA. The Union further proposed for the ​"LAST-IN-FIRST-OUT" method
of lay-off in cases of retrenchment.
ISSUE:
(1) W
​ hether or not the computer operators and the University's discipline officers previously

excluded in the old CBA is barred from re-negotiation for the future inclusion being considered
by the parties as confidential employees.
(2) W
​ hether the employees of the College of St. Benilde should also be included in the same

bargaining unit.
(3) ​Whether or not Union Shop Clause may be added to the existing maintenance of
membership clause in the collective bargaining agreement.
(4) W
​ hether or not the “LAST-IN-FIRST-OUT" method of lay-off in cases of retrenchment as

proposed by the Union shall be granted.

RULINGS:
(1) No​. The express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not
bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit.
During the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining
agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. With
regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees' functions, after a careful
consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court, we rule that the said computer operators
and discipline officers are not confidential employees. As carefully examined by the Solicitor
General, the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical
and non-confidential in nature.
(2) ​No. The employees of the College of St. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining
unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University, because the two educational
institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence was shown
to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.
 (3) ​Yes. The University's reliance on the case of Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union
56 ​is clearly misplaced. In that case, the court held that ". . . the right to join a union includes the
right to abstain from joining any union. . . . . . .” The legal protection granted to such right to
refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an employer
have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only members of
the collective bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the union
for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. . . . . . . ."
(4) ​No. As an exercise of management prerogative, the University has the right to adopt
valid and equitable grounds as basis for terminating or transferring employees. Except as
provided for, or limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment.

18. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE) vs.

QUISUMBING

FACTS: ​Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732, is a

domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign
diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents, authorizes the School to employ its
own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from
Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable
laws and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or will be
enacted for the protection of employees. School hires both foreign and local teachers as
members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2)
local-hires. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires.
These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel
allowance. ​Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than local-hires.

When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995,
petitioner International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE for brevity), "a legitimate
labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members" ​of the
School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This
issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the
appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties

ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a compromise in the ​National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (​NCMB), the matter reached ​DOLE Acting Secretary,
Crescenciano B. Trajano who favored the School. ​Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A.
Quisumbing subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration​. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE: Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of local-

hires.

RULING: No​. Foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the
local-hires. A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the
employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of
the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such
as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) similarity of employment status. 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.

In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to
be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective
bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always treated
separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure.
Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as
the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires
such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances. These benefits are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and
justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining
unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective
collective bargaining rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution enjoins the State to “protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the constitution mandates “to afford
labor full protection”. The State has the right and duty to regulate the relations between
labor and capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with
public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must
yield to the common good. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides
that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” These conditions are not restricted
to the physical workplace – the factory, the office or the field – but include as well the
manner by which employers treat their employees. Discrimination, particularly in terms
of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization.

19. SAN MIGUEL FOODS VS. SMC SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION, AUGUST
1, 2011

FACTS: On the date of an ordered certification election, petitioner San Miguel Foods,
Inc. filed an objection thereto 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. Specifically, it argued, among others, that
certain employees like Payroll Master, Human Resource Assistant, and Personnel
Assistant should not be allowed to vote as they are confidential employees.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not confidential employees are prohibited to join, form and assist
any labor organization.

2. Whether or not a Payroll Master is a confidential employee.

3. Whether or not Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are

confidential employees.

RULINGS:

(Issue No. 1) Yes. ​Corollarily, although Article 255 of the Labor Code limits the
ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees,
jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by
reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary
manner to managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and
highly confidential records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the
rank-and-file bargaining unit. 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.

(Issue no.2) No. Payroll Master does not belong to the category of a confidential
employee. Confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with
the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s property. Their access
to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. However,
such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Maste, 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.

(Issue no.3) Yes. The positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant
belong to the category of confidential employees, considering their respective positions
and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of one’s work
necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to
employees' personal files and compensation package, and human resource
management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording of
minutes for management during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to
management during grievance meetings and administrative investigations, and securing
legal advice for labor issues from the petitioner’s team of lawyers, and implementation
of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to
vital labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union
membership.
FYI:

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. The two criteria are cumulative, and
both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is,
the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor,
and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor
relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal
course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor
relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential
employee rule."