Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Gothong V Confesor

    Uploaded by

    dorian
    The AD Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees' Union filed a petition for a certification election to represent unorganized rank-and-file employees, which was opposed by the corporation because the union excluded employees Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap. The union considered them supervisory employees while the corporation and the employees considered themselves rank-and-file. The Med-Arbiter ruled they were rank-and-file, affirmed by the SOLE. The Supreme Court denied the union's petition for review, upholding the determination that Plaza and Yap were rank-and-file based on the lack of evidence showing they performed actual managerial or supervisory functions as defined by the labor code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gothong V Confesor

    Uploaded by

    dorian
    95 views2 pages
    The AD Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees' Union filed a petition for a certification election to represent unorganized rank-and-file employees, which was opposed by the corporation because the union excluded employees Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap. The union considered them supervisory employees while the corporation and the employees considered themselves rank-and-file. The Med-Arbiter ruled they were rank-and-file, affirmed by the SOLE. The Supreme Court denied the union's petition for review, upholding the determination that Plaza and Yap were rank-and-file based on the lack of evidence showing they performed actual managerial or supervisory functions as defined by the labor code.

    Original Description:

    labor 2

    Original Title

    Gothong v Confesor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The AD Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees' Union filed a petition for a certification election to represent unorganized rank-and-file employees, which was opposed by the corporation because the union excluded employees Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap. The union considered them supervisory employees while the corporation and the employees considered themselves rank-and-file. The Med-Arbiter ruled they were rank-and-file, affirmed by the SOLE. The Supreme Court denied the union's petition for review, upholding the determination that Plaza and Yap were rank-and-file based on the lack of evidence showing they performed actual managerial or supervisory functions as defined by the labor code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Gothong V Confesor

    Uploaded by

    dorian
    The AD Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees' Union filed a petition for a certification election to represent unorganized rank-and-file employees, which was opposed by the corporation because the union excluded employees Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap. The union considered them supervisory employees while the corporation and the employees considered themselves rank-and-file. The Med-Arbiter ruled they were rank-and-file, affirmed by the SOLE. The Supreme Court denied the union's petition for review, upholding the determination that Plaza and Yap were rank-and-file based on the lack of evidence showing they performed actual managerial or supervisory functions as defined by the labor code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    A.D.

    GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES Challenged - - -- - - - - - - - --2


    UNION-ALU v CONFESOR Total votes cast - - - - - - - -41
    3. Both Plaza and Yap argued that they are rank-and-file employees.
    SUMMARY: AD Gothong Manu. Corp Employees’ Union’s petition for Plaza claimed that he was a mere salesman based in Cebu, and
    certification election to represent the unorganized rank-and-file Yap argued that he is a mere expediter whose job includes the
    employees was opposed by The Corporation because the Union facilitation of the processing of the bills of lading of all intended
    excluded employees Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap. Plaza and company shipments.
    Yap according to themselves and the Corporation are rank-and-file while 4. The Union maintains that both Plaza and Yap are supervisors
    according to the Union they are supervisory employees. The Med-Arbiter who are disqualified to join the proposed bargaining unit for rank-
    ruled that they are rank-and-file. The ruling was affirmed by the SOLE. and-file employees. In support of its position paper, the Union
    The petition for review on certiorari was denied by the SC. submitted the following:
    (1) Joint affidavit of Ricardo, et al. which alleges that Yap is a
    DOCTRINE: Under Rule I, Section 2 (c), Book III of the Implementing
    supervisory employee and can effectively recommend for
    Rules of the Labor Code, to be a member of managerial staff, the
    their suspension/dismissal.
    following elements must concur or co-exist, to wit: (1) that his primary
    (2) Affidavit of Pedro Diez, a supervisor in the production
    duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management
    department, that Plaza and Yap are also supervisory
    policies; (2) that he customarily and regularly exercises discretion and
    employees and that they used to attend the quarterly meeting
    independent judgment in the performance of his functions; (3) that he
    of the staff employees;
    regularly and directly assists in the management of the establishment;
    (3) Photocopy of the memorandum dated January 4, 1991
    and (4) that he does not devote more than twenty percent of his time to
    regarding the compulsory attendance of department
    work other than those described above.
    heads/supervisors to the regular quarterly meeting of all
    FACTS: regular workers where Plaza and Yap’s names appear;
    (4) A not-so-legible photocopy of a memorandum dated March 1,
    1. On May 12, 1993, A. D. Gothong Manufacturing Corporation 1989 wherein the name ROMY PLAZA is mentioned as the
    Employees Union-ALU (Union) filed a petition for certification acting OIC of GT Marketing in Davao; and
    election in its bid to represent the unorganized regular rank-and- (5) Photocopy of the minutes of the regular quarterly staff
    file employees of A. D. Gothong Manufacturing Corporation meeting on August 13, 1989 at Mandaue City wherein Yap is
    (Company) excluding its office staff and personnel. Respondent mentioned as a shipping assistant and a newly hired member
    Company opposed the petition as it excluded office personnel of the staff.
    who are rank and file employees. In the inclusion-exclusion 5. The Med-Arbiter declared that the challenged voters Yap and
    proceedings, the parties agreed to the inclusion of Romulo Plaza Plaza are rank-and-file employees.
    and Paul Michael Yap in the list of eligible voters on condition that 6. Petitioner Union appealed to the SOLE insisting that Yap and
    their votes are considered challenged on the ground that they Plaza are supervisor and manager respectively of the corporation
    were supervisory employees. and are prohibited from joining the proposed bargaining unit of
    2. The certification election was conducted as scheduled and rank-and-file employees.
    yielded the following results: 7. SOLE affirmed the findings of the Med-Arbiter ISSUE: Whether in
    YES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 the light of the evidence submitted by both parties, Plaza and Yap
    NO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 are managerial employees or rank-and-file employees. rank-and-
    Spoiled - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 file
    RULING: Petition denied for lack of merit.

    RATIO:

    1. Under Rule I, Section 2 (c), Book III of the Implementing Rules of


    the Labor Code, to be a member of managerial staff, the following
    elements must concur or co-exist, to wit:
    (1) that his primary duty consists of the performance of work
    directly related to management policies;
    (2) that he customarily and regularly exercises discretion and
    independent judgment in the performance of his functions;
    (3) that he regularly and directly assists in the management
    of the establishment; and
    (4) that he does not devote more than twenty percent of his
    time to work other than those described above.
    2. It has also been established in the case of PALEA vs. Ferrer-
    Calleja that in the determination of whether or not certain
    employees are managerial employees, the Court accords due
    respect and therefore sustains the findings of fact made by quasi-
    judicial agencies which are supported by substantial evidence
    considering their expertise in their respective fields.
    3. In the assailed decision, Secretary of Labor rationalized that
    Plaza and Yap can not qualify as managerial and supervisory
    employees, respectively, because there is nothing in the
    documentary evidence offered by herein petitioner-appellant
    showing that they are actually conferred or actually exercising the
    said managerial/supervisory attributes. The job descriptions
    extant on records vividly exhibit no trace of the performance of
    managerial or supervisory functions. The petition has failed to
    show reversible error in the findings of the Med-Arbiter and the
    Secretary of the Department of Labor.

    You might also like