National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 101761 March 24, 1993

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION, (PACIWU) TUCP, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), a corporation which is fully owned and controlled by the Government, operates three (3) sugar refineries located at Bukidnon, Iloilo and Batangas. Private respondent union represents the former supervisors of the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery.

In 1988, petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all employees, from rank-and-file to department heads. We glean from the records that for about ten years prior to the JE Program, the members of respondent union were treated in the same manner as rank-and file employees. As such, they used to be paid overtime, rest day and holiday pay pursuant to the provisions of Articles 87, 93 and 94 of the Labor Code as amended.

With the implementation of the JE Program, members of respondent union were re-classified under levels S-5 to S-8 which are considered managerial staff for purposes of compensation and benefits.

In May 1990, petitioner NASUREFCO recognized herein respondent union, which was organized pursuant to Republic Act NO. 6715 allowing supervisory employees to form their own unions, as the bargaining representative of all the supervisory employees at the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery.

In June 1990, the members of herein respondent union filed a complainant with the executive labor arbiter for non-payment of overtime, rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.

In 1991, Executive Labor Arbiter Pido directed NASUREFCO to pay for the wages complained of.

On appeal, in a decision promulgated on July 1991, respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that the members of respondent union are not managerial employees, and, therefore, they are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay. Respondent NLRC declared that these supervisory employees are merely exercising recommendatory powers subject to the evaluation, review and final action by their department heads.

Issue:

W/N the Supervisors are considered Managerial Employees and should no longer receive overtime, rest day and holiday pay.

Ruling:

Yes

Ratio:

"Art. 82 Coverage. — The provisions of this title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in Appropriate regulations.

"As used herein, 'managerial employees' refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff." (Emphasis supplied.)

It is the submission of petitioner that while the members of respondent union, as supervisors, may not be occupying managerial positions, they are clearly officers or members of the managerial staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and, hence, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day.

Quintessentially, with the promotion of the union members, they are no longer entitled to the benefits which attach and pertain exclusively to their positions. Entitlement to the benefits provided for by law requires prior compliance with the conditions set forth therein. With the promotion of the members of respondent union, they occupied positions which no longer met the requirements imposed by law. Their assumption of these positions removed them from the coverage of the law, ergo, their exemption therefrom.

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, if the union members really wanted to continue receiving the benefits which attach to their former positions, there was nothing to prevent them from refusing to accept their promotions and their corresponding benefits. As the saying goes by, they could not, as a simple matter of law and fairness, get the best of both worlds at the expense of NASUREFCO.

Promotion of its employees is one of the jurisprudentially-recognized exclusive prerogatives of management, provided it is done in good faith. In the case at bar, private respondent union has miserably failed to convince this Court that the petitioner acted implementing the JE Program. There is no showing that the JE Program was intended to circumvent the law and deprive the members of respondent union of the benefits they used to receive.