National Sugar Vs NLRC

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION, (PACIWU) TUCP, respondents.
(G.R. No. 101761. March 24, 1993)
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. The Batangas refinery was privatized on April 11, 1992 pursuant to
Proclamation No. 50. Private respondent union represents the former supervisors of the
NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery. Petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program
affecting all employees, from rank-and-file to department heads. The JE Program was designed to
rationalized the duties and functions of all positions, reestablish levels of responsibility, and
recognize both wage and operational structures. Jobs were ranked according to effort, responsibility,
training and working conditions and relative worth of the job. As a result, all positions were re-
evaluated, and all employees including the members of respondent union were granted salary
adjustments and increases in benefits commensurate to their actual duties and functions. Two years
after the implementation of the JE Program, the respondent Supervisory Union filed a complaint for
the nonpayment of overtime pay, restday, holiday pay in violation of Art. 100 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not supervisory employees, as defined in Article 212 (m), Book V of the Labor Code,
should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff under Article 82, Book III of the
same Code, and hence are not entitled to overtime rest day and holiday pay.
RULING:
YES. It is not disputed that the members of respondent union are supervisory employees, as defined
employees, as defined under Article 212(m), Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations, which
reads:
"(m) 'Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharged, assign or
discipline 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. All employees not falling
within any of those above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees of this Book."
Respondent NLRC, in holding that the union members are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday
pay, and in ruling that the latter are not managerial employees, adopted the definition stated in the
aforequoted statutory provision.
Petitioner, however, avers that for purposes of determining whether or not the members of
respondent union are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay, said employees should be
considered as "officers or members of the managerial staff" as defined under Article 82, Book III of
the Labor Code on "Working Conditions and Rest Periods" and amplified in Section 2, Rule I, Book
III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code, to wit:
"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."
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 and supervisory employees under Article 212 (m) should be made to apply only to the
provisions on Labor Relations, while the right of said employees to the questioned benefits should
be considered in the light of the meaning of a managerial employee and of the officers or members
of the managerial staff, as contemplated under Article 82 of the Code and Section 2, Rule I Book III
of the implementing rules. In other words, for purposes of forming and joining unions, certification
elections, collective bargaining, and so forth, the union members are supervisory employees. In
terms of working conditions and rest periods and entitlement to the questioned benefits, however,
they are officers or members of the managerial staff, hence they are not entitled thereto.
It is apparent that the members of respondent union discharge duties and responsibilities which
ineluctably qualify them as officers or members of the managerial staff and are, therefore, exempt
from the coverage of Article 82. Perforce, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday.

National Sugar Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Sugar Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Sugar Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

(G.R. No. 101761. March 24, 1993)

Petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), a corporation which is fully

You might also like