UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJJA [July 14, 1992] NARVASA, J. Doctrine/Subject: Right to Self-Organization FACTS: - March 2, 1990 - The Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) filed a petition for certification of election before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) to which the University of the Philippines (UP) had no objection to the election o ONAPUP claims to have a membership of 3,236 members where 33% are nonacademic personnel of UP-Diliman, Los Baños, Manila, and Visayas. - April 18, 1990 – another registered labor union, the All UP Workers’ Union (AUPWU) filed a comment as intervenor in the certification election proceeding. o It alleges that its membership covers both academic and non-academic personnel and that it aims to unite all UP rank-and-file employees in one union o It assent to the holding of the election provided the appropriate organization unit was clearly defined. o It observed in this connection that the Research, Extension and Professional Staff (REPS), who are academic non-teaching personnel, should not be deemed part of the organizational unit. - UP on the other hand made records of its view that there should be 2 unions one for academic and the other for non-academic or administrative personnel considering the dichotomy of interest, conditions and rules governing these employees. - Aug 7, 1990 - Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja (Calleja) declared that the organizational unit should embrace all rank-and-file employees both academic and non-academic, teaching and non-teaching as stated in Sec. 9 of EO. No. 180. - Calleja commanded that a certification election be conducted among all rank-and-file employees in all of the 4 campuses and that management appear and bring copies of the corresponding payrolls for Jan, June, and July, 1990 at the usual pre-election conference - Mar 22, 1990 – At the pre-election conference, UP sought clarification of the term “rankand-file” since there were some teaching and non-teaching employees whose functions were in fact managerial and policy-determining, - It sought the exclusion of high level employees pursuant to Sec. 3 of EO 180. o Sec. 3. High-level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of a highly confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the organization of rank-and file government employees; -
-
It claims that the following should not be considered rank-and-file: o
Those with the rank of professor or higher;
o
Those administrative employees holding positions of Grade 18 or higher
UP claims that these employees perform supervisory functions and are vested with effective recommendatory powers. As to the professors, these academic staff are members of the University Council, a policy making body
-
ONAPUP did not oppose UP’s classification. All UP remained firm in its stance to unite all the rank-and-file employees under a single organizational unit.
-
Calleja’s 2nd order declared that professors are rank-and-file employees as stated in Sec.1 Rule1, IRRs of EO 180: o
1. High Level Employee – is one whose functions are normally considered policy determining, managerial or one whose duties are highly confidential in nature. A managerial function refers to the exercise of powers such as:
1. To Effectively recommend such managerial actions;
2. To Formulate or execute management policies and decisions; or
3. To Hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, dismiss, assign or discipline employees
-
Calleja stated that a careful perusal of the University Code shows that the policy making powers of the Council are limited to academic matters, namely prescribing courses of study and rules of discipline, fixing student admission and graduation requirements, recommending to the Board of Regents the conferment of degrees and disciplinary power over students.
-
On the other hand, the policies referred to in the definition of high level employees refers to labor-related policies like hiring, firing, discipline, labor standards and benefits, and terms and conditions of employment.
-
Motion for reconsideration was filed by UP which was denied hence this petition.
ISSUE: 1) WON academic personnel should form a distinct collective bargaining unit from those non-academic employees of the university. 2) WON professors, associate professors and assistant professors are high-level employees RULING: 1) YES, although there was no standard mentioned in forming a collective bargaining unit the Supreme Court referred to American Jurisprudence for guidance and have followed principles in the American Magna Carta which stated that the collective bargaining unit must be based on the following factors: o Will of the employees (Global Doctrine) o Affinity an unit of employees’ interest --- substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions o Prior collective bargaining agreement history o Employment status --- temporary, seasonal, probationary
Furthermore the Supreme Court also followed the 10 th Annual Report of the NLRB which sets the following factors: o History, extent and type of organization of employees o History of their collective bargaining o History, extent and type or organization of employees in other plants of the same employer, or other employers in the same industry o The skill, wages, work and working conditions of the employees o The desires of the employees o The eligibility of the employees for membership in the unions/s involved; and o The relationship between the unit/s proposed and the employer’s organization, management ,and operation Combing these two sets of factors form the community or mutuality of interest tests To summarize it, the two groups have nothing mutual in common and have different interests thus should have their own collective bargaining units. 2) No, although professors supposedly exercise managerial functions (forming policies, rules and standards) they are purely recommendatory in nature and is still subject to the review and evaluation of the University Academic Personnel Board (UAPB). They are still guided by the general guidelines drawn up by the UAPB. Finally the policy determining functions of the university council where the professors are included merely govern the relationship between the university and the student, not university and employees As stated in Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines vs. Trajano, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in National Merchandising Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, that the power to recommend, in order to qualify an employee as a supervisor or managerial employee "must not only be effective but the exercise of such authority should not be merely of a routinary or clerical nature but should require the use of independent judgment." Where such recommendatory powers, as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
Notes: Sec. 9 of EO. No. 180.
Sec. 9. The appropriate organizational unit shall be the employer unit consisting of rankand-file employees, unless circumstances otherwise require.
and Section 1, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing said EO 180 (as amended by SEC. 2, Resolution of Public Sector Labor Management Council dated May 14, 1989, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx For purposes of registration, an appropriate organizational unit may refer to: xxx xxx xxx
d. State universities or colleges, government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. She went on to say that the general intent of EO 180 was "not to fragmentize the employer unit, as "can be gleaned from the definition of the term "accredited employees' organization," which refers to:
. . a registered organization of the rank-and-file employees as defined in these rules recognized to negotiate for the employees in an organizational unit headed by an officer with sufficient authority to bind the agency, such as . . . . . . state colleges and universities.
