CASE NAME: Metrolab Industries Inc., v. Roldan-Confesor(Sec.
DOLE) and Metro Drug
Corporation Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Facts of the Case: Private respondent, Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation og Free Workers, herein after referred to as the Union, is a labor organization representing the rank and file employees of the petitioner, Metrolab Industries, Inc., hereinafter referred to Metrolan/MII and also of the Metro Druc, Inc. On December 31, 1990, the CBA between the Metrolab and Union expired and the negotiations for a new CBA ended in a deadlock. On August 23, 1991, the Union files a notice of strike against Metrolab and Metro Drug Inc. The parties failed to settle their dispute before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. To contain the escalating dispute, on September 20, 1991, the then Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an assumption order, which contains among others a directive to cease and desist from committing all acts that might exacerbate the situation. On December 27, 1991, another order was issued resolving all the disputed items in the CBA and ordered the parties involved to execute a new CBA. The union filed a motion for reconsideration. On January 27, 1992, during the pendency of the MR, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file employees. On the same date, the Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to stop the Metrolab from implementing the mass layoff, alleging that such act violated the prohibition against committing acts that would exacerbate the dispute as specifivally directed in the assumption order. Metrolab contented that the layoff was temporary and in the exercise of its management prerogative as the company would suffer a yearly gross revenue. On January 23, 2993, th3 Labor Secretary Confesor issued an Omnibus Resolution containing the order that the layoff of the 94 employees is illegal. The Labor Secretary Confesor also ruled that executive secretaries are excluded from the closed-shop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit. Issue: 1. Whether or not the temporary layoff is illegal? 2. Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in including executive secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees? Held: 1. Yes. The court recognizes the exercise if the management prerogatives and often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decision of the employer. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to limitations imposed by law. The Secretary of Labor is expressly given the power under the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction and resolve the labor dispute involving industries indispensable to national interest. The unilateral action of management is a blatant violation of the injunction of the Labor Secretary against committing acts which would exacerbate the dispute. Unless such act is enjoined the Union will be compelled to resort to its legal right to mass actions and concerted activities to protest and stop said management action. This mass layoff is clearly one, which result in a very serious labor dispute unless the department swiftly intervenes. The Metrolabs contention that the layoff if the 94 rank and file employees was temporary is untenable since from the tenor of the layoff notice, the notice was couched in a language so uncertain tha the only conclusion possible is the permanent termination.
2. Yes. Executive Secretaries are confidential employees, having access to vital
information. Forming part of the bargaining unit, the executive secretaries stand to benefit from ant agreement executed between the Union and Metrolab. Such scenario gives rise to a potential conflict between personal interests and their duty as confidential employees to act for and in behalf of Metrolab.