G.R. No. 91902 - Manila Electric Co. vs. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment

November 22, 1988: STEAM-PCWF files petition for certification election
March 15, 1989: Med-Arbiter orders certification election
September 13, 1989: FLAMES files similar petition; cases consolidated
November 3, 1989: Secretary of Labor affirms with modification Med-Arbiter’s order
January 16, 1990: Denial of MERALCO’s motion for reconsideration
May 20, 1991: Supreme Court decision

STEAM-PCWF sought to represent:

Non-managerial employees with Pay Grades VII and above
Non-managerial Patrol Division and Treasury Security Services employees; secretaries
Rank-and-file employees automatically disqualified from union membership under the existing MEWA CBA

The MEWA CBA excluded the same groups from its bargaining unit and precluded certain employees from union membership.

MERALCO moved to dismiss on grounds that:
• Target employees were managerial, security, secretarial, or already covered by MEWA’s CBA;
• The petition would disrupt an existing CBA (Art. 232, Labor Code);
• Lack of 20% written consent from alleged members.
Med-Arbiter Parungo ruled exclusions warranted a separate union, ordered an election among the three groups.
MERALCO appealed; MEWA intervened challenging unit appropriateness and statutory compliance.
Secretary Drilon affirmed but retained MEWA’s existing unit for Sec. 3 employees and added FLAMES as an electoral choice.
MERALCO’s motion for reconsideration denied; petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.

Whether a separate bargaining unit apart from MEWA may represent the excluded employees
Classification of Pay Grades VII and above as rank-and-file or supervisory/managerial
Eligibility of security guards to join rank-and-file or supervisory unions

Petition dismissed; Secretary of Labor’s Resolution affirmed with modifications.
Only supervisory employees (Pay Grades VII and above) may hold a certification election, with STEAM-PCWF and FLAMES as choices.
Classification guided by Article 212-m, Labor Code (as amended by RA 6715):
• Managerial employees: empowered to lay down and execute management policies, make binding personnel decisions.
• Supervisory employees: effectively recommend managerial decisions using independent judgment.
• All others are rank-and-file.
Security guards and secretaries may freely choose between rank-and-file or supervisory unions, since RA 6715 removed their categorical ineligibility to join rank-and-file organizations.
Employees listed in Section 3, Article I of the MEWA CBA remain in MEWA’s unit but may choose union membership individually; restrictive contractual conditions are void as against public policy.

The 1987 Constitution and labor statutes protect the right of all non-managerial employees to self-organization.
RA 6715 introduced supervisory employees as a distinct category and removed security guards’ blanket disqualification.
Implementing rules that continued to bar security guards from rank-and-file unions exceed

Petitioner: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
Respondent: The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. Drilon
Private respondents:
- Staff and Technical Employees Association of MERALCO (STEAM-PCWF)
- First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES)
- Meralco Employees and Workers Association (MEWA) (intervenor)

On November 22, 1988, STEAM-PCWF filed a petition for certification election to represent certain MERALCO employees excluded from the existing MEWA collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The exclusion under MEWA-CBA (Art. I, Secs. 2–3) covered:
• Patrol Division employees, Treasury Security Services Section personnel, managerial employees, and secretaries (automatically removed from the bargaining unit).
• Regular rank-and-file employees in specified corporate and staff service departments, disqualified from union membership.
MERALCO moved to dismiss, arguing that the targeted employees were:
• Managerial (Pay Grades VII and above), security personnel, or secretaries ineligible for rank-and-file union membership;
• Already represented under MEWA-CBA;
• Not supported by 20% written employee consent as required.

Before Med-Arbiter Renato P. Parungo (Case No. NCR-O-D-M-1-70):
• MERALCO raised similar objections to unit composition under Labor Code and IRR provisions.
Med-Arbiter’s Order (March 15, 1989):
• Held that excluded employees (except managerial) could form their own union;
• Directed certification election among:
1. Non-managerial Pay Grades VII and above
2. Non-managerial Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section employees, and secretaries
3. Employees prohibited from active union membership under MEWA-CBA
Appeals and interventions:
• MERALCO appealed (April 4, 1989).
• MEWA intervened (April 7, 1989) claiming violations of Articles 232 and 245 of the Labor Code and unit appropriateness.
• STEAM-PCWF opposed MEWA’s intervention (May 4, 1989).
• RA 671