AIM v. AIM FACULTY ASSOC.

Asian Institute of Management vs. Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association

G.R. No. 207971

January 23, 2017

Facts:

On May 16, 2007, respondent filed a petition for certification election6 seeking to represent a bargaining unit in AIM consisting of forty faculty members. Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming that respondent's members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather, and managerial employees. On July 11, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds of misrepresentation in registration and that respondent is composed of managerial employees who are prohibited from organizing as a union.

Issues:

Whether or not the members of AIMFA are managerial employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court finds the employees to be managerial employees.

Article 212 of the Labor Code defines managerial employees as:

ART. 212. Definitions.

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, discharge, 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 the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.'

There are, therefore, two kinds of managerial employees under Art. 212 of the Labor Code. Those who 'lay down management policies', such as the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees'.