REYNALDO BAUTISTA vs. HON. AMADO C.

INCIONG, G.R. No. L-52824

March 16, 88
DOCTRINE:
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the
elements that are generally considered are the following:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It is the
so-called 'control test' that is the most important element
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed by Associated Labor Unions(ALU) as organizer.
Bautista went on leave and when he went back to work, he was informed
that he was already terminated. The Director ruled in favor of Bautista.
The Deputy Minister of Labor, however, set aside the order of the Director
finding that his membership coverage with the SSS which shows that
respondent ALU is the one paying the employer’s share in the premiums is
not conclusive proof that respondent is the petitioner’s employer because
such payments were performed by the respondent as a favor for all those
who were performing full time union activities with it to entitle them to
SSS benefits. He then ruled that there was no employeremployee
relationship between ALU and Bautista by the fact that ALU is not an
entity for profit but a duly registered labor union whose sole purpose is
the representation of its bonafide organization units.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there can be employer-employee relationship between a
labor union and its member.
RULING:
Yes, the mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does not mean that
it cannot be considered an employer of the persons who work for it.
Moreover, the four elements in determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship was present in the case at bar. The Regional
Director correctly found that the petitioner was an employee of the
respondent union as reflected in the latter’s individual payroll sheets and
shown by the petitioner’s membership with the Social Security System
(SSS) and the respondent union’s share of remittances in the petitioner’s
favor.Bautista was selected and hired by the union. ALU had the power to
dismiss him as indeed it dismissed him. And definitely, the Union tightly
controlled the work of Bautista as one of its organizers.
 Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph
International-United
Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines
vs. Hon.Pura Ferrer-Calleja, GR. No. 85915,
January 17, 1990
DOCTRINE:
In ruling that the members of respondent union are rank-and-file and not
managerial employees, the public respondent made the following findings:
(1) They do not have the power to lay down and execute management
policies as they are given readypolicies merely to execute and standard
practices to observe;
(2) they do not have the power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees but only to recommend for such
actions as the power rests upon the personnel manager;
3) They do not have the power to effectively recommend any managerial
actions as their recommendations have to pass through the department
manager for review, the personnel manager for attestation and the general
manager/president for final actions.

FACTS:
Petitioner labor union sought to represent employees of Triumph
International and filed a petition for certification election. Triumph
opposed contending that the employees sought to be represented by the
union were managerial and supervisory employees and are therefore
disqualified to join a union.

ISSUE:
Whether or not managerial and supervisory employees can form or join a
union.
RULING:
No, Article 245 of the Labor Code prohibits managerial employees
from joining, assisting, or forming any labor organization. But in
the case at bar, the employees sought to be represented were
found to be not of managerial status. The test on managerial
status depends on whether an employee possessesthe authority
to act in the interest of his employer with the use of his
independent judgment.