[BASIC CONCEPTS AND DOCTRINES – MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE] W/N the Minister of Labor erred in dismissing the complaint for
erred in dismissing the complaint for unfair labor
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION (PTGWO) V. OPLE practice — NO
February 8, 1989 | GRIÑO AQUINO, J. Public respondent was correct in holding that the CDS is a valid exercise of
management prerogatives:
Petitioner/s: San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) o Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate,
Respondents: Hon. Blas F. Ople, as Minister of Labor and San Miguel Corporation according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods,
Doctrine: So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be
faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline,
valid agreements, the Court will uphold them. dismissal and recall of work. ... (NLU vs. Insular La Yebana Co., 2
SCRA 924; Republic Savings Bank vs. CIR 21 SCRA 226, 235.)
Facts: (Perfecto V. Hernandez, Labor Relations Law, 1985 Ed., p. 44.)
On April 17, 1978, a collective bargaining agreement was entered into by Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it
petitioner San Miguel Corporation Sales Force Union (PTGWO), and the may adopt or devise means designed towards that goal.
private respondent, San Miguel Corporation, Section 1, of Article IV of which In Abbott Laboratories vs. NLRC, the Court ruled:
provided as follows: o ... Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it
o Art. IV, Section 1. Employees within the appropriate bargaining unit must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are
shall be entitled to a basic monthly compensation plus commission clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to
based on their respective sales. conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be
In September 1979, the company introduced a marketing scheme known as denied.
the "Complementary Distribution System" (CDS) whereby its beer products So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good
were offered for sale directly to wholesalers through San Miguel's sales faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose
offices. of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws
The labor union (herein petitioner) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice or under valid agreements, the Court will uphold them.
in the Ministry of Labor, with a notice of strike on the ground that the CDS San Miguel Corporation's offer to compensate the members of its sales force
was contrary to the existing marketing scheme whereby the Route Salesmen who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying
were assigned specific territories within which to sell their stocks of beer, and them a so-called "back adjustment commission" to make up for the
wholesalers had to buy beer products from them, not from the company. It commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the company's
was alleged that the new marketing scheme violates Section 1, Article IV of good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.
the collective bargaining agreement because the introduction of the CDS
would reduce the take-home pay of the salesmen and their truck helpers for Dispositive
the company would be unfairly competing with them. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.
The Minister of Labor dismissed the complaint.
o It held that there was nothing in the record that would suggest that
the unilateral action of the employer in inaugurating the new sales
scheme was designed to discourage union organization or diminish
its influence.
o Petitioner's conjecture that the new plan will sow dissatisfaction
from its ranks is already a prejudgment of the plan's viability and
effectiveness. It is like saying that the plan will not work out to the
workers' [benefit] and therefore management must adopt a new
system of marketing. But what the petitioner failed to consider is the
fact that corollary to the adoption of the assailed marketing
technique is the effort of the company to compensate whatever loss
the workers may suffer because of the new plan over and above
than what has been provided in the collective bargaining
agreement.
Issues/Ruling:
