DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and PEDRO A.
TECSON, petitioners, vs. GLAXO WELCOME PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 162994 | September 17, 2004
TOPIC:
Stipulation against marriage
FACTS:
Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson signed a contract
of employment as Medical Representative
with Glaxo Wellcome Philippines which stipulates, among others, that he
agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management
any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with
co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management
find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign
from the company.
The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo
similarly provides that an employee is expected to inform management of any
existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees
or employees of competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of
interest or a potential conflict between such relationship and the employee’s
employment with the company, the management and the employee will explore the
possibility of a “transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking
position” or preparation for employment outside the company after 6 months.
Tecson entered into a romantic relationship
with Bettsy, a Branch Coordinator in Albay for Glaxo’s competitor, Astra
Pharmaceuticals. Despite receiving several reminders from his District Manager
regarding the possible conflict of interest which may arise from his
relationship with Betty, Tecson married Bettsy on September 1998.
ISSUE:
Whether Glaxo’s policy against its
employees marrying employees from competitor companies is valid
RULING:
Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from
having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid
exercise of management prerogative. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade
secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential
programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are
rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition against personal or marital
relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is
reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might
compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the assailed company
policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a
competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
As held in a Georgia, USA case, it is a
legitimate business practice to guard business confidentiality and protect a
competitive position by even-handedly disqualifying from jobs male and female
applicants or employees who are married to a competitor. The Court pointed out that the policy was
applied to men and women equally, and noted that the employer’s business was
highly competitive and that gaining inside information would constitute a
competitive advantage.
From the wordings of the contractual provision
and the policy in its employee handbook, it is clear that Glaxo does not impose
an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those
of competitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with
and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid
is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise
out of such relationships.
The policy being questioned is not a policy
against marriage. An employee of the company remains free to marry anyone of
his or her choosing. The policy is not aimed at restricting a personal
prerogative that belongs only to the individual. However, an employee’s
personal decision does not detract the employer from exercising management prerogatives
to ensure maximum profit and business success.
Comments
Post a Comment