Duncan Association v. Glaxo Wellcome (2004): Spouse at a Rival Company

Pedro Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome Philippines as a medical representative in 1995. His employment contract said he would disclose any existing or future relationship by blood or marriage with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies, and that if management found a possible conflict of interest, he would resign. The company's employee handbook also said that in such cases management and the employee would look for a solution within six months, such as a transfer to another department, or the employee should be prepared to resign.

He was assigned to the Camarines Sur and Camarines Norte sales area. He began a relationship with a woman who worked for Astra Pharmaceuticals, a competitor, as branch coordinator in Albay. She supervised district managers and medical representatives and prepared marketing strategies for her company in that area. His district manager reminded him several times of the possible conflict of interest. They married in 1998.

In January 1999, his superiors told him the marriage created a conflict of interest and that one of the spouses should resign, although they wanted to keep him because he performed well. He asked for more time, explaining that his wife planned to take a redundancy package from her company. He later asked to transfer to Glaxo's milk division, which was denied. In November 1999, Glaxo transferred him to the Butuan City, Surigao City and Agusan del Sur sales area. He refused the transfer and took the matter to the company's grievance committee. While the grievance was pending, he was paid his salary but was not given samples of products competing with Astra's and was left out of product conferences on them.

The dispute went to voluntary arbitration. Glaxo offered separation pay of one-half month's pay for every year of service, which he declined. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled the policy valid and upheld the transfer. The Court of Appeals affirmed, calling the policy a valid exercise of management prerogative. He and his union went to the Supreme Court.

Is a company policy against employees having relationships with, or marrying, employees of competitor companies valid, or does it violate the equal protection clause? Was the employee constructively dismissed?

The Supreme Court denied the petition in a resolution. It called the question "a novel question, with constitutional overtones".

A valid management prerogative. The Court found no error in the ruling that the policy "is a valid exercise of management prerogative." It said Glaxo "has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors", especially since it and Astra were rivals in a highly competitive industry. The prohibition was reasonable "because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company." The Court added that the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and that the protection of labor does not mean every labor dispute is decided in favor of the workers.

Not a policy against marriage. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals: "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 company only sought to avoid a conflict of interest. The policy was in the contract he signed and in the code of conduct, and he knew of it before he entered into the relationship. Having agreed to it, he could no longer question it.

Equal protection does not apply. The Court said "the commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or those acting under color of its authority." A private employer's policy was not covered, and no state involvement was shown. It also noted that the policy was applied fairly, after repeated requests to the employee to comply.

No constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal happens when continued work becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, when there is a demotion in rank or a cut in pay, or when discrimination by the employer becomes unbearable. None of these was shown. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals' finding that, because the spouses' areas were all in the Bicol Region, the conflict was "not only possible, but actual". A medical representative is expected to travel and be reassigned. Glaxo gave him several chances, granted his requests for more time, did not dismiss him, and moved him to an area that included his home province.

The decision does not mention the Labor Code article on the marriage of women workers, then Article 136 and today Article 134 [136]. It was decided on management prerogative and the terms of the employment contract.

An employer may validly adopt and enforce a policy against relationships between its employees and employees of competitor companies when the policy is reasonable to protect its trade secrets and confidential information, leaves employees free to marry anyone, and is applied fairly; the equal protection clause does not apply to such a private policy, and a reassignment made to avoid the conflict, without demotion or loss of pay, is not constructive dismissal.

Duncan shows the other side of the rule in Star Paper v. Simbol (2006). In Star Paper, the Court said the employer in Duncan had proved a reasonable business necessity, while the employer in Star Paper had not. The difference was the reason behind the rule: a real conflict of interest with a direct competitor, as opposed to a general worry about married co-workers. Duncan is also often cited on an employer's right to transfer employees, as long as the transfer is made in good faith and without demotion or a cut in pay.

Here is a made-up illustration, with invented names. Paolo is a sales representative for a medicine distributor. His wife, Grace, becomes regional sales manager for a direct competitor in the same provinces he covers. His contract has a conflict-of-interest clause that he signed when hired. Under the reasoning in Duncan, the company may be allowed to reassign him to another area without cutting his pay. If the company instead simply fired him without any reason tied to its business, the outcome could be different.

See also the meaning of management prerogative.

For a case of your own, see where to find legal help.