Labor Relations
HSBC Employees Union v. NLRC
January 11, 2016 G.R. No. 156635 BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS
Petitioner Union was the duly recognized collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
of respondent HSBC. The existing CBA was effective April 1, 1990 until March 31, 1993 for the non-
representational (economic) aspect, and effective April 1, 1990 until March 31, 1995 for the
representational aspect.
The CBA included a salary structure of the employees comprising of grade levels, entry level pay rates
and the individual pays depending on the length of service.
On January 18, 1993, HSBC announced its implementation of a job evaluation program (JEP)
retroactive to January 1, 1993. The JEP consisted of a job designation per grade level with the
accompanying salary scale providing for the minimum and maximum pay the employee could receive
per salary level.
The Union demanded the suspension of the JEP, which it labeled as an unfair labor practice (ULP). In
another letter, the Union informed HSBC that it would exercise its right to concerted action and on
the same day, the Union members started picketing during breaktime while wearing black hats
and black bands on their arms and other appendages.
The Union’s concerted activities persisted for 11 months, which impelled HSBC to suspend the
negotiations and to issue warnings and reprimands to remind the members of the Union to comply
with HSBC's Code of Conduct.
Respondent HSBC filed a complaint for ULP in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter's decision was appealed to the NLRC whose disposition to remand the case to the
Labor Arbiter for further proceedings was in turn assailed. Ultimately, in G.R. No. 125038, the Court
affirmed the disposition of the NLRC, and directed the remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter for
further proceedings.
The Union conducted a strike vote on December 19, 1993 after HSBC accorded regular status to
Patrick King, the first person hired under the JEP. The majority of the members of the Union voted in
favor of a strike.
The following day, the Union served its letter on HSBC in protest of the continued implementation of
the JEP, and insisted that HSBC's modification of the salary structure under the JEP constituted ULP.
On December 22, 1993, at around 12:30 p.m., the Union's officers and members walked out and
gathered outside the premises of HSBC's offices on Ayala Avenue, Makati and Ortigas Center, Pasig.
Union members blocked the entry and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank
officers, including the chief executive officer, from entering and/or leaving the premises.
This prompted HSBC to resort to a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of its officials and
employees thus prevented from leaving the premises, whom it airlifted on December 24, 1993 to
enable them to leave the bank premises.
On December 24, 1993, HSBC filed its complaint to declare the strike illegal. The HSBC also
petitioned for injunction (with prayer for TRO/writ of prohibitory injunction) in the NLRC, which issued
the TRO on January 6, 1994, and the writ of preliminary injunction on January 31, 1994.
On November 22, 2001, the Court upheld the actions taken in that case in HSBC Employees Union v.
NLRC and HSBC. In the meantime, HSBC issued return-to-work notices to the striking employees but
only 25 employees complied and returned to work. Due to the continuing concerted actions, HSBC
terminated the individual petitioners. Undeterred, and angered by their separation from work, the
Union members continued their concerted activities.
Labor Arbiter – declared the strike illegal for failure of the Union to file the notice of strike with the
DOLE; to observe the cooling-off period; and to submit the results of the strike vote to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Union members and o fficers thus were deemed to have lost
their employment status.
NLRC – On appeal, the NLRC modified the ruling of LA and pronounced the dismissal of the 18 Union
members unlawful for failure of HSBC to accord procedural due process to them. The petitioners filed
their MR, but the NLRC denied their motion.
CA – on certiorari, CA deleted the award of indemnity, but ordered HSBC to pay backwages to the
18 employees. Also denied HSBC's motion to delete the award of backwages. Hence, this appeal by
petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in holding that the strike was illegal. – NO.
RULING (include how the law was applied)
Non-compliance with Article 263 of the Labor Code renders a labor strike illegal.
The right to strike is a constitutional and legal right of all workers because the strike, which seeks to
advance their right to improve the terms and conditions of their employment, is recognized as an effective
weapon of labor in their struggle for a decent existence. However, the right to strike as a means for the
attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the employers. Thus, the law prescribes
limits on the exercise of the right to strike.
The procedural requirements for a valid strike under Article 263 are the following: NVN
(1) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE at least 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15
days in case of ULP;
(2) a strike vote approved by the majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and
(3) a notice of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike given to the
DOLE.
According to the CA, the petitioners neither filed the notice of strike with the DOLE, nor observed the
cooling-off period, nor submitted the result of the strike vote. Moreover, although the strike vote was
conducted, the same was done by open, not secret, balloting, in blatant violation of Article 263 and
Section 7, Rule XIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. As such, the petitioners
committed a prohibited activity under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, and rendered their strike illegal.
Commission of unlawful acts during the strike further rendered the same illegal.
The petitioners insist that all they did was to conduct an orderly, peaceful, and moving picket. They deny
employing any act of violence or obstruction of HSBC's entry and exit points during the period of the
strike.
The contrary was undeniably true. HSBC's claim that from the time when the strike was commenced on
December 22, 1993 the petitioners had on several instances obstructed the ingress into and egress from
its offices in Makati and in Pasig was not competently disputed, and should thus be accorded credence in
the light of the records. We agree with HSBC, for all the affidavits and testimonies of its witnesses, as well
as the photographs and video recordings reviewed by the LA depicted the acts of obstruction, violence and
intimidation committed by the petitioners during their picketing. It was undeniable that such acts of the
strikers forced HSBC's officers to resort to unusual means of gaining access into its premises at one point.
As the Labor Arbiter observed:
the picket was a non-moving, stationary one — nothing less but a barricade. This office is more than
convinced that the union, at least on that day, have demonstrated an abnormally high degree of hatred
and anger at the Bank and its officers (including the Bank's chief executive officer who fell to the ground
as a result of the pushing and shoving) leading them to do anything to carry out their resolve not to let
anymore inside the Bank.
The situation during the strike actually went out of hand because of the petitioners' illegal conduct,
compelling HSBC to secure an injunction from the NLRC as well as to file its petition for habeas corpus in
the proper court in the interest of its trapped officers and employees; and at one point to lease an
helicopter to extract its employees and officers from its premises on the eve of Christmas Day of 1993.
Petitioners could not justify their illegal strike by invoking the constitutional right of labor to concerted
actions. Although the Constitution recognized and promoted their right to strike, they should still exercise
the right within the bounds of law. Specifically, Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code expressly enjoined the
striking workers engaged in picketing from committing any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or
from obstructing the free ingress into or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or from
obstructing public thoroughfares. The employment of prohibited means in carrying out concerted actions
injurious to the right to property of others could only render their strike illegal.
Moreover, their strike was rendered unlawful because their picketing which constituted an obstruction to
the free use of the employer's property or the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, when
accompanied by intimidation, threats, violence, and coercion as to constitute nuisance, should be
regulated. In fine, the strike, even if justified as to its ends, could become illegal because of the
means employed, especially when the means came within the prohibitions under Article 264
(e) of the Labor Code.
Good faith did not avail because of the patent violation of Article 263 of the Labor Code.
The petitioners' disregard of the procedural requirements for conducting a valid strike negated their claim
of good faith. For their claim to be upheld, it was not enough for them to believe that their employer was
guilty of ULP, for they must also sufficiently show that the strike was undertaken with a modicum of
obeisance to the restrictions on their exercise of the right to strike prior to and during its execution as
prescribed by the law. They did not establish their compliance with the requirements specifically for the
holding of the strike vote and the giving of the strike notice.
DISPOSITIVE
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 31, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No.
56797 with MODIFICATION that respondent Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) shall
pay:
XXX
XXX
XXX
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
The finding on the illegal strike did not justify the wholesale termination of the strikers from employment.
Also, there was non-compliance with due process hence the Union members were still granted indemnity.
