In the Philippines, the right to strike is constitutionally protected, but it is not absolute. This case clarifies the boundaries of legal strikes and the repercussions for participating in illegal ones. Specifically, the Supreme Court delineates that while union officers may face termination for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, ordinary employees can only be dismissed if they commit illegal acts during the strike. Furthermore, employers must adhere to due process requirements, regardless of the strike’s legality, ensuring that employees have the opportunity to be heard before termination. This balance seeks to protect workers’ rights while maintaining order and adherence to the law in labor disputes.
When Passionate Protests Meet Procedural Pitfalls: Did HSBC’s Employee Strike Cross the Line?
The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union staged a strike in December 1993, protesting the implementation of a job evaluation program (JEP) they deemed an unfair labor practice (ULP). The bank, however, argued that the strike was illegal due to the union’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Labor Code. The central legal question revolves around whether the union’s actions, though driven by concerns over labor practices, were conducted within the permissible boundaries of the law, and what consequences should follow for the participating employees.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to strike is a powerful tool for workers, aimed at improving their terms and conditions of employment. However, this right is not without limitations. Article 263 of the Labor Code lays out specific requirements that must be met for a strike to be considered legal. These include filing a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), observing a cooling-off period, securing a strike vote approved by the majority of the union membership through secret ballot, and submitting the results of the strike vote to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
In this case, the union failed to meet these requirements. According to the Court, the union did not file a notice of strike with the DOLE, nor did it observe the cooling-off period. Furthermore, the strike vote was conducted via open balloting, violating the requirement for a secret ballot.
Article 264 of the Labor Code explicitly states that “No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the [Department].”
This failure to comply with the mandatory procedures outlined in Article 263 rendered the strike illegal.
Beyond the procedural lapses, the Court also found that the union members had committed unlawful acts during the strike. Witnesses and evidence presented by HSBC showed that the strikers obstructed the ingress into and egress from the bank’s offices, engaging in acts of violence and intimidation.
As Labor Arbiter Pati observed, the picket was a non-moving, stationary one – nothing less but a barricade…the respondents, at least on that day, have demonstrated an abnormally high degree of hatred and anger at the Bank and its officers.
These actions further contributed to the illegality of the strike.
Despite the illegality of the strike, the Supreme Court clarified that this did not automatically justify the dismissal of all participating employees. The Court distinguished between union officers and ordinary members. According to Article 264(a) of the Labor Code,
Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.
This provision emphasizes that the responsibility for an illegal strike is individual, not collective.
To terminate a union officer, the employer must prove that the officer knowingly participated in the illegal strike. For ordinary striking employees, termination is only warranted if the employer can demonstrate that the employee committed illegal acts during the strike. In this case, the Court found that HSBC had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that all the dismissed employees had knowingly participated in the illegal strike or had committed illegal acts. As a result, the Court ruled that the dismissal of several employees was unlawful.
Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of due process in termination cases, regardless of the strike’s legality. Employers must provide employees with a written notice stating the causes for termination and afford them an opportunity to be heard. HSBC’s failure to strictly observe the twin-notice requirement resulted in the illegal dismissal of several employees. However, the extent of HSBC’s liability varied depending on the circumstances of each employee.
The Court ultimately ruled that HSBC was liable for two types of illegal dismissal. The first type involved dismissals made without both substantive and procedural due process. The second type was based on a valid cause but lacked compliance with procedural due process. Those dismissed without substantive and procedural due process were entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Those dismissed based on a valid cause but without procedural due process were entitled to nominal damages of P30,000.00 each. This ruling reinforced the need for employers to respect employees’ rights even in the context of illegal strikes.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether the strike conducted by the union was legal, and whether the subsequent dismissal of the striking employees was justified. The court examined the union’s compliance with procedural requirements for strikes and the individual actions of the employees during the strike. |
| What are the requirements for a legal strike in the Philippines? | A legal strike requires filing a notice with the DOLE, observing a cooling-off period, conducting a secret ballot strike vote, and submitting the results to the NCMB. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the strike illegal. |
| Can an employer automatically dismiss employees who participate in an illegal strike? | No, the employer cannot automatically dismiss all employees. Union officers can be dismissed if they knowingly participated in the illegal strike, while ordinary members can only be dismissed if they committed illegal acts during the strike. |
| What is the twin-notice requirement? | The twin-notice requirement mandates that employers provide employees with a written notice stating the grounds for termination and an opportunity to be heard. A second notice must then be issued informing the employee of the final decision to terminate. |
| What is the difference between substantive and procedural due process in this context? | Substantive due process refers to having a valid cause for termination under the Labor Code. Procedural due process refers to complying with the twin-notice requirement and providing the employee an opportunity to be heard. |
| What remedies are available to employees who are illegally dismissed? | Employees illegally dismissed without both substantive and procedural due process are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and benefits. Those dismissed based on a valid cause but without procedural due process are entitled to nominal damages. |
| How did the court differentiate between union officers and ordinary members in this case? | The court held that union officers have a greater responsibility to ensure that their members comply with the law. They can be dismissed for merely knowingly participating in an illegal strike, whereas ordinary members must have committed illegal acts during the strike to warrant dismissal. |
| What constituted illegal acts during the strike in this case? | Illegal acts during the strike included obstructing the ingress into and egress from the bank’s offices, engaging in acts of violence, and intimidating bank officers and employees. These acts went beyond peaceful picketing and violated the Labor Code. |
This case underscores the delicate balance between protecting workers’ rights to organize and strike and ensuring that these actions are conducted within the bounds of the law. Employers must respect due process, and unions must adhere to procedural requirements to avoid the consequences of an illegal strike. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that both employers and employees have responsibilities in maintaining a fair and orderly labor environment.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016