Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    HSBC Employees Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Robert
    The union representing HSBC employees staged a strike to oppose the bank's implementation of a new job evaluation program without complying with the legal requirements for strikes under the Labor Code. This included failing to file a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment, observe a mandatory cooling-off period, or submit the results of a secret ballot vote among members. HSBC terminated some striking employees and issued notices for others to return to work. The court ruled the strike was illegal since the union did not follow the proper procedures for calling a legal strike under Philippine law. While employees have a right to strike, it must be conducted lawfully by satisfying all regulatory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    HSBC Employees Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Robert
    90 views1 page
    The union representing HSBC employees staged a strike to oppose the bank's implementation of a new job evaluation program without complying with the legal requirements for strikes under the Labor Code. This included failing to file a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment, observe a mandatory cooling-off period, or submit the results of a secret ballot vote among members. HSBC terminated some striking employees and issued notices for others to return to work. The court ruled the strike was illegal since the union did not follow the proper procedures for calling a legal strike under Philippine law. While employees have a right to strike, it must be conducted lawfully by satisfying all regulatory requirements.

    Original Description:

    Labor

    Original Title

    Hsbc Employees Union vs Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The union representing HSBC employees staged a strike to oppose the bank's implementation of a new job evaluation program without complying with the legal requirements for strikes under the Labor Code. This included failing to file a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment, observe a mandatory cooling-off period, or submit the results of a secret ballot vote among members. HSBC terminated some striking employees and issued notices for others to return to work. The court ruled the strike was illegal since the union did not follow the proper procedures for calling a legal strike under Philippine law. While employees have a right to strike, it must be conducted lawfully by satisfying all regulatory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views1 page

    HSBC Employees Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Robert
    The union representing HSBC employees staged a strike to oppose the bank's implementation of a new job evaluation program without complying with the legal requirements for strikes under the Labor Code. This included failing to file a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment, observe a mandatory cooling-off period, or submit the results of a secret ballot vote among members. HSBC terminated some striking employees and issued notices for others to return to work. The court ruled the strike was illegal since the union did not follow the proper procedures for calling a legal strike under Philippine law. While employees have a right to strike, it must be conducted lawfully by satisfying all regulatory requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    HSBC EMPLOYEES UNION V.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. 156635
    January 11, 2016

    DOCTRINE: A strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 263 of
    the Labor Code is illegal, and may cause the termination of the employment of the participating
    union officers and members. However, the liability for the illegal strike is individual, not
    collective. To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor organization on that basis, the
    employer must show that the officer knowingly participated in the illegal strike. An ordinary
    striking employee cannot be terminated based solely on his participation in the illegal strike, for
    the employer must further show that the employee committed illegal acts during the strike.

    FACTS: Petitioner HSBC-EU was the duly recognized collective bargaining agent of the rank-
    and-file employees of Respondent HSBC. The latter has announced its implementation of Job
    Evaluation Program (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. This was opposed by the union.

    The Union demanded the suspension of the JEP, which it labeled as an unfair labor practice
    (ULP). The Union members then walked out and gathered outside the premises of HSBC
    blocked the entry and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank officers from leaving
    the premises whom the HSBC airlifted to enable them to leave the bank premises.

    In the meantime, HSBC issued return-to-work notices to the striking employees but only few
    employees complied and returned to work. Due to the continuing concerted actions, HSBC
    terminated the individual petitioners. The latter, undeterred, and angered by their separation from
    work, continued their concerted activities.

    ISSUE: Whether the strike commenced was lawfully conducted?

    HELD: No. The strike rendered was illegal.

    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. It is not amiss to
    observe that the evident intention of the requirements for the strike-notice and the strike-vote
    report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike for the attainment of the legitimate policy
    objectives embodied in the law. As such, the petitioners committed a prohibited activity under
    Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, and rendered their strike illegal.

    You might also like