Case Digest (G.R. No. 164301)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union‑Davao Chapter‑Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, October 19, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sought reconsideration of this Court’s August 10, 2010 Decision holding that former employees of the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) who were “absorbed” by BPI after the two banks’ 2000 merger were covered by the Union Shop Clause in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between BPI and respondent BPI Employees Union‑Davao Chapter‑Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (the Union).The disputed Union Shop Clause (Article II, Sec. 2 of the CBA effective April 1, 1996–March 31, 2001) required that “new employees … who may hereafter be regularly employed by the Bank shall, within thirty (30) days … join the Union as a condition of their continued employment.” The core dispute was whether FEBTC employees absorbed by BPI in the merger qualified as “new employees” subject to that clause, since they entered BPI’s employ by operation of merger rather than by direct hiring.
At the Voluntary Arbitrator level BPI prevailed; the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that absorbed FEBTC employees were not “new employees” under the clause. The Court of Appeals reversed, adopting the view that the Union Shop Clause should apply to preserve union majority and the policy favoring unionism. On appeal the Supreme Court (August 10, 2010) affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the absorbed FEBTC employees were covered, and imposing a thirty‑day period for compliance.
BPI moved for reconsideration before this Court, arguing (among other points) that the parties to the CBA intended “new employees” to mean only those initially hired as non‑regular employees who later attained regular status, that FEBTC employees were not “new,” and relying on prior dissenting opinions (Justices Carpio and Brion) to urge narrower construction of the Union Shop Clause. The Union countered that the merger was voluntary but effectivity and employer‑employee relations between BPI and former FEBTC employees arose only upon SEC approval of the merger, and that denying coverage would undermine unionism and the CBA’s purpose.
In this Motion for Reconsideration the Court re‑examined (a) the meaning of “new employees” in the Union Shop Clause; (b) whether affirming coverage infringes the absorbed e...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are former FEBTC employees absorbed by BPI covered by the Union Shop Clause of the existing CBA — i.e., are they “new employees” within the meaning of that clause?
- Does affirming their coverage by the Union Shop Clause violate the absorbed employees’ right to security of tenure?
- In a merger where the Articles of Merger are silent on human‑resource arrangements, does the surviving corporation automatically assume the employment contracts and obli...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)