G.R. No.

164301               August 10, 2010

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner,
vs.
BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI
UNIBANK, Respondent.

Facts:

1. Far East Bank and Trust Company was merged with Bank of the
Philippine Islands.
2. BPI has an existing union known as the BPI Employee’s Union by which
a CBA was already in place which contains a union shop clause.
3. The absorbed employees of FEBTC do not want to join the union. Hence,
said union exercised union shop clause which recommended for the
termination of their employment to the management.
4. The case was submitted for voluntary arbitration. Arbitration ruled
that FEBTC employees are not covered. However, said pronouncement was
reversed by CA ruling among others that absorbed employees are
covered by said CBA provision.

ISSUE:

WoN absorbed employees are covered by the CBA of an existing labor union
and may be compelled to join such without violating his right not to join?

Held:

SC affirmed CA. Absorbed employees are covered by the CBA of the existing
labor union.

All employees in the bargaining unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in

their CBA with management are subject to its terms. However, under law and
jurisprudence, the following kinds of employees are exempted from its
coverage, namely, employees who at the time the union shop agreement takes
effect are bona fide members of a religious organization which prohibits
its members from joining labor unions on religious grounds; employees
already in the service and already members of a union other than the
majority at the time the union shop agreement took effect; confidential
employees who are excluded from the rank and file bargaining
unit; and employees excluded from the union shop by express terms of the
agreement.

When certain employees are obliged to join a particular union as a

requisite for continued employment, as in the case of Union Security
Clauses, this condition is a valid restriction of the freedom or right not
to join any labor organization because it is in favor of unionism. This
Court, on occasion, has even held that a union security clause in a CBA is
not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Time and again, this Court has ruled that the individual employee’s right
not to join a union may be validly restricted by a union security clause in
a CBA49 and such union security clause is not a violation of the employee’s
constitutional right to freedom of association.