G.R. No. 174912 - BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CITY-FUBU (BPIEU-DAVAO CITY-FUBU), VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI), AND BPI OFFICERS CLARO M. REYES, CECIL CONANAN AND GEMMA VELEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement , except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement . [Emphases supplied] Clearly, only gross violations of the economic provisions of the CBA are treated as ULP. Otherwise, they are mere grievances. In the present case, the alleged violation of the union shop agreement in the CBA, even assuming it was malicious and flagrant, is not a violation of an economic provision in the agreement. The provisions relied upon by the Union were those articles referring to the recognition of the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all rank-and-file employees, as well as the articles on union security, specifically, the maintenance of membership in good standing as a condition for continued employment and the union shop clause. [26] It failed to take into consideration its recognition of the banks exclusive rights and prerogatives, likewise provided in the CBA, which included the hiring of employees, promotion, transfers, and dismissals for just cause and the maintenance of order, discipline and efficiency in its operations. [27] The Union, however, insists that jobs being outsourced to BOMC were included in the existing bargaining unit, thus, resulting in a reduction of a number of positions in such unit. The reduction interfered with the employees right to self-organization because the power of a union primarily depends on its strength in number. [28] It is incomprehensible how the reduction of positions in the collective bargaining unit interferes with the employees right to self-organization because the employees themselves were neither transferred nor dismissed from the service. As the NLRC clearly stated: In the case at hand, the union has not presented even an iota of evidence that petitioner bank has started to terminate certain employees, members of the union. In fact, what appears is that the Bank has exerted utmost diligence, care and effort to see to it that no union member has been terminated. In the process of the consolidation or merger of the two banks which resulted in increased diversification of functions, some of these non-banking functions were merely transferred to the BOMC without affecting the union membership. [29] BPI stresses that not a single employee or union member was or would be dislocated or terminated from their employment as a result of the Service Agreement. [30] Neither had it resulted in any diminution of salaries and benefits nor led to any reduction of union membership. [31] As far as the twelve (12) former FEBTC employees are concerned, the Union failed to substantially prove that their transfer, made to complete BOMCs service co