In the Philippine corporate landscape, the Human Resources (HR) department is traditionally viewed as the bridge between management and the workforce. However, when HR loses its neutrality—whether through favoritism, discrimination, or procedural unfairness—the grievance process itself becomes a source of conflict.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines and relevant jurisprudence, employees are not left defenseless when the very department meant to protect workplace harmony becomes biased.
1. The Legal Foundation of Neutrality
While Philippine labor laws do not explicitly define "HR Bias," the principle of Due Process (Article 292 [277] of the Labor Code) and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing imply that any disciplinary or grievance procedure must be conducted with impartiality.
The Two-Notice Rule
For any grievance involving potential termination, the law requires:
- A written notice specifying the grounds for the action.
- A formal hearing/conference where the employee can defend themselves.
- A final written notice indicating the decision.
If HR is biased, the "opportunity to be heard" becomes a sham, potentially rendering any resulting termination illegal due to a violation of procedural due process.
2. Recognizing Manifestations of HR Bias
In a legal and administrative context, bias often manifests as:
- Selective Enforcement: Penalizing one employee for a violation while ignoring the same conduct by a "favorite."
- Conflict of Interest: HR officers handling cases involving personal friends or relatives.
- Prejudgment: Issuing a decision or recommendation before the employee has presented their evidence.
- Hostile Environment: Using the grievance process to harass or "paper" an employee’s file to justify a future dismissal.
3. Internal Remedies: Using the Grievance Machinery
Most Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) or Company Handbooks outline a Grievance Machinery. If HR is the subject of the complaint, the following steps are standard:
- Bypassing the Biased Party: If the HR Manager is the source of bias, the grievance should be elevated directly to the Head of Operations, the General Manager, or the Board of Directors.
- Formal Documentation: Every interaction with a biased HR department must be documented. Under Philippine law, self-serving statements are weak, but contemporaneous emails, memos, and logs serve as strong evidence in future litigation.
- Request for a Third-Party Investigator: In large corporations, an employee may request an independent committee or an external consultant to oversee the investigation to ensure objectivity.
4. External Remedies: DOLE and the NLRC
If internal mechanisms fail or if the bias leads to constructive dismissal, the employee may seek intervention from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Single Entry Approach (SEnA)
Before filing a formal case, parties undergo SEnA, a mandatory 30-day conciliation-mediation process. This is often the best venue to raise HR bias, as a neutral DOLE mediator facilitates the discussion, stripping HR of its unilateral power.
Filing with the Labor Arbiter (NLRC)
If SEnA fails, a formal complaint is filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Grounds related to HR bias often fall under:
- Illegal Dismissal: If the bias resulted in termination.
- Constructive Dismissal: If HR’s bias made the work environment so intolerable that the employee was forced to resign.
- Unfair Labor Practice (ULP): If the bias is aimed at discouraging union involvement.
5. Critical Evidence in Bias Claims
To succeed in a claim involving biased HR, the "Burden of Proof" initially rests on the employer to show the dismissal was valid. However, the employee must substantiate the bias with:
- Comparative Evidence: Showing that others in similar situations were treated differently.
- Communication Records: Emails or chat logs showing unprofessionalism or partiality.
- Witness Affidavits: Statements from colleagues who observed the biased behavior.
6. The "Constructive Dismissal" Argument
In the Philippines, if HR bias creates a "clear characteristic of contrivance by the employer to get rid of an employee," the Supreme Court often rules this as Constructive Dismissal.
Jurisprudential Note: Constructive dismissal exists where there is a cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay" or when "a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee." (Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.)
7. Summary Table: Redress Options
| Situation | Recommended Action | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| HR ignores a valid complaint | File a formal letter of protest to Senior Management | Right to Redress of Grievances |
| HR facilitates a "kangaroo court" | Record the lack of due process; file for illegal suspension/dismissal | Article 292, Labor Code |
| HR favors a specific group | Document disparate treatment for a SEnA/NLRC filing | Equal Protection / Non-Discrimination |
| Retaliation for filing a complaint | File a claim for Constructive Dismissal | Civil Code (Art. 19, 20, 21) |
8. Conclusion for the Practitioner
Handling biased HR requires a shift from viewing HR as a protector to viewing them as a party-litigant. By strictly adhering to the company’s own policy manuals while simultaneously building a paper trail for the DOLE, an employee can neutralize the impact of a partial HR department and ensure their rights under the Labor Code are upheld.