176.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs Confessor

Facts:Bank and the Union signed a fve-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a provision to renegotiate
the terms thereo on the third year! "rior to the e#piration o the three-year period b$t within the si#ty-day reedom
period% the Union initiated the negotiations! &n Febr$ary '(% '))*% the Union% thro$gh its "resident% +ddie ,!
-ivinagracia% sent a letter containing its proposals covering political provisions and thirty-o$r (*.) economic
provisions! /he Bank attached its co$nter-proposal to the non-economic provisions proposed by the Union! /he Bank
posited that it wo$ld be in a better position to present its co$nter-proposals on the economic items ater the Union
had presented its 0$stifcations or the economic proposals!
Beore the commencement o the negotiation% the Union% thro$gh -ivinagracia% s$ggested to the Bank1s 2$man
3eso$rce 4anager and head o the negotiating panel% Cielito -iokno% that the bank lawyers sho$ld be e#cl$ded rom
the negotiating team! /he Bank acceded! 4eanwhile% -iokno s$ggested to -ivinagracia that 5ose "! Umali% 5r!% the
"resident o the 6ational Union o Bank +mployees (6UB+)% the ederation to which the Union was a7liated% be
e#cl$ded rom the Union1s negotiating panel! 2owever% Umali was retained as a member thereo!
+#cept or the provisions on signing bon$s and $niorms% the Union and the Bank ailed to agree on the remaining
economic provisions o the CBA! /he Union declared a deadlock! &n the other hand% the Bank fled a complaint or
Unair ,abor "ractice (U,") and -amages beore the Arbitration Branch o the 6ational ,abor 3elations Commission
(6,3C) in 4anila! 8t contended that the Union demanded 9sky high economic demands%9 indicative o bl$e-sky
bargaining! F$rther% the Union violated its no strike- no locko$t cla$se by fling a notice o strike beore the 6C4B!
Considering that the fling o notice o strike was an illegal act% the Union o7cers sho$ld be dismissed!
Issue: :hether or not the Union was able to s$bstantiate its claim o $nair labor practice against the Bank arising
rom the latter1s alleged ;intererence< with its choice o negotiator= s$race bargaining= making bad aith non-
economic proposals= and re$sal to $rnish the Union with copies o the relevant data=
Ruling: A3/! >.*! COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. ? All persons employed in
commercial% ind$strial and agric$lt$ral enterprises and in religio$s% charitable% medical or ed$cational instit$tions
whether operating or proft or not% shall have the right to sel-organi@ation and to orm% 0oin% or assist labor
organi@ations o their own choosing or p$rposes o collective bargaining! Amb$lant% intermittent and itinerant
workers% sel-employed people% r$ral workers and those witho$t any defnite employers may orm labor
organi@ations or their m$t$al aid and protection!
Article >.((a) o the ,abor Code% considers it an $nair labor practice when an employer intereres% restrains or
coerces employees in the e#ercise o their right to sel-organi@ation or the right to orm association! /he right to
sel-organi@ation necessarily incl$des the right to collective bargaining! "arenthetically% i an employer intereres in
the selection o its negotiators or coerces the Union to e#cl$de rom its panel o negotiators a representative o the
Union% and i it can be inerred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse eAects on the ree e#ercise
to right to sel-organi@ation or on the right to collective bargaining o the employees% U," $nder Article >.((a) in
connection with Article >.* o the ,abor Code is committed! 8n order to show that the employer committed U,"
$nder the ,abor Code% s$bstantial evidence is reB$ired to s$pport the claim! C$bstantial evidence has been defned
as s$ch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adeB$ate to s$pport a concl$sion!
/he circ$mstances that occ$rred d$ring the negotiation do not show that the s$ggestion made by -iokno to
-ivinagracia is an anti-$nion cond$ct rom which it can be inerred that the Bank conscio$sly adopted s$ch act to
yield adverse eAects on the ree e#ercise o the right to sel-organi@ation and collective bargaining o the
employees% especially considering that s$ch was $ndertaken previo$s to the commencement o the negotiation and
sim$ltaneo$sly with -ivinagracia1s s$ggestion that the bank lawyers be e#cl$ded rom its negotiating panel! 8t is
clear that s$ch U," charge was merely an atertho$ght! /he acc$sation occ$rred ater the arg$ments and
diAerences over the economic provisions became heated and the parties had become r$strated!
The Duty to Ba!a"# Co$$e%t"&e$y
C$race bargaining is defned as ;going thro$gh the motions o negotiating< witho$t any legal intent to reach an
agreement! /he Union has not been able to show that the Bank had done acts% both at and away rom the
bargaining table% which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the Union or to settle the
diAerences between it and the Union! Admittedly% the parties were not able to agree and reached a
deadlock! 2owever% it is herein emphasi@ed that the d$ty to bargain ;does not compel either party to agree to a
proposal or reB$ire the making o a concession! 2ence% the parties1 ail$re to agree did not amo$nt to U," $nder
Article >.((g) or violation o the d$ty to bargain!
E'to((e$ #ot A(($"%a)$e I# the Ca'e at Ba
/he approval o the CBA and the release o signing bon$s do not necessarily mean that the Union waived its U,"
claim against the Bank d$ring the past negotiations! Ater all% the concl$sion o the CBA was incl$ded in the order
o the C&,+% while the signing bon$s was incl$ded in the CBA itsel!
The *#"o# D"+ Not E#!a!e I# B$ue-S,y Ba!a"#"#!
/he Bank ailed to show that the economic demands made by the Union were e#aggerated or $nreasonable! /he
min$tes o the meeting show that the Union based its economic proposals on data o rank and fle employees and
the prevailing economic benefts received by bank employees rom other oreign banks doing b$siness in the
"hilippines and other branches o the Bank in the Asian region!
8n s$m% we fnd that the p$blic respondent did not act with grave ab$se o discretion amo$nting to lack or e#cess o
0$risdiction when it iss$ed the B$estioned order and resol$tions! :hile the approval o the CBA and the release o
the signing bon$s did not estop the Union rom p$rs$ing its claims o U," against the Bank% we fnd that the latter
did not engage in U,"! :e% likewise% hold that the Union is not g$ilty o U,"!