STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION VS CONFESOR

FACTS:
Standard Chartered is foreign banking corporation doing business in the Philippines. The exclusive
bargaining agent is the Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union.

In August 1990, the bank and the union signed a five year CBA and renegotiate after 3 years. Prior to the
expiration of the three year period and before the 60 day freedom period, the union initiated the
negotiations. The bank gave a counterproposal . The parties agreed to settle the differences in a meeting.

The non economic provisions were noted as deferred however it was manifested that it should be
changed to deadlock to indicate that it is not yet resolved. The negotiations of the economic provisions
were commenced. Umali, the president of the union, said that the means on how the union got what it
wanted during the first negotiation of the 1987 will be applied again if needed in order to get what it
wanted.

The union insisted the economic provisions however, the union proposed that the bank make a revision of
itemized proposal. On June 15, 1993 the union said that is would be best if they seek third party
assistance if the counter proposal was not revised. Afterwards, the bank presented a counterproposal.

The union, then declared deadlock and filed a notice of strike before NCMB. The bank filed a complaint
for ULP alleging that the union did not bargain in good faith, violated the no strike-no lockout clause, and
that the bank suffered nominal and actual damages and was forced to litigate and hire the services of a
lawyer.

The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordered the parties to execute a
CBA incorporating the dispositions: CBA shall be retroactive to April 1, 1993; effective for two years; the
provisions which are not expressly repealed or modified are retained and without prejudice to the
agreements as as the parties may arrive at in the meantime. The bank’s complaint for ULP was dismissed
for lack of merit. Both parties filed for MR to no avail.

On March 22, 1994, the parties signed the CBA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bank violated its duty to bargain by committing surface bargaining
Whether or not the Union committed ULP through Blue Sky Bargaining
HELD:
It was held that the Union failed to show that the Bank committed such acts.

Surface bargaining is the going through the motions of negotiating without any legal intent to reach an
agreement.

The determining factor is a question of intent of the party in question and intent is inferred from the totality
of the challenged party’s conduct away or at the bargaining table.

The Bank likewise failed to show that the economic demands by the union are exaggerated or
unreasonable.