FACTS:

The case involved a complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. (the "Bank") against the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union (the "Union"). The complaint arose from the implementation of a non-executive job evaluation program (JEP) by the Bank, which resulted in the lowering of starting salaries for future employees. The Union objected to the unilateral implementation of the program, claiming that it violated the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and constituted unfair labor practice. The Union demanded the suspension of the JEP and proposed that it be included in their upcoming CBA negotiations. The Bank, on the other hand, argued that the JEP was implemented in compliance with its obligations under the CBA and that it was within its management prerogative to set the starting salaries for future employees. The Bank filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Union, alleging that the Union's concerted activities during the ongoing CBA negotiations constituted unfair labor practice. The Union filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it stated no cause of action and that their activities were protected under the right to self-organization. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint and ordered the parties to continue with the collective bargaining negotiations.

The case involves a complaint for unfair labor practice filed by a bank against a union. The bank alleges that the union engaged in bad-faith bargaining by refusing to comply with its duty to bargain and engaging in concerted activities against the implementation of a job evaluation program (JEP). The labor arbiter ordered the dismissal of the complaint based on the pleadings filed by the parties. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the validity of the union's objections to the JEP and whether the concerted activities constituted unfair labor practice. The union argues that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by remanding the case and that the labor arbiter did not exceed his authority in ordering the parties to continue with collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations. The court finds that there are several issues that need to be resolved before determining the propriety of the unfair labor practice charges, including whether the unilateral implementation of the JEP violates the CBA provisions, the legitimacy of the union's concerted acts, and the nature of salary fixing under a job evaluation program.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the unilateral implementation of the Job Evaluation Program constitutes a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions.

2. Whether the concerted acts committed by the Union were done with just cause and in good faith in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

3. Whether the fixing of salaries of future employees through job evaluation is an exclusive management prerogative or subject to collective bargaining negotiation.

4. Whether the management has the prerogative to implement a job evaluation program or reorganization.

5. Whether the implementation of the reorganization plan caused discrimination in salaries.

6. Whether the implementation of the job evaluation program resulted in the loss of certain benefits for supervisors.

7. Whether the management acted in bad faith in implementing the job evaluation program.

8. Whether private respondents can be compelled to give petitioner her old position and ranking after a reorganization.

9. Whether the labor arbiter has jurisdiction to order the parties to return to and continue with the collective bargaining negotiations.

RULING:

1. The court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis and evaluation of the factual and legal issues involved in an unfair labor practice complaint. The labor arbiter's order of dismissal lacked evidentiary value due to its lack of explanation and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the Bank does not justify the erroneous order. The court also underscored the importance of determining the parties' motives in cases of this nature as motivations are seldom expressly avowed. The labor arbiter should have weighed the expressed motives in determining the effect of an otherwise equivocal act. Good faith in bargaining is a question of credibility and is inferred from the facts. The court or quasi-judicial agency can only make a comprehensive review of the allegations and evidence presented by the parties in order to make a conclusive determination on unfair labor practice.

2. Yes, the management has the prerogative to implement a job evaluation program or reorganization as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, or public policy.

3. No, even if there is a semblance of discrimination in salaries due to the implementation of the reorganization plan, it does not preclude the employer's prerogative to grant salary increases.

4. Yes, the implementation of the job evaluation program resulted in the loss of certain benefits for supervisors, but their basic salaries increased by 50%.

5. No, there is no showing that the job evaluation program was implemented in bad faith.

6. No, private respondents cannot be compelled to give petitioner her old position and ranking after a reorganization. The purpose of a reorganization is to effect changes in positions and ranking of employees. To insist on one's old position and ranking after a reorganization would render such endeavor ineffectual. It would also deprive private respondents of their right to adopt changes in the cooperative's personnel structure as proposed by the Steering Committee.

7. The labor arbiter has jurisdiction to order the parties to return to and continue with the collective bargaining negotiations. An affirmative order to the employer to "bargain" with the bargaining agent, as the exclusive representative of its employees, can be granted in unfair labor practice cases. However, in this particular case, there is a lack of complete presentation of factual antecedents, so the court refrains from ruling outright in favor of the bank. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

PRINCIPLES:

• Unfair labor practice is not only a violation of civil rights but is also a criminal offense subject to prosecution and punishment.

• Labor laws do not authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of their business.

• Determining good faith in bargaining is based on an inference drawn from the facts and is a question of credibility.

• The court or quasi-judicial agency must make a comprehensive review of the allegations and evidence presented by the parties to make a conclusive determination on unfair labor practice.

• The management has the inherent right to control and manage its enterprise, including implementing a job evaluation program or reorganization, as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, or public policy.

• The employer's prerogative to grant salary increases and implement changes in positions and ranking of employees should be upheld, even if there is a semblance of discrimination, as long as it is not done in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner.

• The management's exercise of its prerogative must be in good faith, for the advancement of the employer's interests and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or valid agreements.

• The deletion or abolition of positions as part of a reorganization should be accepted as a valid exercise of management prerogative unless it is shown that an employee's position was abolished to ease him or her out of employment.

• The implementation of a reorganization should be fair to all employees affected, and if based on valid organizational changes and supported by thorough review and consideration of qualifications and aptitude, the management's decisions should not be meddled with.

• Changes in positions and ranking of employees are expected in a reorganization.

• Security of tenure cannot be used to deprive an employer of its prerogatives under the law.

• Equity and justice should not be sacrificed for procedural technicalities or expediency.

• The labor arbiter has jurisdiction to order parties to continue collective bargaining negotiations in unfair labor practice cases.