View full case

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by the Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union seeking the nullification of orders and resolutions issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Standard Chartered Bank is a foreign banking corporation operating in the Philippines, and the Union is the exclusive bargaining agent for its rank and file employees.

In August 1990, the Bank and the Union signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a provision for renegotiation after the third year. Prior to the expiration of the three-year period, the Union initiated negotiations by sending a letter containing its proposals to the Bank. The Bank responded with its counter-proposal and both parties agreed to set meetings to settle their differences on the proposed CBA.

During the negotiation, the Union suggested that the bank lawyers be excluded from the negotiating team, which the Bank agreed to. Similarly, the Bank suggested the exclusion of Jose P. Umali, Jr., the President of the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), from the Union's negotiating panel, but Umali was retained as a member.

The parties discussed the non-economic provisions of the CBA first, and even after several meetings, there were still provisions on which they could not agree. The negotiations on economic provisions commenced on May 18, 1993, with presentations of the Union's and the Bank's proposals. Throughout the meetings, the Union chided the Bank for the insufficiency of its counter-proposal on certain provisions and reminded the Bank of the Union's previous success in negotiations.

The Bank proposed tackling the economic package item by item and suggested that the Union prioritize its proposals. However, the Union demanded a revised itemized proposal from the Bank. Subsequent meetings saw the parties making counter-proposals and revisions on various provisions concerning wage increases, group hospitalization insurance, death assistance, dental benefits, and others.

Another set of counter-offers followed, with both parties presenting different figures for wage increases, hospitalization benefits, death assistance, and dental treatments. The Union's original proposals remained mostly the same, with some reductions or changes in certain amounts.

After the negotiations, the Union filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed by the Bank. The Secretary of Labor and Employment issued orders and resolutions related to the petition, which the Union sought to nullify through this petition for certiorari.

The Union filed a petition before the Court of Appeals assailing the Decision and Resolution of the public respondent, the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (SOLE), which dismissed the charges of unfair labor practices (ULP) against the Bank. The Union alleged that the Bank committed ULP when it interfered with the Union's choice of negotiator and engaged in surface bargaining. The Union further argued that the Bank made bad faith proposals and refused to disclose necessary data. The Bank, in its Comment, argued that the Union was estopped from filing the petition as it had already signed the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Office of the Solicitor General supported the public respondent's dismissal of the ULP charges and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The issues presented for resolution are whether the Union substantiated its ULP claims against the Bank, whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion, and whether the Union is estopped from filing the petition.

ISSUES:

    • Whether the act of suggesting the exclusion of a representative from the union's negotiating panel constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP).
    • Whether the interference in the selection of the union's bargaining panel violates the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

  3. Whether the employer committed unfair labor practice (ULP) by suggesting the exclusion of a union representative from the negotiating panel.

  4. Whether the employer engaged in surface bargaining, thus violating its duty to bargain collectively.

  5. Whether the Union failed to substantiate its claim that the Bank refused to furnish the information it needed.

  6. Whether the Union failed to send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the Bank's rank and file employees.

  7. Whether the public respondent acted in capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.

  8. Whether the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of unfair labor practice (ULP) when it signed the new CBA.

  9. Whether the Union is guilty of engaging in blue-sky bargaining or making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals.

RULING:

    • The act of suggesting the exclusion of a representative from the union's negotiating panel constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code.
    • Interference in the selection of the union's bargaining panel violates the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

  3. The suggestion made by the employer to exclude a union representative from the negotiating panel does not amount to unfair labor practice. The circumstances surrounding the suggestion do not show that the employer consciously adopted such act to yield adverse effects on the exercise of the right to self-organization and collective bargaining of the employees. Furthermore, the complaint was made only after a deadlock was declared, which indicates that the ULP charge was merely an afterthought.

  4. The employer did not engage in surface bargaining. The minutes of the meetings between the employer and the union show that both parties exchanged economic and non-economic proposals and counter-proposals. The union failed to show that the employer did not want to reach an agreement or settle their differences. The failure to agree does not amount to ULP for violation of the duty to bargain.

  5. The Union failed to substantiate its claim that the Bank refused to furnish the information it needed.

  6. The Union failed to send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the Bank's rank and file employees, as required by Article 242(c) of the Labor Code.

  7. The public respondent did not act in capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.

  8. The approval of the CBA and the release of the signing bonus do not necessarily mean that the Union waived its ULP claim against the Bank during the past negotiations.

  9. The Union is not guilty of engaging in blue-sky bargaining or making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Under Article 243 of the Labor Code, all persons employed in various sectors have the right to self-organization and to form labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.

  • The International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions, which the Philippines is a signatory to, provide adequate protection against acts of interference by employers in workers' organizations.

  • The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions of the Philippines all emphasize the policy of protecting the rights of workers, including the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

  • Article 248(a) of the Labor Code considers interference, restraint, or coercion by an employer in the exercise of the right to self-organization or the right to form an association as unfair labor practice.

  • In order to establish unfair labor practice under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required.

  • Unfair labor practice occurs when the employer coerces the union to exclude a representative from the negotiating panel, if it can be inferred that the employer did so to yield adverse effects on the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective bargaining.

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

  • The determination of whether a party engaged in surface bargaining involves assessing the totality of the party's conduct both at and away from the bargaining table.

  • The duty to bargain collectively does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require concessions.

  • A failure to reach an agreement does not amount to unfair labor practice for violation of the duty to bargain.

  • Refusal to furnish requested information is an unfair labor practice.

  • The special civil action for certiorari may be availed of when the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

  • Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner.

  • Estoppel bars a person from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct that causes loss or injury to another.

  • Blue-sky bargaining refers to making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals during negotiations.