176. Standard Chartered vs Confessor

176. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs Confessor Facts:Bank and the Union signed a fve-year collective bargaining agreement agreement (CBA) with a provisio provision n to renego renegotiate tiate the terms thereo on the third year! "rior to the e#piration o the three-year period b$t within the si#ty-day reedom period% peri od% the Uni Union on init initiate iated d the negotiation negotiations! s! &n Fe Febr$a br$ary ry '% '*% the Unio Union% n% thr thro$g o$gh h its "r "resid esident% ent% +ddie ,! ivinagr ivi nagracia acia%% sent a lett letter er con contain taining ing its pro proposa posals ls cove covering ring poli politica ticall pro provisi visions ons and thir thirty- ty-o$r o$r (*.) eco economi nomic c provisions! /he Bank attached its co$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-proposal co$nter-proposals s on the economic items ater the Union had presented its 0$stifcations or the economic proposals! Beore 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 $niorms% the Union and the Bank ailed to agree on the remaining economic provisions o the CBA! /he Union declared a deadlock! &n the other hand% the Bank fled a complaint or Unair ,abor "ractice (U,") and amages beore the Arbitration Branch o the 6ational ,abor 3elations 3elations Commission (6,3C) in 4anila! 8t contended that the Union demanded 9sky high economic demands%9 indicative o bl$e-sky bargaining! F$rther% the Union violated its no strike- no locko$t cla$se by fling a notice o strike beore the 6C4B! Considering that the fling o notice o strike was an illegal act% the Union o7cers sho$ld be dismissed! Issue:: hether Issue hether or not the Union was able to s$bstantiate its claim o $nair labor practice against the Bank arising rom the latter1s alleged ;intererence< with its choice o negotiator= s$race bargaining= making bad aith noneconomic proposals= and re$sal to $rnish the Union with copies o the relevant data= Ruling: A3/! >.*! COVERAGE Ruling: COVERAGE AND EMPLOY EMPLOYEES’ EES’ RIGHT RIGHT TO SELF-ORG SELF-ORGANI ANIZA ZATIO TION. N. ? All person persons s employ employed ed in commercial% ind$strial and agric$lt$ral enterprises and in religio$s% charitable% medical or ed$cational instit$tions whether whether operating operating or proft proft or not% not% shall shall have the right right to sel-or sel-organi gani@ati @ation on and to orm% orm% 0oin% 0oin% or assist labor organi@ations organi@ations o their own choosing or p$rposes o collective collective bargaining! Amb$lant% intermittent intermittent and itinerant work worker ers% s% sel sel-emplo -employed yed people people%% r$ral r$ral work workers ers and and those those witho witho$t $t any defnit defnite e employ employer ers s may may orm orm labor labor organi@ations or their m$t$al aid and protection! Article >.(a) o the ,abor Code% considers it an $nair labor practice when an employer intereres% restrains or coerces employees in the e#ercise o their right to sel-organi@ation or the right to orm association! /he right to sel-organi@ation necessarily incl$des the right to collective bargaining! "arenthetically% i an employer intereres 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 inerred inerred that the employer adopted adopted the said act to yield adverse eects on the ree e#ercise 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 re$ired to s$pport the claim! $bstantial evidence has been defned as s$ch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade$ate to s$pport a concl$sion!  /he circ$msta circ$mstances nces that occ$rr occ$rred ed d$ring the negotiati negotiation on do not show that the s$ggestion made by iokno to ivinagracia is an anti-$nion cond$ct rom which it can be inerred that the Bank conscio$sly adopted s$ch act to yield yiel d adv adverse erse eects on the re ree e e# e#erc ercise ise o the righ rightt to sel sel-org -organi@ ani@atio ation n and collective collective bargaining bargaining o the employees% especially considering that s$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 clear that s$ch U," charge was merely merely an aterth atertho$gh o$ght! t! /he acc$sation acc$sation occ$rre occ$rred d ater ater the arg$me arg$ments nts and dierences over the economic provisions became heated and the parties had become r$strated! The Duty to Ba!a"# Co$$e%t"&e$y  $race bargaining is defned as ;going thro$gh the motions o negotiating< witho$t any legal intent to reach an agreeme agreement! nt! /he Union Union has not been able to show that the Bank Bank had done acts% both at and away rom rom the bargaining table% which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the Union or to settle the dier dierenc ences es betwe between en it and and the Union Union!! A Admi dmitte ttedly dly%% the parti parties es were were not not able able to agree agree and reach reached ed a deadlock! deadlock! 2owever% 2owever% it is herein emphasi@ed emphasi@ed that the d$ty to bargain ;does not compel either either party to agree to a proposal or re$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 release o signing bon$s do not necessarily mean that the Union waived waived its U," claim against the Bank d$ring the past negotiations! Ater all% the concl$sion concl$sion o the CBA was incl$ded in the order o the &,+% while the signing bon$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 e#aggerated or $nreasonable! $nreasonable! /he min$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 $estioned order and resol$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,"!