STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION vs.

CONFESOR
G.R. No. 114974 16 June 2004

FACTS:
Petitioner Union is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of
Standard Chartered Bank (Bank). The Union and the Bank signed a 5-year CBA in 1990
with a provision to renegotiate its terms in its 3rd year.
In 1993, the Union initiated negotiations. It submitted its proposal to the Bank as well as a
list containing the members of its negotiating panel. The Bank submitted its counter-
proposal and the respective list of the members of its negotiating panel.
Before negotiations can begin, the Union suggested that the Bank’s lawyers are to be
excluded from its negotiating panel. The Bank agreed. The Bank however, suggested that
Jose P. Umali, Jr., the President of NUBE be excluded from the Union’s negotiating panel.
However, Umali remained a member of the Union’s panel.
During the preliminary negotiations, the parties laid down the ground rules. The Bank
suggested that the negotiation be kept a family affair. The negotiations on the revisions on
the CBA began on March 12, 1993. The proposed non-economic provisions were discussed
first. The parties were not able to reach at an agreement leaving some of the provisions as
DEFERRED/DEADLOCKED.
Afterwards, negotiations on the economic provisions began on May 18, 1993. Like before,
the Union and the Bank could not reach an agreement. Umali chided the Bank for the
insufficiency of its counter-proposal and reminded the Bank how they got what they
wanted in 1987 and that they were willing to resort to such means if needed.
The negotiations resumed but even after the submission of counter-proposals from both
parties, the impasse remained. Exasperated, Umali asserted that it would be easier to
bargain if both parties trusted each other like before. The Bank requested the Union to
refrain from involving personalities and to focus on the negotiations.
On June 21, 1993, the Union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB.
On its part, the Bank filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against the Union with the
Labor Arbiter. The Bank claimed that the Union engaged in blue sky bargaining (unrealistic
or unreasonable demands in negotiations where neither concedes anything or demands the
impossible). The Bank also claimed that the Union violated the no strike-no lockout clause
of the CBA.
Then Secretary of Labor Confessor assumed jurisdiction of the dispute and dismissed the
ULP charges of both the Bank and Union. She also ordered the award of certain benefits. On
March 22, 1994, the Bank and Union signed the CBA.

ISSUE:
WON SoL Confessor committed grave abuse of discretion when she dismissed the ULP
charge filed by the Union.

HELD:
No ULP committed by the Bank or Union. Article 248(a) considers it an ULP if the employer
interferes, restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization
or the right to form an association.
In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial
evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The facts show that the suggestion to exclude Umali Jr., was not an anti-union conduct from
which it can be inferred that the Bank adopted to undermine the free exercise of the right
to self-organization and collective bargaining of the employees especially when it was
requested after the Union requested the exclusion of the Bank’s lawyer from its negotiating
panel.
Further, the ULP charge was merely an afterthought as the complaint was only made after a
deadlock was declared by the Union. There was no surface bargaining on the part of the
Bank. Surface bargaining is defined as going through the motions of negotiating without
any legal intent to reach an agreement. Such is a question of the intent of the party in
question and usually such intent can be inferred from the totality of the challenged party’s
conduct both at and away from the table.
The duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary
of Labor. It cannot be said that she acted in a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment. There was no showing that the public respondent exercised her power in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.
Likewise, neither is the Union guilty of ULP for engaging in blue sky bargaining. The
demands of the Union were not exaggerated or unreasonably but based on the data of rank
and file employees and other prevailing economic benefits received by employees in the
industry.
If an employer interferes in the selection of the union’s negotiators or coerces the union to
exclude from its panel of negotiators are representative of the union, and if it can be
inferred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise
to right to self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employees, ULP
under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed.
However, in this case, the act of the bank’s Human Resource Manager in suggesting the
exclusion of the federation president from the negotiating panel was not considered ULP.
It is not an anti-union conduct from which it can be inferred that the bank consciously
adopted such act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise of the right to self-
organization and collective bargaining of the employees, especially considering that such
was undertaken previous to the commencement of the negotiation and simultaneously
with the manager’s suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its negotiating
panel.
The records show that after the initiation of the collective bargaining process, with the
inclusion of the federation president in the union’s negotiating panel, the negotiations
pushed through. If at all, the suggestion should be construed as part of the normal relations
and innocent communications which are all part of the friendly relations between the
union and the bank.

F: Surface bargaining v. blue sky-bargaining H: NO ULP in either side -Duty to bargain does
not compel either party to agree to a proposal or to require the making of a concession