Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confessor

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v.
CONFESOR
GR No. 114974
FACTS: Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank, for brevity) is a foreign

banking corporation doing business in the Philippines. The Bank and
the Union signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement (BA).
Prior to the expiration of the 3 year period, the Union initiates

negotiation. Divinagracia, president of the Union submitted proposals,
then the Bank sent counterproposals. The parties agreed to set
meetings to settle their differences on the proposed CBA.
Divinagracia, suggested that the bank lawyers should be excluded
from the negotiating team. The Bank acceded but suggested to
Divinagracia that Jose P. Umali, Jr., the President of the National
Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), the federation to which the Union
was affiliated, be excluded from the Union's negotiating panel.
However, Umali was retained as a member thereof.
Except for the provisions on signing bonus and uniforms, the Union and
the Bank failed to agree on the remaining economic provisions of the
BA. The Union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike before
the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB)
The Bank filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and
Damages with NRC. The Bank alleged that the Union violated its duty
to bargain, as it did not bargain in good faith. It contended that the
Union demanded "sky high economic demands," indicative of blue-sky
bargaining. the Union violated its no strike-no lockout clause by filing
a notice of strike before the NCMB. Considering that the filing of notice
of strike was an illegal act, the Union officers should be dismissed.
ISSUE: WON the Union was able to substantiate its claim of unfair
labor practice against the Bank arising from the latter's alleged
"interference" with its choice of negotiator; surface bargaining;
making bad faith non-economic proposals; and refusal to furnish the
Union with copies of the relevant data;
HELD: NO. Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO)

No. 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT
TO ORGANIZE to which the Philippines is a signatory, workers and
employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to
establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned,
to job organizations of their own choosing without previous
authorization. Workers and employers organizations shall have the
right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their
representatives in full freedom to organize their administration and
activities and to formulate their programs.
The forecited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code,

particularly in Art. 243 and arts. 248 and 249 respecting ULP of
employers and labor organizations.
Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice

when an employer interferes, restrains or coerces employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form
association. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the
right to collective bargaining.In order to show that the employer
committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required
to support the claim.Substantial evidence has been defined as such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. In the case at bar, the Union bases its claim of
interference on the alleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali
from the Unions negotiating panel.
The circumstances that occurred during the negotiation do not show

that the suggestion made by Diokno to Divinagracia is 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
Divinagracia’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 Umali in the Union’s negotiating panel,
the negotiations pushed through. The complaint was made only on
August 16, 1993 after a deadlock was declared by the Union on June
15, 1993.
It is clear that such ULP charge was merely an afterthought. The
accusation occurred after the arguments and differences over the
economic provisions became heated and the parties had become
frustrated. It happened after the parties started to involve
personalities. As the public respondent noted, passions may rise, and
as a result, suggestions given under less adversarial situations may be
colored with unintended meanings. Such is what appears to have
happened in this case.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confessor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confessor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confessor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v.

FACTS: Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank, for brevity) is a foreign

Prior to the expiration of the 3 year period, the Union initiates

HELD: NO. Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO)

The forecited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code,

Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice

The circumstances that occurred during the negotiation do not show

You might also like