Standard Chartered Employees v.

Confesor (2004)
Facts:
The union of employees (Union) of Standard Chartered Bank
(Standard) was affiliated with the National Union of Bank Employees
(NUBE). Standard entered into a CBA with Union in 1990. Before the
expiration of the 3-year period, Union furnished Standard with a letter
containing its proposals for a new CBA.
Preparatory to negotiations, the President of the Union asked
Standard to exclude Standards lawyers from its negotiating panel, to
which Standard acceded. Standard, on the other hand, asked the
Union to exclude NUBEs President from the Unions
negotiating panel, but the Union refused.
Negotiations commenced. During one of the meetings, Union
asked that the Bank validate guestimates on the data of its
rank and file employees. The parties eventually came to an impasse
on many of the economic provisions of the new CBA. After several
months of proposals and counter-proposals, both parties elevated their
issues to the authorities.
Union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the
NCMB. Standard, on the other hand, filed a complaint for unfair
labor practice with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, alleging
that Union engaged in blue-sky bargaining by making
unreasonable economic demands (ex. wage increases of ~40% for
the first year of the new CBA and ~20% for the second year). Union
countered with a ULP case, as well, alleging that:
1) Standard interfered with Unions right to self-organization by
asking that the NUBE President be excluded from its negotiating
panel;
2) Standard engaged in surface barganing; and
3) Standard refused to furnish requested information, contrary to
Unions rights under Art. 242(c) of the Labor Code.
Secretary of Labor Confesor assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Confesor issued an Order dismissing the ULP complaints of both parties
and awarding CBA terms that were far less than what Union was aking
but more than what Standard was willing to accept (Ex. 7% and 5%
wage increases for the fourth and fifth year of the existing CBA). Both
parties filed MRs, which Confesor denied. Union filed a Rule 65 petition
in the SC, alleging GADALEJ in the dismissal of the Unions ULP case.

Issue:
1) Did Standard interfere with Unions right to self-organization
by asking for the exclusion of the NUBE President from Unions
negotiating panel?
2) Did Standard engage in surface bargaining?
3) Did Standard refuse to furnish information?
4) Did Union engage in blue-sky bargaining?
Held:
1) No interference. To sustain a finding of interference by
an employer in a unions selection of negotiators, it must be
shown that the employer adopted the assailed act to yield
adverse effects on the free exercise to right to selforganization or on the right to collective bargaining of the
employees. Also, substantial evidence is required to prove
ULP.
The Court held that Union failed to show interference. It did not
appear that Standard sought to adversely affect the free exercise of its
employees right to self-organization in asking that NUBEs President be
excluded from the panel. Standard made the request simultaneously
with the Unions suggestion that Standard exclude its lawyers from the
negotiations. Despite Union rejecting its request, Standard still went to
the table and negotiations pushed through. Also, Union only alleged
interference after the parties came to a deadlock, suggesting that the
accusation was merely an afterthought.
2) No surface bargaining. Surface bargaining means going
through the motions of negotiating without legal intent to reach an
agreement. Mere hard barganing is not the same as surface
bargaining, and must not be confused as such. Surface bargaining is
difficult to determine because it goes into the intent of a party,
and usually such intent can only be inferred from the totality
of the acts of a party both at and away from the bargaining
table.
The records do not show that Standard did not have the intention
of honoring its duty to bargain with the Union. Standard responded
with a counter-proposal to Unions proposal a week after receipt of
notice. It thereafter set meetings for the resolution of their differences.
The minutes of those meetings show that it exchanged economic and
non-economic proposals with the Union.

Admittedly, the parties were not able to agree and

reached a deadlock. However, it is herein emphasized that the
duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a
proposal or require the making of a concession. Hence, the
parties failure to agree did not amount to ULP under Article
248(g) for violation of the duty to bargain.
3) No refusal to furnish information. Art. 242(c) requires
that the Union request information by means of a written
request. The Unions representative only verbally asked during a
meeting that the Bank validate guestimates on the data of its rankand-file employees.
4) No blue-sky bargaining. Blue-sky bargaining means
making exagerrated or unreasonable proposals. The minutes of
the meeting show that the Union based its economic proposals on data
of rank and file employees and the prevailing economic benefits
received by bank employees from other foreign banks doing business
in the Philippines and other branches of the Bank in the Asian region.
Note: The lesson here appears to be that basing economic proposals
upon economic agreements of similarly situated employers and
employees go towards making a proposal reasonable (and against a
finding of blue-sky bargaining).