In Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, the Supreme Court held that an employer suggesting the exclusion of a union negotiator does not automatically constitute unfair labor practice (ULP), unless it demonstrably interferes with the employees’ right to self-organization or collective bargaining. The Court emphasized that for an action to be considered ULP, it must be shown to adversely affect the employees’ ability to freely exercise these rights. This decision clarifies the boundaries of permissible employer-employee interactions during collective bargaining, ensuring that minor suggestions do not automatically equate to unlawful interference. This case underscores the importance of proving actual adverse effects on union activities to establish ULP.

Negotiating Rights: Can Employers Suggest Changes to Union Bargaining Teams?

The case arose from a collective bargaining deadlock between the Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) and Standard Chartered Bank. During negotiations, a bank representative suggested excluding the president of NUBE, the federation to which the local union was affiliated, from the union’s negotiating panel. The union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint, alleging the bank interfered with their right to choose their representatives. The Secretary of Labor dismissed the ULP charges, and the union elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the bank’s suggestion constituted unlawful interference.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the bank’s suggestion to exclude a member of the union’s negotiating panel constituted an unfair labor practice under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code. The court referenced international labor standards, particularly the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87, which guarantees workers the right to organize and choose their representatives freely. This right is also enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, which protects labor rights and promotes collective bargaining. The Court emphasized that while workers have the right to self-organization, not every suggestion from an employer constitutes unlawful interference.

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished between mere suggestions and actions that demonstrably impede the union’s ability to bargain effectively. Quoting Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, the Court stated that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form associations. The Court clarified that for such interference to be considered ULP, it must be shown that the employer’s conduct had an adverse effect on the employees’ right to self-organization or collective bargaining. The Court cited Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association – NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., emphasizing that the test of interference is whether the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights.

In this case, the Court found that the union failed to provide substantial evidence that the bank’s suggestion had such an adverse effect. The negotiations proceeded despite the suggestion, and the union was able to present its demands and engage in bargaining. The Court noted that the suggestion occurred before the commencement of formal negotiations and was made in conjunction with the union’s suggestion to exclude the bank’s lawyers. The Court reasoned that the bank’s suggestion seemed more of an attempt to streamline negotiations rather than an effort to undermine the union’s representation.

The Court also addressed the union’s claim that the bank engaged in surface bargaining. Surface bargaining involves going through the motions of negotiating without a real intention to reach an agreement. The Court explained that determining whether a party engaged in surface bargaining involves assessing their intent, which is often inferred from their conduct during negotiations. The Union claimed that the Bank violated its duty to bargain under Article 248(g). However, the Court examined the minutes of the meetings and found that both the bank and the union exchanged proposals and counter-proposals. The Court noted that while the parties reached a deadlock, the duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession, as stated in Eastern Maine Medical Center vs. National Labor Relations Board.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the union’s allegation that the bank made bad-faith proposals and refused to disclose necessary data. The union argued that the bank’s counter-proposals on non-economic provisions diminished the gains the union had made. The Court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the bank proposed to retain many provisions from the previous CBA. Regarding the request for data validation, the Court pointed out that the union failed to make a written request as required by Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, which specifies the conditions under which an employer must furnish financial statements and other information.

The respondent Bank argued that the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of ULP when it signed the new CBA. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides:

Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

A person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another. However, the Court held that the approval of the CBA and the release of signing bonus do not necessarily mean that the Union waived its ULP claim against the Bank during the past negotiations. After all, the conclusion of the CBA was included in the order of the SOLE, while the signing bonus was included in the CBA itself.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s order, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the protection of labor rights with the need for flexibility in the collective bargaining process. The decision clarifies that an employer’s suggestion, without demonstrable adverse effects on the union’s ability to bargain, does not constitute unfair labor practice. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that ULP claims must be supported by substantial evidence showing actual interference with employees’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the bank’s suggestion to exclude a union negotiator constituted unfair labor practice by interfering with the union’s right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
What is required to prove unfair labor practice?	To prove unfair labor practice, substantial evidence must show that the employer’s actions interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization or collective bargaining.
Does every suggestion from an employer constitute ULP?	No, not every suggestion from an employer constitutes ULP. There must be a demonstrable adverse effect on the union’s ability to bargain effectively for it to be considered unlawful interference.
What is surface bargaining?	Surface bargaining is the act of going through the motions of negotiating without any real intention to reach an agreement. It is considered an unfair labor practice because it undermines the collective bargaining process.
What is the role of the ILO Convention No. 87 in this case?	ILO Convention No. 87 guarantees workers the right to organize and choose their representatives freely. The Supreme Court referenced this convention to emphasize the importance of protecting workers’ rights to self-organization.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s order, finding that the bank’s suggestion did not constitute unfair labor practice because the union failed to provide substantial evidence of adverse effects.
What is required when requesting data from an employer during negotiations?	According to Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, a union must make a written request to the employer for financial statements or other relevant data during negotiations.
How does this case affect future labor negotiations?	This case clarifies that not all employer suggestions during negotiations constitute unfair labor practice. It emphasizes the need for unions to demonstrate actual interference with their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.

The Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor case provides valuable insights into the balance between employer-employee interactions and the protection of labor rights during collective bargaining. It underscores the necessity of substantial evidence to support claims of unfair labor practices and clarifies the boundaries of permissible conduct in labor negotiations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs. The Honorable Ma. Nieves R. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004