100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
428 Ansichten2 Seiten
The Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union filed a complaint against the bank alleging unfair labor practices during negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the union claimed the bank interfered in its choice of negotiator and engaged in surface bargaining and made bad faith economic proposals. However, the court found the evidence did not support these claims. While discussions became heated over economic issues, there was no evidence the bank acted to undermine the union's right to organize or bargain collectively. The parties were ultimately unable to reach full agreement on economic issues, but failure to agree does not by itself constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith. Therefore, the court dismissed the union's unfair labor practice complaint.
The Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union filed a complaint against the bank alleging unfair labor practices during negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the union claimed the bank interfered in its choice of negotiator and engaged in surface bargaining and made bad faith economic proposals. However, the court found the evidence did not support these claims. While discussions became heated over economic issues, there was no evidence the bank acted to undermine the union's right to organize or bargain collectively. The parties were ultimately unable to reach full agreement on economic issues, but failure to agree does not by itself constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith. Therefore, the court dismissed the union's unfair labor practice complaint.
The Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union filed a complaint against the bank alleging unfair labor practices during negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the union claimed the bank interfered in its choice of negotiator and engaged in surface bargaining and made bad faith economic proposals. However, the court found the evidence did not support these claims. While discussions became heated over economic issues, there was no evidence the bank acted to undermine the union's right to organize or bargain collectively. The parties were ultimately unable to reach full agreement on economic issues, but failure to agree does not by itself constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith. Therefore, the court dismissed the union's unfair labor practice complaint.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs Confessor
Facts:Bank and the Union signed a fve-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a provision to renegotiate the terms thereo on the third year! "rior to the e#piration o the three-year period b$t within the si#ty-day reedom period% the Union initiated the negotiations! &n Febr$ary '(% '))*% the Union% thro$gh its "resident% +ddie ,! -ivinagracia% sent a letter containing its proposals covering political provisions and thirty-o$r (*.) economic 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$nter-proposals on the economic items ater the Union had presented its 0$stifcations or the economic proposals! Beore 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 $niorms% the Union and the Bank ailed to agree on the remaining economic provisions o the CBA! /he Union declared a deadlock! &n the other hand% the Bank fled a complaint or Unair ,abor "ractice (U,") and -amages beore the Arbitration Branch o the 6ational ,abor 3elations Commission (6,3C) in 4anila! 8t contended that the Union demanded 9sky high economic demands%9 indicative o bl$e-sky bargaining! F$rther% the Union violated its no strike- no locko$t cla$se by fling a notice o strike beore the 6C4B! Considering that the fling o notice o strike was an illegal act% the Union o7cers sho$ld be dismissed! Issue: :hether or not the Union was able to s$bstantiate its claim o $nair labor practice against the Bank arising rom the latter1s alleged ;intererence< with its choice o negotiator= s$race bargaining= making bad aith non- economic proposals= and re$sal to $rnish the Union with copies o the relevant data= Ruling: A3/! >.*! COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. ? All persons employed in commercial% ind$strial and agric$lt$ral enterprises and in religio$s% charitable% medical or ed$cational instit$tions whether operating or proft or not% shall have the right to sel-organi@ation and to orm% 0oin% or assist labor organi@ations o their own choosing or p$rposes o collective bargaining! Amb$lant% intermittent and itinerant workers% sel-employed people% r$ral workers and those witho$t any defnite employers may orm labor organi@ations or their m$t$al aid and protection! Article >.((a) o the ,abor Code% considers it an $nair labor practice when an employer intereres% restrains or coerces employees in the e#ercise o their right to sel-organi@ation or the right to orm association! /he right to sel-organi@ation necessarily incl$des the right to collective bargaining! "arenthetically% i an employer intereres 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 inerred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse eAects on the ree 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 reB$ired to s$pport the claim! C$bstantial evidence has been defned as s$ch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adeB$ate to s$pport a concl$sion! /he circ$mstances that occ$rred d$ring the negotiation do not show that the s$ggestion made by -iokno to -ivinagracia is an anti-$nion cond$ct rom which it can be inerred that the Bank conscio$sly adopted s$ch act to yield adverse eAects on the ree e#ercise o the right to sel-organi@ation and collective bargaining o the employees% especially considering that s$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 that s$ch U," charge was merely an atertho$ght! /he acc$sation occ$rred ater the arg$ments and diAerences over the economic provisions became heated and the parties had become r$strated! The Duty to Ba!a"# Co$$e%t"&e$y C$race bargaining is defned as ;going thro$gh the motions o negotiating< witho$t any legal intent to reach an agreement! /he Union has not been able to show that the Bank had done acts% both at and away rom the bargaining table% which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the Union or to settle the diAerences between it and the Union! Admittedly% the parties were not able to agree and reached a deadlock! 2owever% it is herein emphasi@ed that the d$ty to bargain ;does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or reB$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 o signing bon$s do not necessarily mean that the Union waived its U," claim against the Bank d$ring the past negotiations! Ater all% the concl$sion o the CBA was incl$ded in the order o the C&,+% 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 or $nreasonable! /he min$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$ed the B$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,"!