STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (NUBE) vs.

CONFESOR, in her
capacit​y as SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; and the STANDARD
CHARTERED BANK
OCTOBER 23, 2012 ~ VBDIAZ
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (NUBE) vs. The Honorable MA.
NIEVES R. CONFESOR, in her capacity as SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT;
and the STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

G.R. No. 114974 June 16, 2004

FACTS​: Before the commencement of the negotiation for the new CBA between the bank and
the Union, the Union, through Divinagracia, suggested to the Bank’s Human Resource Manager
and head of the negotiating panel, Cielito Diokno, that the bank lawyers should be excluded
from the negotiating team. The Bank acceded. Meanwhile, Diokno(head of the negotiating team
for the bank) 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.

There was deadlock in the negotiations. Both parties alleged ULP. Bank alleged that 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. Union
alleged unfair labor practice when the bank allegedly interfered with the Union’s choice of
negotiator. It argued that, Diokno’s suggestion that the negotiation be limited as a “family affair”
was tantamount to suggesting that Federation President Jose Umali, Jr. be excluded from the
Union’s negotiating panel. It further argued that, damage or injury to the public interest need not
be present in order for unfair labor practice to prosper. The Union also contended that the Bank
merely went through the motions of collective bargaining without the intent to reach an
agreement

ISSUE​:

WON there was interference

WON the bank committed “surface bargaining”
HELD​:

NONE
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. Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or
coerces the Union to exclude from its panel of negotiators a 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.
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 Union’s 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.

NO. Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of negotiating” without any
legal intent to reach an agreement.”
The Union alleges that the Bank violated its duty to bargain; hence, committed ULP under
Article 248(g) when it engaged in surface bargaining. It alleged that the Bank just went through
the motions of bargaining without any intent of reaching an agreement, as evident in the Bank’s
counter-proposals. It explained that of the 34 economic provisions it made, the Bank only made
6 economic counterproposals. Further, as borne by the minutes of the meetings, the Bank, after
indicating the economic provisions it had rejected, accepted, retained or were open for
discussion, refused to make a list of items it agreed to include in the economic package.

The minutes of meetings from March 12, 1993 to June 15, 1993 do not show that the Bank had
any intention of violating its duty to bargain with the Union. Records show that after the Union
sent its proposal to the Bank on February 17, 1993, the latter replied with a list of its
counter-proposals on February 24, 1993. Thereafter, meetings were set for the settlement of
their differences. The minutes of the meetings show that both the Bank and the Union
exchanged economic and non-economic proposals and counter-proposals.

The Union has not been able to show that the Bank had done acts, both at and away from the
bargaining table, which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the Union
or to settle the differences between it and 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.

NOTE: (on the allegation of the bank’s refusal to give certain information) The Union, did not, as
the Labor Code requires, send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the
Bank’s rank and file employees. Moreover, as alleged by the Union, the fact that the Bank made
use of the aforesaid guestimates, amounts to a validation of the data it had used in its
presentation.

EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER VS BAYER G.R. No. 162943

Topic: Enforcement and remedies – Intra-union disputes; jurisdiction; procedure and sanctions:

QUICKIE FACTS: Employees Union is the Collective bargaining agent of Bayer headed by
Facundo However, there was a breakaway group named Reformed Employees’ Union headed
by Remigio. The union dues collected by Bayer was then remitted to the Reformed Union
despite the existence of a CBA between the company and the Union. The Union then filed an
unfair labor practice complaint against Bayer and Remigio. Bayer was found guilty of unfair
labor practice. The case against Remigio was dismissed because the rift between Facundo’s
group and Remigio’s group is an intra-union dispute.

FACTS​:
1. Petitioner Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (Union) is the exclusive bargaining agent of
all rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines, and is an affiliate of the Federation of Free
Workers (FFW).
2. In 1997, the Union, headed by its president Juanito S. Facundo, negotiated with Bayer for
the signing of a CBA. During the negotiations, the Union rejected Bayer’s 9.9% wage-increase
proposal resulting in a bargaining deadlock. Subsequently, the Union staged a strike, prompting
the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
3. Pending the resolution of the dispute, respondent Avelina Remigio and 27 other union
members, without any authority from their union leaders, accepted Bayers wage-increase
proposal. The DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to execute a
CBA.

4. Meanwhile, the rift between Facundo’s leadership and Remigio’s group broadened. Six
months from the signing of the new CBA, Remigio solicited signatures from union members in
support of a resolution containing the decision of the signatories to: (1) disaffiliate from FFW, (2)
rename the union as Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (Reformed Union), (3)
adopt a new constitution and by-laws for the union, (4) abolish all existing officer positions in the
union and elect a new set of interim officers, and (5) authorize Reformed Union to administer
the CBA between the Union and Bayer. The said resolution was signed by 147 of the 257 local
union members.

5. Both groups sought recognition from Bayer and demanded remittance of the union dues
collected from its rank-and-file members. Bayer responded by deciding not to deal with either of
the two groups, and by placing the union dues collected in a trust account until the conflict
between the two groups is resolved.

6. The Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice (first unfair labor practice case) against
Bayer for non-remittance of union dues. While the case was still pending and despite the
Union’s repeated request for a grievance conference, Bayer decided to turn over the collected
union dues to Reformed Union.

7. Consequently, the Union lodged a complaint against Remigio’s group before the Industrial
Relations Division of the DOLE praying for their expulsion from the Union for commission of
"acts that threaten the life of the union."

8. Labor Arbiter dismissed this complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

9. Petitioners filed the second unfair labor practice complaint against herein respondents.
Petitioners complained that Bayer refused to remit the collected union dues to EUBP despite
several demands sent to the management and that the latter opted to negotiate instead with
Remigio’s group.

10. Reformed Union and Bayer agreed to sign a new CBA. In response, petitioners immediately
filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a restraining order/injunction before the NLRC and the
Labor Arbiter against respondents.

11. Labor Arbiter: dismissed the Union’s second unfair labor practice complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.

12. NLRC: denied the Union’s appeal

13. CA: sustained both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRCs rulings.

ISSUES​:
W/N LA and NLRC have jurisdiction
W/N the instant case involves an intra-union dispute
W/N the company committed an act of unfair labor practice

RULINGS​:

LA and NLRC have jurisdiction over the unfair labor practice complaint filed against Bayer.
However, petitioner’s unfair labor practice complaint cannot prosper as against respondents
Remigio et al because the issue, as against them, essentially involves an intra-union dispute
No, the case at bar is not about an intra-union dispute. The issues raised by petitioners do not
fall under any of the circumstances constituting an intra-union dispute. More importantly, the
petitioners do not seek a determination of whether it is the Facundo group (Union) or the
Remigio group (Reformed Union) which is the true set of union officers. Instead, the issue
raised pertained only to the validity of the acts of management.

Yes, the acts of the company constituted an unfair labor practice. When an employer proceeds
to negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified
and exclusive bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and
terminates the entire CBA.

DISPOSITIVE​: Bayer is liable for unfair labor practice and they are ordered to remit to
petitioners the collected union dues previously turned over to Remegio. The unfair labor practice
complaint against Remegio is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of LA and NLRC.

DOCTRINE​: An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members,
including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or
disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union.

It must be remembered that a CBA is entered into in order to foster stability and mutual
cooperation between labor and capital. An employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had previously contracted with, and
decide to bargain anew with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for doing so and
without first following the proper procedure. If such behavior would be tolerated, bargaining and
negotiations between the employer and the union will never be truthful and meaningful, and no
CBA forged after arduous negotiations will ever be honored or be relied upon

MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC and MELBA C. BELONCIO G.R. No.
76989, 1987 Sep 29 GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
FACTS​: Private respondent, Melba C. Beloncio, assistant head waitress at the hotel's coffee
shop, was expelled from the Manila Mandarin Employees Union for acts allegedly inimical to the
interests of the union. The charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose from her emotional
remark to a waitress who happened to be a union steward, "Wala akong tiwala sa Union ninyo."
The remark was made in the course of a heated discussion regarding Beloncio's efforts to make
a lazy and recalcitrant waiter adopt a better attitude towards his work. The union demanded the
dismissal from employment of Beloncio on the basis of the union security clause of their
collective bargaining agreement and the Hotel acceded by placing Beloncio on forced leave. the
Labor Arbiter held that the union was guilty of unfair labor practice when it demanded the
separation of Beloncio and the employer was ordered to reinstate her.
ISSUES​: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP by reason of the arbitrary use of the union security
clause in the CBA?
HELD​: Yes. The Hotel would not have compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave were it not for
the union's insistence and demand to the extent that because of the failure of the hotel to
dismiss Beloncio as requested, the union filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment on the issue of unfair labor practice. Although the CBA contained a union security
clause or closed-shop agreement, it is, however, stressed that such are also governed by law
and by principles of justice, fair play, and legality. Union security clauses cannot be used by
union officials against an employer, much less their own members, except with a high sense of
responsibility, fairness, prudence, and judiciousness.
A union member may not be expelled from her union, and consequently from her job, for
personal or impetuous reasons or for causes foreign to the closedshop agreement and in a
manner characterized by arbitrariness and whimsicality. Beloncio was merely trying her best to
make a hotel bus boy do his work promptly and courteously so as to serve hotel customers in
the coffee shop expeditiously and cheerfully. Union membership does not entitle waiters,
janitors, and other workers to be sloppy in their work, inattentive to customers, and disrespectful
to supervisors. The Union should have disciplined its erring and troublesome members instead
of causing so much hardship to a member who was only doing her work for the best interests of
the employer, all its employees, and the general public whom they serve