Labor Standards and Labor Relations

7/26/2019 Labor Standards and Labor Relations

1/71

JURISPRUDENCE

ON LABOR STANDARDSAND LABOR RELATIONS

1

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


2/71

LABOR STANDARDS:

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET BY LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND OTHERISSUANCES RELATING TO: WAGES, HOURS OF WORK, COST OF LIVING

ALLOWANCES, AND OTHER MONETARY AND WELFARE BENEFITS, INCLUDINGTHOSE SET BY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

LABOR RELATIONS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES

MECHANISMS BY WHICH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARENEGOTIATED, ADJUSTED AND ENFORCED

INTERACTIONS AND PROCESSES ON HOW THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES AREEXERCISED, HOW AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED, AND HOW WORKPLACERELATIONSHIP IS ENHANCED


3/71

EMPLOYEE

DIRECTLY HIRE

EMPLOYEE

HIRE

THROUGH A

RECRUITMENT

AGENCY

CONTRACTORS EMPLOYEE

ENGAGE A

CONTRACTOREMPLOYER


4/71

TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT

1. Regular employment

. Ca!ual employment

". Sea!onal employment

#. Pro$at%onary employment

&. Pro'e(t employment

). F%*e+,term employment

-NDEF-N-TE PER-OD OF EMPLOYMENT

DEF-N-TE PER-OD

OF EMPLOYMENT


5/71

REGULAR EMPLOYEE

WHERE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE TO THE CONTRARY:

1) THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED TO PERFORM

ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE USUALLY NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE

IN THE USUAL BUSINESS OR TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER; OR) THE EMPLOYEE HAS RENDERED AT LEAST ONE YEAR

OF SERVICE, WHETHER SUCH SERVICE IS CONTINUOUS OR

BROKEN, WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE IS

EMPLOYED AND HIS EMPLOYMENT SHALL CONTINUE WHILESUCH ACTIVITY EXISTS; OR

!) THE EMPLOYEE IS ALLOWED TO WORK AFTER A

PROBATIONARY PERIOD"


6/71

CASUAL EMPLOYEE

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO PERFORMA JOB, WORK OR SERVICE WHICH IS MERELYINCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER,AND SUCH JOB, WORK OR SERVICE IS FOR ADEFINITE PERIOD MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE

AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT; PROVIDED, THATANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS RENDERED AT LEASTONE YEAR OF SERVICE, WHETHER SUCH SERVICE ISCONTINUOUS OR NOT, SHALL BE CONSIDERED A

REGULAR EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO THEACTIVITY IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED AND HISEMPLOYMENT SHALL CONTINUE WHILE SUCHACTIVITY EXISTS"


7/71

SEASONAL EMPLOYEE

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO WORKDURING A PARTICULAR SEASON ON AN ACTIVITYWHICH IS USUALLY NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN

THE USUAL BUSINESS OR TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER"

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE

Where the employee is on trial by an employer

during which the employer determines the

qualification of the employee for regular

employment.


8/71

PROJECT EMPLOYEE

WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT HAS BEENFIXED FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR

UNDERTAKING, THE COMPLETION ORTERMINATION OF WHICH HAS BEENDETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THEENGAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE"


9/71

I. RIGHT TO LABOR STANDARDS.

II. RIGHT TO SECURITY OF

TENURE AND DUE PROCESS.

III. RIGHT TO SELF-

ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING.


10/71

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS


11/71

SEASONAL WORKER#

REGULAR WORKER#

A-ME N. /APAYAO0 !.

ROSAR-O F2LO0 2NE 1"0 31"


12/71

FARM WORKERS GENERALLY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITIONOF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES" WE HAVE CONSISTENTLYHELD THAT SEASONAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE CONSIDEREDAS REGULAR EMPLOYEES" REGULAR SEASONALEMPLOYEES ARE THOSE CALLED TO WORK FROM TIME TO

TIME" THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEEMPLOYER IS SUCH THAT DURING THE OFF SEASON, THEYARE TEMPORARILY LAID OFF; BUT REEMPLOYED DURING

THE SUMMER SEASON OR WHEN THEIR SERVICES MAY BE

NEEDED" THEY ARE IN REGULAR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSEOF THE NATURE OF THEIR JOB, AND NOT BECAUSE OFTHE LENGTH OF TIME THEY HAVE WORKED"

A-ME N. /APAYAO0 !.

ROSAR-O F2LO0 2NE 1"0 31"


13/71


14/71

CONSIDERING THAT MCBURNIE, AN AUSTRALIAN, ALLEGEDILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND SOUGHT TO CLAIM UNDER OUR

LABOR LAWS, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO ESTABLISH,FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED AND DULYAUTHORI$ED TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT WITHIN OUR

JURISDICTION" A REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGNERS WHOINTEND TO WORK WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS AN

EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE %&,TITLE II OF THE LABOR CODE"

Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc. and E.

Ganzon, Inc., . October 1, !"1#.


15/71

IN WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC" V" GALERA,WE HELD THAT A FOREIGN NATIONAL'S FAILURE TO SEEK

AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT POSES ASERIOUS PROBLEM IN SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE COURT"

CLEARLY, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE FAILURE OFMCBURNIE TO OBTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, BYITSELF, NECESSITATES THE DISMISSAL OF HIS LABORCOMPLAINT"

Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-

Managers, Inc. and E. Ganzon, Inc., . October 1,

!"1#.


16/71

1. THE UNION WILL RECEIVE 100% OF THE SEPARATION

PAY BASED ON THE EMPLOYEES BASIC SALARY AND THE

REMAINING 50% SHALL BE RELEASED BY MANAGEMENT

AFTER THE NECESSARY DEDUCTIONS ARE MADE FROM

THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES

!. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESE

BENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF THE

CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION

". THE UNION UNDERTA#ES TO SIGN THE $UITCLAIM

BUT SUBJECT TO THE !ND PARAGRAPH OF THIS

AGREEMENT.

PEPS- 4S. MOLON0 $ebruar% 1&, !"1#


17/71

THE COURT IS UNCONVINCED.

AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE CA THE SEPTEMBER

1&&& $UITCLAIMS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION

WITH THE SEPTEMBER 1' 1&&& AGREEMENT TO WIT(

!. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESEBENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF

THE CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION

". THE UNION UNDERTA#ES TO SIGN THE $UITCLAIM

BUT SUBJECT TO THE !ND PARAGRAPH OF THIS

AGREEMENT.



18/71

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SEPTEMBER 1' 1&&&

AGREEMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE USE

OF THE TERM )SUBJECT) IN THE "RD CLAUSE OFTHE SAID AGREEMENT CLEARLY MEANS THAT

THE SIGNING OF THE $UITCLAIM DOCUMENTS

WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A

CASE WITH THE NLRC. HENCE WHENRESPONDENTS SIGNED THE SEPTEMBER 1&&&

$UITCLAIMS THEY DID SO WITH THE

REASONABLE IMPRESSION THAT THAT THEY

WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM INSTITUTING A

SUBSE$UENT ACTION WITH THE NLRC.



19/71


20/71

ROYAL PLANT 5OR6ERS 2N-ON0

Pet%t%oner0

!.

COCA,COLA BOTTLERSP7-L-PP-NES0 -NC.

,CEB2 PLANT0

Re!pon+ent.

/.R. No. 189:9"0 Apr%l 1&0 31"


21/71


22/71

4%olat%on o; t


23/71

T


24/71

T


25/71

T


26/71

S%n(e t


27/71

T


28/71

T


29/71

Employment

Contra(t

Ser%(e Contra(t

CONTRACT-N/ AND S2BCONTRACT-N/

COMPAN

WO!"#!

$CON%!AC%O! &

'()CON%!AC%O!*

RE/2LAR EMPLOYEE

PROECT EMPLOYEECAS2AL EMPLOYEE

SEASONAL EMPLOYEE

PROBAT-ONARY EMPLOYEE

F-ED,TERM EMPLOYEE

PR-NC-PA

L


30/71

Employment

Contra(t

Ser%(e Contra(t

ALPS TRANSPORTAT-ON !. ELP-D-O M. RODR-/2EG

2NE 1"0 31"

ALPS

WO!"#!

$CON%AC% %O(!'

MANPOW#! *

PR-NC-PA

L

ALPS TRANSPORTAT-ON ELP-D-O M RODR-/2EG


31/71

T


32/71


33/71

BEN-/NO M. 4-/-LLA0 ALFONSO M. BON/OT0ROBERTO CALLESA0 L-NDA C. CALLO0 N-LO B.

CAMARA0 ADEL-A T. CAMARA0 ADOLFO /. P-NON0

O7N A. FERNANDEG0 FEDER-CO A. CALLO0 MA-MA

P. ARELLANO0 2L-TO B. COST ALES0 SAMSON F.BAC7AR0 ED5-N P. DAMO0 RENA TO E. FERNANDEG0

/ENARO F.CALLO0 -MMY C. ALETA0 an+ E2/EN-O

SAL-NAS0 Pet%t%oner!0

!.

P7-L-PP-NE COLLE/E OF CR-M-NOLO/Y -NC. an+or

/RE/ORY ALAN F. BA2T-STA0 Re!pon+ent!.

/.R. No. 3338# une 130 31"


34/71

Employment

Contra(t

Ser%(e Contra(t

PCCr

AN-TOR AND

AN-TRESS

$M)M'+*PR-NC-PA

L


35/71

FACTSSOMETIME IN &&(, PCCR DISCOVERED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OFINCORPORATION OF MBMSI HAD BEEN REVOKED AS OF JULY , &&!"

ON MARCH 1, &&*, PCCR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT GREGORYALAN F" BAUTISTA +BAUTISTA), CITING THE REVOCATION, TERMINATED THESCHOOL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH MBMSI, RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF THEEMPLOYEES OR MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL UNDER MBMSI, EXCEPT ALFONSOBONGOT +BONGOT) WHO WAS RETIRED"

IN SEPTEMBER &&*, THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEES, LED BY THEIR SUPERVISOR,BENIGNO VIGILLA +VIGILLA), FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS FOR ILLEGALDISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, BACK WAGES, SEPARATION PAY +FOR BONGOT),UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARIES, OVERTIME PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, SERVICE INCENTIVELEAVE, AND 1!TH MONTH PAY AGAINST MBMSI, ATTY" SERIL, PCCR, AND BAUTISTA"


36/71

FACTS

FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF , ASAND BY WAY OF SEPARATION PAY DUE TO THE CLOSURE OF THE COMPANYBROUGHT ABOUT BY SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSSES, RECEIPT OF THE TOTAL

AMOUNT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, I , X X X FOREVERRELEASE AND DISCHARGE X X X METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCESERVICES, INC", OF AND FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, CAUSESOF ACTIONS, DAMAGES, COSTS, EXPENSES, ATTORNEY'S FEES, ANDOBLIGATIONS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, INLAW OR IN EQUITY, WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED HAS, OR MAY HEREAFTERHAVE AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES,INC", WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, AND WHETHER ORNOT ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THEABOVE COMPANY OR THIRD PERSONS"


37/71

QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE

THE NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THATTHE RELEASES, WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMSEXECUTED BY PETITIONERS IN FAVOR OF MBMSIREDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF PCCR PURSUANT

TO ARTICLE 11- OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE"


38/71

NATURE OF LIABILITY

AS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT BY THERESPONDENTS, THE BASIS OF THE SOLIDARYLIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL WITH THOSEENGAGED IN LABOR.ONLY CONTRACTING IS THELAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1& OF THELABOR CODE, WHICH IN PART PROVIDES: /INSUCH CASES LABOR.ONLY CONTRACTING, THEPERSON OR INTERMEDIARY SHALL BECONSIDERED MERELY AS AN AGENT OF THE

EMPLOYER WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO THEWORKERS IN THE SAME MANNER AND EXTENTAS IF THE LATTER WERE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BYHIM"0


39/71

NATURE OF LIABILITY

SECTION 1* OF DEPARTMENT ORDER NO" 1(.&ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

EMPLOYMENT +DOLE), WHICH WAS STILL INEFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION OFTHE SUBJECT DECISION AND RESOLUTION,INTERPRETS ARTICLE 1& OF THE LABOR CODE"


40/71

NATURE OF LIABILITYTHE DOLE RECOGNI$ED ANEW THIS SOLIDARYLIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER AND THELABOR.ONLY CONTRACTOR WHEN IT ISSUEDDEPARTMENT ORDER NO" 1(.A, SERIES OF &11,WHICH IS THE LATEST SET OF RULESIMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 1&.1&* OF THELABOR CODE"


41/71

CONSIDERING THAT MBMSI, AS THE LABOR.ONLYCONTRACTOR, IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THERESPONDENTS, AS THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER, THENTHE NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE

RESPONDENTS' SOLIDARY LIABILITY WAS ALREADYEXPUNGED BY VIRTUE OF THE RELEASES, WAIVERSAND QUITCLAIMS EXECUTED BY EACH OF THEPETITIONERS IN FAVOR OF MBMSI PURSUANT TOARTICLE 11- OF THE CIVIL CODE WHICH PROVIDES

THAT PAYMENT MADE BY ONE OF THE SOLIDARYDEBTORS EXTINGUISHES THE OBLIGATION"

QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE


42/71


43/71

Employment

Contra(t

Ser%(e Contra(t

BP-

EMPLOYEES

$)OMC*PR-NC-PA

L

BPI CASE


44/71

G.R. NO. 1'*&1! JULY !* !01"

+t is to be emphasi/ed that contracting out of ser0ices is not illegal perse. +t is an

eercise of business 1udgment or management prerogati0e. Absent proof that the

management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere

with the eercise of 1udgment by an employer. +n this case, bad faith cannot be

attributed to )P+ because its actions were authori/ed by C)P Circular No. 2344,

'eries of 2553 issued by the Monetary )oard of the then Central )an- of the

Philippines $now )ang-o 'entral ng Pilipinas*. %he circular co0ered amendments

in )oo- + of the Manual of !egulations for )an-s and Other 6inancial

+ntermediaries, particularly on the matter of ban- ser0ice contracts. A finding of

(7P necessarily requires the alleging party to pro0e it with substantial e0idence.

(nfortunately, the (nion failed to discharge this burden.

BPI CASE


45/71

BPI CASE

G.R. NO. 1'*&1! JULY !* !01"

)P+ stresses that not a single employee or union memberwas or would be dislocated or terminated from their

employment as a result of the 'er0ice Agreement. Neither

had it resulted in any diminution of salaries and benefits

nor led to any reduction of union membership.

As far as the twel0e $28* former 6#)%C employees are

concerned, the (nion failed to substantially pro0e that

their transfer, made to complete )OMC9s ser0ice

complement, was moti0ated by ill will, anti:unionism orbad faith so as to affect or interfere with the employees9

right to self:organi/ation.

BPI CASE,


46/71

BPI CASE,G"R" NO" 1-%*1, JULY %, &1!

%he Court agrees with )P+ that ;.O. No. 2< is but a guide to

determine what functions may be contracted out, sub1ect tothe rules and established 1urisprudence on legitimate 1ob

contracting and prohibited labor:only contracting. #0en if the

Court considers ;.O. No. 2< only, )P+ would still be within

the bounds of ;.O. No. 2< when it contracted out thesub1ect functions. %his is because the sub1ect functions

were not related or not integral to the main business or

operation of the principal which is the lending of funds

obtained in the form of deposits. 6rom the 0ery definition of

=ban-s= as pro0ided under the >eneral )an-ing 7aw, it can

easily be discerned that ban-s perform only two $8* main or

basic functions ? deposit and loan functions.

BPI CASE,


47/71

BPI CASE,G"R" NO" 1-%*1, JULY %, &1!

%hus, cashiering, distribution and boo--eeping are but

ancillary functions whose outsourcing is sanctioned underC)P Circular No. 2344 as well as ;.O. No. 2


48/71

BERNARDO WAS EMPLOYED FOR ALMOST TWENTY.

NINE +*) YEARS2 BY THE METRO MANILADEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY +MMDA) IN MAKATI CITY" HEWORKED AT THE MMDA AS LABORER, METRO AIDEAND METRO AIDE I"

SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY &&%, BERNARDO WASDIAGNOSED WITH PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS +PTB)AND COMMUNITY ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA +CAP)" ON

MAY 1!, &&%, HE WAS CONFINED AT THE OSPITAL NGMAKATI" HE WAS DISCHARGED ON MAY 1*, &&% WITHTHE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSIS: ACUTE DIFFUSEANTEROLATERAL WALL MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION,KILLIPS IV.1, CAP HIGH RISK, PTB III AND DIABETESMELLITUS TYPE "

ON JANUARY 12, &&2, BERNARDO WAS FOUND DEADAT THE BASEMENT OF THE MMDA BUILDING"

/S-S !. ALCARAG0 FEBR2ARY )0 31"

/S-S ALCARAG FEBR2ARY ) 31"


49/71


2. My34567859 856484>45?@7 B65673'@ 75453< @587 5 5655


50/71


T3 @?6, 5 65@35987 5598 @548@=36 863< 36


51/71


B5@7 3 874 3 64367, = 7 5@ CA 787, 5 @@


59/71

0 0

Augu!t 90 31"

T> @@


60/71

IN CERTAIN CASES, HOWEVER,THE COURT HAS CARVED OUT ANEXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOINGRULE AND THEREBY ORDEREDTHE REINSTATEMENT OF THEEMPLOYEE WITHOUT BACKWAGESON ACCOUNT OF THEFOLLOWING: +A) THE FACT THATDISMISSAL OF THE EMPLOYEE

WOULD BE TOO HARSH OF APENALTY; AND +B) THAT THEEMPLOYER WAS IN GOOD FAITHIN TERMINATING THE EMPLOYEE"

Augu!t 90 31"

-NTE/RATED M-CROELECTRON-CS0 -NC.0 4S. ADON-S A.


61/71

IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OBSERVES THAT: +A) THEPENALTY OF DISMISSAL WAS TOO HARSH OF A PENALTY

TO BE IMPOSED AGAINST PIONILLA FOR HIS

INFRACTIONS; AND +B) IMI WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN ITDISMISSED PIONILLA AS HIS DERELICTION OF ITS POLICYON ID USAGE WAS HONESTLY PERCEIVED TO BE A

THREAT TO THE COMPANYS SECURITY" IN THIS RESPECT,SINCE THESE CONCURRING CIRCUMSTANCES TRIGGER

THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ONBACKWAGES AS ENUNCIATED IN THE ABOVE.CITEDCASES, THE COURT FINDS IT PROPER TO ACCORD THESAME DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTS THEDELETION OF THE AWARD OF BACK WAGES IN FAVOR OF

PIONILLA, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS

0 0

P-ON-LLA

Augu!t 90 31"

NAT7AN-EL N. DON/ON0 !.


62/71

UNDER THE FOREGOING STANDARDS,THE DISOBEDIENCE ATTRIBUTED TOPETITIONER COULD NOT BE JUSTLYCHARACTERI$ED AS WILLFUL WITHINTHE CONTEMPLATION OF ARTICLE *OF THE LABOR CODE" HE NEITHER

BENEFITTED FROM IT, NOR THEREBYPREJUDICED THE BUSINESS INTEREST OFRAPID MOVERS" HIS EXPLANATION THATHIS DEED HAD BEEN INTENDED TOBENEFIT RAPID MOVERS WAS CREDIBLE"

THERE COULD BE NO WRONG ORPERVERSITY ON HIS PART THATWARRANTED THE TERMINATION OF HISEMPLOYMENT BASED ON WILLFULDISOBEDIENCE"

0

RAP-D MO4ERS AND FOR5ARDERS CO.0 -NC.0 Augu!t 90

31"



63/71

FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO BE A GROUND, IT ISREQUIRED THAT: +A) THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE MUSTBE WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL; AND +B) THE ORDER THEEMPLOYEE VIOLATED MUST HAVE BEEN REASONABLE,LAWFUL, MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE, AND MUSTPERTAIN TO THE DUTIES THAT HE HAD BEEN ENGAGED TO

DISCHARGE"

RAP-D MO4ERS AND FOR5ARDERS CO.0 -NC.0 Augu!t 90 31"



64/71

WILLFULNESS MUST BE ATTENDED BY AWRONGFUL AND PERVERSE MENTAL ATTITUDERENDERING THE EMPLOYEE'S ACT INCONSISTENTWITH PROPER SUBORDINATION" IN ANY CASE,THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE THAT IS AVALID GROUND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER THELABOR CODE CONSTITUTES HARMFUL BEHAVIORAGAINST THE BUSINESS INTEREST OR PERSONOF HIS EMPLOYER" IT IS IMPLIED THAT IN EVERY

ACT OF WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE, THE ERRINGEMPLOYEE OBTAINS UNDUE ADVANTAGEDETRIMENTAL TO THE BUSINESS INTEREST OFTHE EMPLOYER"

RAP-D MO4ERS AND FOR5ARDERS CO.0 -NC.0 Augu!t 90 31"


65/71

AL-LEM CRED-T COOPERAT-4E0 -NC.0

no= ?no=n a! AL-LEM M2LT-P2RPOSE COOPERAT-4E0 -NC.0 !.


66/71

UNDER THE NEW POLICY, ONEOF THE GROUNDS IS THECOMMISSION OF ACTS THATBRINGS DISCREDIT TO THE

COOPERATIVE ORGANI$ATION,ESPECIALLY, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, CONVICTION OF ANY CRIME,ILLICIT MARITAL AFFAIRS,

SCANDALOUS ACTS INIMICAL TOESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTEDSOCIAL MORES"


SAL4ADOR M. BAND-OLA0 R.0 Fe$ruary &0 31"


no= ?no=n a! AL-LEM M2LT-P2RPOSE COOPERAT-4E -NC !


67/71

TO BE SURE, AN EMPLOYER IS FREE TO REGULATE ALL

ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT" IT MAY MAKE REASONABLERULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OFITS EMPLOYEES WHICH BECOME PART OF THECONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED THEY AREMADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE" IN THE EVENT OF AVIOLATION, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE VALIDLYTERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT ON THE GROUNDTHAT AN EMPLOYER CANNOT RATIONALLY BEEXPECTED TO RETAIN THE EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON

WHOSE LACK OF MORALS, RESPECT AND LOYALTY TOHIS EMPLOYER, REGARD FOR HIS EMPLOYER'S RULESAND APPLICATION OF THE DIGNITY ANDRESPONSIBILITY, HAS SO PLAINLY AND COMPLETELYBEEN BARED"




68/71

WHILE RESPONDENT'S ACT OF ENGAGING INEXTRA..MARITAL AFFAIRS MAY BE CONSIDEREDPERSONAL TO HIM AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTTHE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASK AS

BOOKKEEPER, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE ACTWAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY PETITIONER'SPERSONNEL POLICY AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS FORTERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, SAID ACT RAISEDCONCERNS TO PETITIONER AS THE BOARDRECEIVED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONSFROM THE COOPERATIVE MEMBERS THEMSELVESASKING FOR THE REMOVAL OF RESPONDENTBECAUSE OF HIS IMMORAL CONDUCT"




CA4-TE APPAREL0 -NCORPORATED0 !. M-C7ELLE MARI2EG


69/71

BASED ON WHAT WE SEE IN THE

RECORDS, THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACASE OF GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECTOF DUTY AGAINST MICHELLE" EVENASSUMING THAT SHE FAILED TO PRESENTA MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FOR HER SICKLEAVE ON MAY (, &&&, THE RECORDS

ARE BEREFT OF ANY INDICATION THATAPART FROM THE FOUR OCCASIONSWHEN SHE DID NOT REPORT FOR WORK,MICHELLE HAD BEEN CITED FOR ANYINFRACTION SINCE SHE STARTED HEREMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY IN

1**%" FOUR ABSENCES IN HER SIX YEARSOF SERVICE, TO OUR MIND, CANNOT BECONSIDERED GROSS AND HABITUALNEGLECT OF DUTY, ESPECIALLY SO SINCETHE ABSENCES WERE SPREAD OUT OVERA SIX.MONTH PERIOD"

CA4-TE APPAREL0 -NCORPORATED0 !. M-C7ELLE MARI2EG

Fe$ruary 3)0 31"


70/71


71/71

THAN# YOUFOR LISTENING+

GOD BLESS US

Whate0er you do, wor- at it with all your heart, as wor-ing forthe 7ord , not for men.

Colossians 383

Documents

Labor Standards and Labor Relations