Employees have better access to speedy justice during SENA

Enployees especially barely scraping by needs speedy closure to their labor problems.

Usually their claims are simple money claims like payment below minimum wage.

Under the Single Entry Approach, enployees can get their employers on thr table and air their grievances and claim what is due them.

Of course, this proceeding is just summary and works towards amicable settlement.

Nobody not even the hearing officer can coerce the parties to settle. But for claims that are rightfully due and not so substantial, SENA might just give employees speedy justice.

This is not to mention helping to clog the labor arbiters’ dockets.

Retrenchment is a valid way to dismiss employees

Though today’s economy is far from declining, retrenchment is the least of our concern. After all, Retrenchment is dismissal of employees due to economic reasons. That means the employer company is experiencing financial losses.

But just because today’s economy is growing, tomorrow would be rosy.

Continue reading “Retrenchment is a valid way to dismiss employees”

Termination of a Manager

A manager is someone who occupies a position that handles more than two employees in an establishment or a division.

Since being a manager connotes more responsibility, accepting a promotion to such entails that you surrender the rigid standards before you can be terminated. Unlike a rank-and-file employee, a manager can be dismissed based on loss of trust and confidence.

Thus, the standar is much loose as compared to an ordinary employee. If you are caught stealing, as long as there is a reasonable belieft that you committed or participated, you can be dismissed on this ground. You do not have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt unlike in a criminal case.

You might think that this is too harsh. In a way it is, but the law provides guidelines. One of these is that there must be a basis for the loss of trust and confidence. The employer must not just act in an arbitrary and whismical way.

Terminating a negligent employee

Negligence itself is not a ground for termination. An employer may only dismiss an employee based on negligence if the negligence is so gross as would amount to total absence of even slight care.

So is gross negligence enough?

No, it’s still not enough. The Philippine law on labor is favorable to the employee. This comes from the fact that employment is considered equal to the life of an employee.

Aside from gross negligence. The employee must have acted habitually. It means that the negligent act is repeated. It is not just an isolated act.

For employers, this means that they have to establish a pattern of habituality. Since the burden to prove this is on the employer, they should properly document every negligent act.

To conclude, the labor law supports the maxim that those who have less in life should have more in law.

Can stealing one calamansi get you dismissed from work?

Stealing is dishonesty regardless of the value of the thing stolen. In the Philippines, stealing is a ground for termination of employment based on gross misconduct. See also this post.

Is the employer justified in dismissing an employee for stealing  no matter what the value is of the subject of theft?

Continue reading “Can stealing one calamansi get you dismissed from work?”

When can an employee be considered to have abandoned his employment?

{Philippines) Sometimes, or most of the times, employees just vanish from thin air. I don’t mean in a literal sense. They, however, just don’t report for work without leaving a word to their employer or management.

As an employer, you may be held in limbo. You don’t want your operations to get bogged down but you don’t know whether to hire another employee to replace the employee on AWOL in case the latter will show up.

Abandonment is a ground for dismissal or termination. However, just failing to report for work without leave may not always be considered abandonment, so as to be a ground for dismissal.

Continue reading “When can an employee be considered to have abandoned his employment?”

Alleged retrenchment of Pepsi and Jollibee workers…

This is a headache for the management of Pepsi and Jollibee. I presume they  have already studied their legal moves before jumping the guns.

I think this will take time before this issue will finally be resolved. When the emotions subside, the issues will become a matter of evidence. The news from Business Mirror state:

DOLE investigating Pepsi, Jollibee for retrenchment of workers

THE Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) said it is investigating beverage giant Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines for its alleged violation of labor laws after it recently retrenched about 1,000 workers.

In an interview, DOLE Undersecretary Joel B. Maglunsod said they plan to look into the complaints filed by Pepsi’s casual employees.  He said the case of Pepsi is “complicated,” since it involves issues of illegal contractualization and illegal dismissal.

Members of the Pepsi-Cola Workers’ Association (PCWA) held a joint demonstration with the workers of Jollibee Food Corp. Worldwide Services-Logistics on Monday in front of DOLE’s main office in Intramuros, Manila, to protest against their employer’s supposed violation of labor laws.

PCWA Vice President Ricardo Gandalla said their employment was abruptly terminated by Pepsi after the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shut down the deep wells it used in its Muntinlupa plant to reduce its operational costs.


The PCWA membership is comprised by casual Pepsi employees.

“Since there is no water [from the deep wells], they were not able to operate. They told us they will not be employing anymore casual [workers],” Gandalla said in an interview.

Maglunsod said Pepsi already underwent labor inspection last December, but he has yet to get its final results.

He said they scheduled a meeting with the official bargaining unit of Pepsi, PCWA and the Pepsi management in a series of meetings up to next week to get more details on the issue.

Aside from the displacement issue, Maglunsod said they will also look into Pepsi’s contractors to see if their operations are legal.

DOLE said it will conduct the same consultations for the new illegal contractualization case of JFC.

Maglunsod said they are verifying the complaints filed by some of JFC’s contractual workers.

In an interview, Rogelio Magistrano, the president of the association, said JFC prematurely terminated the contract of their contractor, Toplis Solution Inc. (TIS), after getting word of their plan to form a labor union.

“During the midnight of June 17, the management decided to terminate the contract. The contract was supposed to end on June 30,” Magistrano said.

He said the termination of TIS contract would affect 400 workers.

Magistrano said the workers should be regularized since their work in the JFC’s warehouse logistic is directly related to the company’s main business operations.

Like the case of Pepsi, Maglunsod said JFC Worldwide Services-Logistics already underwent a labor inspection.

“We still have no result [from the inspection]. The process is still ongoing, but Jollibee already decided to retrench its workers,” Maglunsod said.

Last month, DOLE confirmed some of JFC’s offices are engaged in labor-only contracting–the illegal labor practice of contracting jobs directly related to the operations of the company.

DOLE ordered the fastfood chain to regularize 14,960 contractual workers. The contractual workers of JFC Worldwide Services-Logistics are not included in the said regularization order.

While their respective cases are pending, Maglunsod said they will provide livelihood assistance to the displaced workers of Pepsi and JFC.