Scribd
Upload
55 views2 pages

Assignment Labor 2

Uploaded by

Mikes Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views2 pages

Assignment Labor 2

Uploaded by

Mikes Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

We rule in favor of the employees.

The employer failed to follow procedural due process.

A well settled rule is that in termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of
the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

In the case at bar, the employer “called the employees in and said that it wasn’t working out because
they weren’t commensurate to Schofield Design’s image” which suggests that the employees were
terminated immediately without notice and hearing. The employees in this case were not given the
opportunity to be heard, hence, the employer cannot validly terminate them.

The employer also failed to comply with the substantive aspect of the case.

An employer may dismiss an employee based on retrenchment.

However, in Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Realuyo, we ruled that:

Not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. The
employer must prove, among others, that the losses are substantial, and that the retrenchment is
reasonably necessary to avert such losses. (emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, the claim of the employer that he “can show statistically that once he brought out
these people (complainants), he started losing business” can be interpreted to mean that he has proof
of actual or imminent financial losses to justify retrenchment. However, he failed to show that the
retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses.

To determine what is reasonably necessary to avert such loses, RA 7277 may shed some light.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7277 (Magna Carta for Disabled persons) provides:

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act, these terms are defined as follows:

(a) Disabled persons are those suffering from restriction or different abilities, as a result of a mental,
physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered
normal for a human being.

(h) Reasonable Accommodation include:

1) improvement of existing facilities used by employees in order to render these readily


accessible to and usable by disabled persons; and

2) modification of work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or


modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustments or modifications of
examinations, training materials or company policies, rules and regulations, the provision of
auxiliary aids and services, and other similar accommodations for disabled persons;

(Empasis supplied)
Sec. 32 of the same law provides that the following can be considered as Discrimination on Employment:

(g) Dismissing or terminating the services of a disabled employee by reason of his disability unless the
employer can prove that he impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice
of the business entity: Provided, however, That the employer first sought to provide reasonable
accommodations for disabled persons. (Emphasis supplied)

xxx

The complainants involved are the following:

a) a man medically diagnosed to have a fetish in wearing woman’s clothes


b) a man suffering from stuttering and involuntary clapping
c) a woman suffering obesity

All of which falls under the definition of Disabled persons, thus, they are entitled to all the rights and
benefits provided to them under RA 7277.

In the case at bar, while the disabled employees may contribute to the loss of business of Schofield
Design to the prejudice of the business entity, however, the employer failed to show that he provided
reasonable accommodations for the disabled employees before terminating them that would justify that
the retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses. The employer did not perform any act
which would provide reasonable accommodations such as modification of work schedule to minimize
the possibility of the clients seeing the disabled employees. Moreover, such accommodation would not
restrict the performance of their job as designers.

Hence, we rule in favor of the employees.

You might also like