Ano ang proseso para tanggalin ang empleyadong ‘di pumapasok?
Mahalagang alalalahanin na protektado ng ating batas ang karapatan ng mga manggagawa.
Pero, ang mga empleyado, may responsibilidad ring gampanan ng tama ang kanilang duties and responsipilities sa trabaho.
Kung sila ay nag-AWOL (o absence without leave), depende sa kalalaan ng sitwasyon, maaari itong maging sapat na basehan para matanggal sa trabaho.
Ayon sa Article 297 ng Labor Code:
“An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
Article 297 ng Labor Code
…
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his [or her] duties.”
Ibig sabihin nito- kawalan ng angkop na pakialam sa pagganap ng tungkulin at nakagawíang kapabayaan dito.
Kung talagang grabe na ang pag-aabsent ng empleyado- palagi, paulit-ulit, at lubos na nakaka-apekto na sa trabaho- maaari itong ituring na just cause for termination.
Sa termination basé sa ground na ito, dapat mapatunayan ng employer ang pagkukulang ng empleyado. Halimbawa, dapat dokumentado kung kailan at gaano kadalas ang unjustified absence ng empleyado , at malinaw na maipakita ang:
- Neglect of duty,
- Gross and habitual in character
Kung hindi lang panay-absent ang empleyado- at talagang hindi na pumapasok at parang wala na itong intensyong bumalik- maaari rin itong ituring na abandonment of work.
Ang abandonment of work, itinuturing ring basehan ng termination ayon sa nasabing ground. Dito naman, kailangang patunayan ng employer ang:
- Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and
- A clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Dokumentado rin dapat ito- kung kailan wala ang empleyado at ang efforts ng employer na pabalikin siya sa trabaho (halimbawa, sa pag-text at tawag, pagpapadala ng email o sulat).
Muli, sa anumang termination based on just cause- pasan ng employer na patunayang may sapat na rason para gawin ito.
At dapat mag-comply sa tamang proseso, at sundin ang Two-Notice Rule:
- The employer must inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
- After the employee has been given the opportunity to be heard, the employer must inform him of the decision to terminate his employment.
Sinisikap ng batas na i-balanse ang interes ng employer at employee.
At habang pabor ang batas sa karapatan ng manggagawa, ang proteksyong ito ay hindi rin dapat aabot sa pagkasira ng employer.
Ayon sa isang desisyon ng Supreme Court:
“While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of cases involving termination of employment since it affects one’s source or means of livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.”
Supreme Court decision