|
Monday, May 08, 2006
Retrenchment notice
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
In a case for illegal dismissal, petitioner EMCO Plywood Corp. interposed the defense of valid retrenchment. It alleged that it complied with, among others, the requirement on notice by sending a written notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) and a memorandum to foremen, section heads, supervisors and department heads, instructing them to retrench some of the workers based on certain guidelines. Did EMCO sufficiently comply with the notice requirement?
Ruling: No.
There is no showing that such notice was served on the employees in the present case. Petitioners argue that on Jan. 20, 1993, petitioner Jimmy Lim gave the Dole a formal notice of the intended retrenchment and furnished the EMCO Labor Association and its general membership copies of the notice by posting it on the bulletin boards of their respective departments. On March 2, 1993, EMCO send Dole another written notice. The next day, Lim sent a memorandum to the foremen, section heads, supervisors and department heads, instructing them to retrench some workers based on certain guidelines.
Petitioners aver that the memorandum also served as a written notice to all employees concerned. Clearly, it is not the notice contemplated by law. The written notice should have been served on the employees themselves, not on their supervisors. (EMCO Corp. versus Perferio Abelgas, et. Al. G.R. No. 148532, April 14, 2004)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (May 8, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
