Full width home advertisement

Travel the world

Climb the mountains

Post Page Advertisement [Top]

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of broadcast company GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) in an illegal dismissal case filed by a former cameraman of the Network.
In its December 23, 2013 decision penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, the NLRC reversed and set aside Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan’s order to reinstate Christopher Legaspi noting that “there was no illegal dismissal” in the case at hand.
The challenged decision stemmed from the complaint filed by Legaspi against GMA and its top officials on January 2, 2013 after the former was dismissed from employment.
GMA was informed of Legaspi’s infraction with the GMA-7 Employees Multipurpose Cooperative, which is situated within company premises, for using a falsified Purchase Order in buying a pair of jeans from said cooperative. Subsequently, Legaspi was administratively charged for said offense and dismissed from service by GMA.
The Labor Arbiter declared that the offense committed by Legaspi “cannot be made a basis for termination as the act was done not in the performance of his duty and the aggrieved party was not GMA.”
On appeal, the NLRC disagreed with the arbiter’s ruling and said that it finds “no support for the Labor Arbiter’s interpretation that Section C.19 of the Employees Code of Conduct [of GMA] is only applicable when the acts were done in the performance of the complainant’s duties or functions as Cameramen or that the aggrieved party must be respondent GMA.”
According to the NLRC, it is enough that the offense was committed within the company premises whether the aggrieved party was a stranger, visitor or an employee.  And it can be inferred from the office manual that the purpose of the provision is “to safeguard all people who enter the respondent’s [GMA] premises and high degree of integrity and honesty is demanded from the employees.”
Further, finding that GMA had valid grounds to dismiss Legaspi, the NLRC ruled that GMA “likewise complied with the procedural due process in terminating the services of the complainant.” 

Walang komento:

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Bottom Ad [Post Page]

| Designed by Colorlib