Nicole’s Dismissal Case
Name
Institution
Course
Date
The law provides a valid reason for the dismissal of an employee as a precinct of misconduct. There exists a standard to be a valid ground for termination. Firstly, there must be misconduct. Secondly, such misconduct ought to be of gravity and aggravated character that any reasonable person would warrant. Thirdly, it ought to relate to the performance of employee’s duties, and fourthly, such must obvious that the employee becomes unfit to continue working for the employer. Nicole's offense was giving Timbit to a crying child, which was against the employer’s policy. To argue based on the legal standing, there is a difference between misconduct and gross misconduct. While misconduct may include unacceptable behavior or actions like taking sick leave when indeed an employee is well, it does not result in a dismissal. In most cases, it results in disciplinary action. In this regard, such action relates to progressive discipline, which a job-related behavior that does not meet communicated and expected performance standards. Instead of dismissal, the purpose of progressive discipline is to help the employee into improvement opportunities.
Meanwhile, there is gross misconduct that leads to a dismissal, which does not measure up to the misdemeanor carried out by Nicole. Based on Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v Alcon (2014), the employer dismissed the employee after the employee was caught in a sexual act by a security guard. The caught held that the employee was validly dismissed due to serious misconduct. This addresses the first principle of dismissal, which states that the misconduct must be to the text and meaning of having violated the Labour Code to be valid. In the case of Nicole, it does not amount to an aggravated character.
Another perceptive by which Nicole’s case can be looked at is willful disobedience, also known as insubordination. Based on this, the standards for a valid ground for termination include intentional insubordination, characterized by wrongful and perverse attitude. Based on the case of Nuez v Philcomsat (1994), the employer dismissed the employee who, on that day, twice refused to drive senior officers of the same company. The court held that the employee was validly dismissed because of an archaic attitude of the employee. Conversely, looking at Nicole's case, she accepted her mistake, and the intention of giving out the Timbil, which is only .16 cent, was to make the baby stop crying. Given that she was busy, she forgot to pay at the time. The employer was to give Nicole a condonation, as the act of overlooking a wrong because it did not have a huge loss for the company. This is applicable especially by looking at the proportionality of the law, which on reasonable grounds. Nicole was not to be fired. For instance, based on the third principle, the misconduct must be gross and habitual neglect of duties (Cavite Apparel, Incorporated v Marquez 2013). However, an issue to be looked at is social media privacy principles, which Nicole must not have violated because she went to social media after being fired.
References
Cavite Apparel, Incorporated v Marquez 2013, G.R. No. 172044, available at: https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013februarydecisions.php?id=174 [29 November 2020]
Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v Alcon, 2014, G.R No. 194884 October 2014, available at: https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=819 [29 October 2020]
Nuez v Philcomsat 1994, G.R No. 107574 December 28, 1994, available at: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/dec1994/gr_107574_1994.html [29 November 2020]