This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| What the above reasoning of the NLRC failed to perceive is that "[o]f primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the employee, but the nature of his functions."[50] "It is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs."[51] Also, change in the job title is not synonymous to a change in the functions. A position cannot be abolished by a mere change of job title. In cases of redundancy, the management should adduce evidence and prove that a position which was created in place of a previous one should pertain to functions which are dissimilar and incongruous to the abolished office. | |||||