This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It seems to us that the word "payroll" in the dispositive part of the May 27, 2008 decision is a mere surplusage a clerical error that was beyond the LA's contemplation in rendering that decision. The reason is simple: the payroll reinstatement order manifestly and patently contradicts the LA's unequivocal statement in the body of the decision that there were no strained relations between Grandeur Security and Jordan. In fact, the LA categorically declared that there was "no justification whatsoever for complainant Jordan's allegation of strained relations." The rationales for payroll reinstatement under Article 223 of the Labor Code are to avoid the intolerable presence of the unwanted employee as when there exist strained relations between labor and management or due to the non-availability of positions.[38] Since these circumstances are remarkably absent in the present case, coupled with the fact that Jordan was never separated from employment, we delete the word "payroll" in the dispositive part of the May 27, 2008 decision. | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases,[34] this Court put emphasis on the right of an employer to exercise its management prerogative in dealing with its company's affairs including its right to dismiss its erring employees. We recognized the right of the employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of workers.[35] It is a general principle of labor law to discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. As already noted, even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it also recognizes employer's exercise of management prerogatives. As long as the company's exercise of judgment is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld.[36] | |||||