This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Although there is just cause for dismissing the Respondent Employees, we find that UIC failed to comply with the mandatory two-notice due process requirement. Under our labor laws, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed employee has been served two written notices: (a) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b) the other to inform him of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[73] The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee; otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules.[74] The records show that UIC sent only one such written notice to Respondent Employees on February 21, 1995, i.e., a notice of termination effective at the close of business of the same date.[75] We do not agree with UIC's submission that the agreement to arbitrate and the request to comply with the arbitration decision constitute the "first notice" required by law,[76] considering that UIC was unable to establish by substantial evidence that these categorically contain what is legally required to appear in the first notice. In fine, we agree with the observation of the Court of Appeals that the Respondent Employees were hastily terminated.[77] | |||||