5. Discipline of Employees

Components to the Right to Discipline

• Right to discipline;
• Right to dismiss;
• Right to determine who to punish;
• Right to promulgate rules and regulations;
• Right to impose penalty (proportionality rule);
• Right to choose which penalty to impose; and
• Right to choose a penalty, including one heavier than company rules prescribe, subject to the applicable rules, due process, and proportionality; this is not an absolute right. (Chan)

Employer’s Right to Discipline their Employees

The Er has the prerogative to instill discipline in his Ees and to impose reasonable penalties, including dismissal, on erring Ees pursuant to company rules and regulations. (San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78277, 12 May 1989)

Company policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, generally binding and valid on the parties. (China Banking Corp. v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 156515, 19 Oct. 2004)

Examples

• Sexual harassment
• Fighting within company premises;
• Accusatory and inflammatory language used by an employee to an employer or superior (Nissan Motors Phils. v. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181, 2011)
• Falsification of time records;
• Gross immorality; and
• Sexual intercourse inside company premises and during work hours (Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, 2014)
• Theft of company property

Totality of infractions doctrine

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty. (Merin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 171790)

Elements of Willful Disobedience

• There must be disobedience or insubordination;
• The disobedience or insubordination must be willful or intentional characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude;
• The order violated must be reasonable, lawful, and made known to the employee; and
• The order must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge. (D.O. No. 147-15)

GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT (Labor Code, Article 297[b])

Elements of Gross and Habitual Neglect:

• There must be neglect of duty; and
• The negligence must be both gross and habitual in character. (D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 5.2[c])

Exception: Where the negligence was gross, but not habitual, the SC still dismissed the erring employee. The SC agreed that the resultant damage caused by the employee’s negligence should be considered in the dismissal of the employee. In this case, the damage went as far as claiming the life of a child. (School of Holy Spirit v. Taguim, G.R. No. 165565, 2008)

Note: Actual damage, loss, or injury is not an essential requisite (DOLE Manual, Sec. 4343.01[2])

Penalty imposed by employer should be commensurate to offense involved

Although we recognize the inherent right of the employer to discipline its employees, we should still ensure that the employer exercises the prerogative to discipline humanely and considerately, and that the sanction imposed is commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. The discipline exacted by the employer should further consider the employee’s length of service and the number of infractions during his employment. The employer should never forget that always at stake in disciplining its employee are not only his position but also his livelihood, and that he may also have a family entirely dependent on his earnings. [Nathaniel N. Dongon, v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc., and/or Nicanor E. Jao, Jr., G.R. No. 163431, August 28, 2013.

Positions of trust and confidence

Managerial employees: Those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions.

Fiduciary Rank and file: Those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. Examples are cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. (Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Employee Labor Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 185335, 2012)

Confidential employees are those charged with custody and protection of employer’s property like a cashier (this is different from the “confidential employees” in labor relations)

COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE: (Labor Code, Article 297[d])

Elements

• For dismissal under Art. 297(d) [282(d)], the employee must commit a crime or offense against the person of the employer, an immediate member of the employer’s family, or the employer’s duly authorized representative; and
• The act or omission must be voluntary and/or willful on the part of the employees. (D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 5.2[f])

Conviction or prosecution of the employee is not necessary. A criminal case need not be actually filed. Commission of acts constituting a crime is sufficient. (Nicolas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113948, 1996)

Examples

• Abandonment
• Violation of safety rules
• Gross inefficiency
• Wrongful acts of employee against the company
• Violation of code of discipline
• Failure to heed an order not to join an illegal picket
• Immorality
• Sexual harassment