The National Labor Relations Commission modified the computation of reliefs of backwages and separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in view of her rejection of an alleged offer of reinstatement by the employer. Was this modification sustained by the Supreme Court?
The employee alleged that his employer asked for his resignation. Will this be enough to declare the illegality of his dismissal from employment?
Can this validly-dismissed employee be awarded separation pay?
Did the Supreme Court sustain the computation of separation pay and backwages of this employee who was illegally dismissed then rehired by the same employer?
Will the circumstances in this case justify an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement?
The union members in this case claimed that their employer interfered with their union activities. Did the Supreme Court believe their claim?
The workers of the Continuous Galvanizing Line department of the Philippine Steel Coating Corp. asserted that the awards of backwages and separation pay should have included the period after the closure of the said department until the closure of Philippine Steel Coating Corporation’s entire business. Does this assertion have merit?
Learn why the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s contention that supervening events prevented it from reinstating its employee.
The employer’s redundancy program was found to be valid and the employer was not found to have committed unfair labor practice. Learn why the employer was still held liable for separation pay and backwages for the dismissed employees.
Was the award of separation pay to the employee (who was dismissed for just cause) proper?