0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
125 vizualizări1 pagină
Atlantic Gulf implemented a redundancy program in 1987 that resulted in the dismissal of 177 employees, including private respondents Gamboa, Tuason and Din, due to huge operating losses. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled the redundancy program was illegal and ordered reinstatement, which Atlantic Gulf appealed. The Supreme Court had previously ruled another redundancy program by Atlantic Gulf was valid. While Atlantic Gulf rehired some dismissed workers as projects became available, this did not negate the substantial losses that justified the initial redundancy program. The petition was granted, finding the rehiring of workers did not invalidate Atlantic Gulf's redundancy program.
Atlantic Gulf implemented a redundancy program in 1987 that resulted in the dismissal of 177 employees, including private respondents Gamboa, Tuason and Din, due to huge operating losses. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled the redundancy program was illegal and ordered reinstatement, which Atlantic Gulf appealed. The Supreme Court had previously ruled another redundancy program by Atlantic Gulf was valid. While Atlantic Gulf rehired some dismissed workers as projects became available, this did not negate the substantial losses that justified the initial redundancy program. The petition was granted, finding the rehiring of workers did not invalidate Atlantic Gulf's redundancy program.
Atlantic Gulf implemented a redundancy program in 1987 that resulted in the dismissal of 177 employees, including private respondents Gamboa, Tuason and Din, due to huge operating losses. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled the redundancy program was illegal and ordered reinstatement, which Atlantic Gulf appealed. The Supreme Court had previously ruled another redundancy program by Atlantic Gulf was valid. While Atlantic Gulf rehired some dismissed workers as projects became available, this did not negate the substantial losses that justified the initial redundancy program. The petition was granted, finding the rehiring of workers did not invalidate Atlantic Gulf's redundancy program.
ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, employees.
The rehiring or re-employment does not negate the
INC. (AG&P) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS imminence of losses, which prompted Atlantic Gulf to retrench. COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, ENRIQUE M. GAMBOA, CLARO M. TUASON and JOHN DIN [1999] IV. DISPOSITIVE Petition GRANTED. [Puno, J.] V. NOTES I.FACTS In 1987, Atlantic Gulf, a corporation engaged in general construction work, reportedly incurred huge operating losses. To save itself, Atlantic Gulf implemented a redundancy program wherein 177 employees occupying rank and file, managerial and staff positions were separated from employment. Among them were private respondents Gamboa, Tuason and Din, all members of the AG&P United Rank and File Association (AG&P URFA), the certified collective bargaining representative for all rank and file employees of Atlantic Gulf. These employees received all the benefits due them under the Labor Code. They also signed releases indicating their conformity with petitioner's redundancy program. More than a year after, Atlantic Gulf was charged with unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal by private respondents. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private respondents declaring the redundancy program illegal and ordered their reinstatement and payment of attorney's fees. Public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on appeal, affirmed in toto the decision of the labor arbiter. Hence, the present petition. Atlantic contended that the NLRC cannot overturn the decision of the Supreme Court dated November 29, 1996 in the case of AG&P United Rank and File Association v. NLRC and AG&P, a case also involving Atlantic Gulf and other employees (not herein respondents) affected by the redundancy program. In the said case, the Court ruled in favor of Atlantic Gulf and held the dismissal of employees valid. Among the arguments of herein respondents was that the redundancy program was actually a union busting scheme of the management, aimed at removing union officers who staged a strike, as evidenced by the fact that the company rehired some of its dismissed workers. II. ISSUE WON the Atlantic Gulf’s act of rehiring its dismissed workers negated its claim of substantial losses which justified its redundancy program- NO III. RATIONALE While it is true that the company hired or re-employed some of the dismissed workers, it has been shown that such action was made only as company projects became available and that it was done in pursuance of the company's policy of giving preference to its former workers in the rehiring of project