PEx Highlights

Wake Me Up When You Show Me Your Teeths!

In this week's Show Me Your Teeths!, the ladies talk about the -ber months, the upcoming Bench Fashion Show and the Cosmo Bachelor Bash.

read more

Calling All Travel Bloggers!

Wanna get featured in PEx-Travel? Share with us your travel blogs and have your entries promoted around PinoyExchange!

read more

MOVIE REVIEW: The Giver

Very promising, but tries too hard to fit in the mold of the Hunger Games/Divergent series.

read more

FIBA FEATURE: Do We Stand a Chance?

Do we really have a shot to make it through? JPM weighs in on the the odds of Gilas Pilipinas in the FIBA World Cup.

read more

Watch 'The Legend Ends' Trailer!

Check out the trailer of the final instalment of the Rurouni Kenshin series, 'The Legend Ends.'

read more

PHOTOS: UE Keep Final Four Dream Alive

Despite not fielding in Roi Sumang, the UE Red Warriors managed to get a 64-55 win over the NU Bulldogs.

read more

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33
  1. #1

    Unfair Dismissal ~Call Center

    i'm not sure if i'm on the right forum, I just want to ask if there's any lawyer here who can help me out to file against my previous employer for Unfair dismissal.

    My issue was; I got terminated 3 months ago because of "Call Avoidance" they told me that it was written in our employee handbook that "Call avoidance" is a terminable offense and they have found me guilty, so I got terminated. I took it po as unfair dismissal kc *** tl ko indi man lang i-nalam whats going-on with my attitude towards work, 3 yrs ako nag work sa kanila, this year medyo tinamad and pumetiks ayun nahanapan nila ako ng butas and got terminated.

    ask ko *** din po how can I file a case against them and kung edge ba ako to win the case?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Doon ka sa Business and Careers forum kuya

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by kitburnz View Post
    i'm not sure if i'm on the right forum, I just want to ask if there's any lawyer here who can help me out to file against my previous employer for Unfair dismissal.

    My issue was; I got terminated 3 months ago because of "Call Avoidance" they told me that it was written in our employee handbook that "Call avoidance" is a terminable offense and they have found me guilty, so I got terminated. I took it po as unfair dismissal kc *** tl ko indi man lang i-nalam whats going-on with my attitude towards work, 3 yrs ako nag work sa kanila, this year medyo tinamad and pumetiks ayun nahanapan nila ako ng butas and got terminated.

    ask ko *** din po how can I file a case against them and kung edge ba ako to win the case?

    Thanks!
    There are no gray areas sa issue ng "call avoidance". Hindi rin kelangan i-consider na 3 taon ka na sa kanila. You signed the contract that includes call avoidance as a terminable offense. Sabi mo nga, tinamad ka at pumetiks. Kasalanan mo na nag-avoid ka ng call at nahuli ka.

    You have 0 chance of winning a case against them. Unless hindi mo talaga ginawa yung sinasabi nila na ginawa mo. But you admitted na tinamad ka at pumetiks.

  4. #4
    yea.. it would've been better if you found a better excuse for it..

    pero i approve of your honesty.. nevertheless, i don't think you're
    gonna win that case either..

  5. #5

  6. #6
    whERe aM i? LoCkSmItH99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    giTNa nG kaWaLaN
    even if you go to NLRC, if your contract says that you should avoid call avoidance with termination as your penalty and you did avoid taking calls, then the company has every right to terminate your services.

    it doesn't matter how long have you been working in that company. the important thing is that you follow your companies rules and regulations. failure to do is has their own sanctions and penalties.

    all you can hope for right now is for you to get the right compensation for serving them for 3 years.

  7. #7
    Banned by Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    S.W.I.F.T
    https://x4zrcq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1ml0VlFOxm5oksJjZU_k54jGc4ua2QTsy5IusDGXksqNZh-PzbCYKwwdk5SV2TcvG2JgV-Vvdp2q2s7dORzaD28Retr62tPCsZMmrmUcItPn8H6I4UBnSnNfZCLLlO6PSiOQuzkbBm4OnFlLUDoujmOQ/starting%20to%20pour%20cement%20by%20hand.jpg

    A perfect whole day work for a sex deviant offending employee.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/23/article-1153004-03A229F6000005DC-644_634x420.jpg

    Or this.

  8. #8
    you may want to take my advice . . . "case avoidance"

  9. Advertisement

  10. #9
    Tingin ko, you have a good chance of winning.

    Call avoidance is difficult to prove. Furthermore, burden of proof is in their hands. Isa pa, tingin ko malupit na kaparusahan yun specially kung first offense lang even though it is in the rules and regulations.

    Kung may kahit na katiting na duda, ang pabor ay ibinibigay sa manggawagawa.

    File ka ng complaint for illegal dismissal sa NLRC sa Banawe St., Quezon City.

    TINGIN KO MANANALO KA!

  11. #10
    ..unless may cctv camera sila na may time-stamp..

  12. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibradi View Post
    Tingin ko, you have a good chance of winning.

    Call avoidance is difficult to prove. Furthermore, burden of proof is in their hands. Isa pa, tingin ko malupit na kaparusahan yun specially kung first offense lang even though it is in the rules and regulations.

    Kung may kahit na katiting na duda, ang pabor ay ibinibigay sa manggawagawa.

    File ka ng complaint for illegal dismissal sa NLRC sa Banawe St., Quezon City.

    TINGIN KO MANANALO KA!
    not really, especially if such act was caught by admin during random call monitoring. call centers randomly record calls being taken or transferred to agents. the complainant will have a difficult time proving that doing said act is unintentional especially if that's going to be the complainant's excuse.

    If there was a specific provision in your contract that says that call avoidance is punishable by termination or suspension and the company was able to prove it by showing the call records to you or to authorities..then the employee will have a slim chance of winning this case...

    like what others have said, take your chances and go to nlrc, consult a labor lawyer..file a complaint if that's what you want, pero baka mahirapan ka kahit na may laban ka, for the meantime, apply ka na muna sa ibang center, kaya mo yan kid!

  13. #12
    whERe aM i? LoCkSmItH99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    giTNa nG kaWaLaN
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibradi View Post
    Tingin ko, you have a good chance of winning.

    Call avoidance is difficult to prove. Furthermore, burden of proof is in their hands. Isa pa, tingin ko malupit na kaparusahan yun specially kung first offense lang even though it is in the rules and regulations.

    Kung may kahit na katiting na duda, ang pabor ay ibinibigay sa manggawagawa.

    File ka ng complaint for illegal dismissal sa NLRC sa Banawe St., Quezon City.

    TINGIN KO MANANALO KA!


    kung sa call center ka nagtatrabaho, alam mong maraming meanign ang call avoidance depende sa call center na pinapagtrabahuhan mo. and they have records of that said call avoidance kasi laam nilang maaring habulin sila ng empleyadong ipinatanggal nila.

  14. #13
    kaya malakas ang loob ng company mo iterminate ka eh dahil may proof sila... sa callcenter, ang aux codes mo monitored, possible na ilan araw sila nagmonitor sayo... saka 3 months ago pa yun di ba? nun time na kinausap ka for termination, di ba nila prinesent sayo yung proof? lumaban ka ba that time to prove na di mo ginawa yun?

  15. #14
    Mercy In You
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Metro Manila
    Kumakampi pa kayo sa umamin na ngang pumetiks at tinamad this year

  16. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by kitburnz View Post
    i'm not sure if i'm on the right forum, I just want to ask if there's any lawyer here who can help me out to file against my previous employer for Unfair dismissal.

    My issue was; I got terminated 3 months ago because of "Call Avoidance" they told me that it was written in our employee handbook that "Call avoidance" is a terminable offense and they have found me guilty, so I got terminated. I took it po as unfair dismissal kc *** tl ko indi man lang i-nalam whats going-on with my attitude towards work, 3 yrs ako nag work sa kanila, this year medyo tinamad and pumetiks ayun nahanapan nila ako ng butas and got terminated.

    ask ko *** din po how can I file a case against them and kung edge ba ako to win the case?

    Thanks!
    Don't think of it as termination or dismissal. Think of it as "Salary avoidance".

  17. #16
    Meron ba silang twin notice ? Have they informed you about your violation in writing ? Were you given enough time to explain yourself ? Were you been informed in writing that you have been terminated because of such cause ?

    Kung walang twin notice, lotats na agad sila.

    Tape recording is not admissable as evidence. Burden of proof is on them. I am sure "call avoidance"is difficult to prove. Furthermore, they have to prove that there was malice or bad faith.

    Furthermore, hindi lahat nang nasa rules eh LAWFUL. Paano kung nasa rules na maduming kuko lang pwede nang tanggalin ? Sa kaso mo, specially kung first time lang, masyadong malupit kung tanggal agad ang parusa.

    Ilaban mo. Mananalo ka....

    Punata ka sa NLRC sa Banawe. May form na ipapafill up sa yo. Bobolahin para mapunta kung kaninong arbiter.


    ( Pssst.....pro-labopr ang karamighan sa NLRC. Lalo na ngayon at presidente na si PNoy. )

  18. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibradi View Post
    Meron ba silang twin notice ? Have they informed you about your violation in writing ? Were you given enough time to explain yourself ? Were you been informed in writing that you have been terminated because of such cause ?

    Kung walang twin notice, lotats na agad sila.

    Tape recording is not admissable as evidence. Burden of proof is on them. I am sure "call avoidance"is difficult to prove. Furthermore, they have to prove that there was malice or bad faith.

    Furthermore, hindi lahat nang nasa rules eh LAWFUL. Paano kung nasa rules na maduming kuko lang pwede nang tanggalin ? Sa kaso mo, specially kung first time lang, masyadong malupit kung tanggal agad ang parusa.

    Ilaban mo. Mananalo ka....

    Punata ka sa NLRC sa Banawe. May form na ipapafill up sa yo. Bobolahin para mapunta kung kaninong arbiter.


    ( Pssst.....pro-labopr ang karamighan sa NLRC. Lalo na ngayon at presidente na si PNoy. )
    i disagree.

    take note that in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those with the NLRC, the burden of proof is only SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. it is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other reasonable minds would opine otherwise. it's a low standard of proof. as long as the labor arbiter can support his decision with at least some reasonable amount of evidence upon the whole record in favor of the winning party, the courts will generally refrain from disturbing such findings even if an equally reasonable conclusion may be drawn from the same facts, especially on questions of fact such as whether or not the employee committed the acts that caused his dismissal. tape recordings, i believe, are more than reasonable to support a conclusion of "call avoidance," whatever that is.

    also, under rule VII, section 10 of the 2005 NLRC rules of procedure, the rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling in NLRC proceedings, and the NLRC shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. that means that they can admit evidence in whatever form, whether or not it is allowed in accordance with the rules of court or other rules of evidence in binding in courts of law. quasi-judicial agencies, by their nature, are given that kind of flexibility in adopting procedural rules that courts do not possess. in the first place, i don't know why and under what rule of evidence is a tape recording inadmissible when all the parties in the conversation authorize its recording. it is SOP in call centers to first ask the customer whether or not it is ok with them to have the conversation recorded. certainly, it is ok with the employee because it comes with his job and in fact, he's the one who will offer to ask. besides, proof does not have to be indubitable and any other form of evidence not excluded by special law may be admissible in an administrative proceeding, as already explained above. it does not necessarily have to be a tape recording. as long as it can prove to the satisfaction of the labor arbiter (using only substantial evidence as a standard) that the act which led to the dismissal was committed, then the labor arbiter can make such finding and justify it with that evidence.

    for the TS's guidance, before he decides to go through the trouble and expense of litigation.

  19. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by neinsager View Post
    i disagree.

    take note that in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those with the NLRC, the burden of proof is only SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. it is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other reasonable minds would opine otherwise. it's a low standard of proof. as long as the labor arbiter can support his decision with at least some reasonable amount of evidence upon the whole record in favor of the winning party, the courts will generally refrain from disturbing such findings even if an equally reasonable conclusion may be drawn from the same facts, especially on questions of fact such as whether or not the employee committed the acts that caused his dismissal. tape recordings, i believe, are more than reasonable to support a conclusion of "call avoidance," whatever that is.

    also, under rule VII, section 10 of the 2005 NLRC rules of procedure, the rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling in NLRC proceedings, and the NLRC shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. that means that they can admit evidence in whatever form, whether or not it is allowed in accordance with the rules of court or other rules of evidence in binding in courts of law. quasi-judicial agencies, by their nature, are given that kind of flexibility in adopting procedural rules that courts do not possess. in the first place, i don't know why and under what rule of evidence is a tape recording inadmissible when all the parties in the conversation authorize its recording. it is SOP in call centers to first ask the customer whether or not it is ok with them to have the conversation recorded. certainly, it is ok with the employee because it comes with his job and in fact, he's the one who will offer to ask. besides, proof does not have to be indubitable and any other form of evidence not excluded by special law may be admissible in an administrative proceeding, as already explained above. it does not necessarily have to be a tape recording. as long as it can prove to the satisfaction of the labor arbiter (using only substantial evidence as a standard) that the act which led to the dismissal was committed, then the labor arbiter can make such finding and justify it with that evidence.

    for the TS's guidance, before he decides to go through the trouble and expense of litigation.
    I would agree that this is a more sound advice.

    Instead of going through the difficult process of litigation.. TS should just consider concentrating his/her efforts in finding a new job.

  20. #19
    LoL @ Walls of Text.

    well best of luck ts with your possible settlement cash!

  21. #20
    ^ i think however that if the employee is to win this case, it's not through procedural maneuvering by trying to suppress evidence of the other party but through substantive grounds, such as the violation of his right of security of tenure. what i mean exactly is that the labor code (article 282) enumerates the causes of termination of employment. if he is dismissed for any cause other than those enumerated (or those similar or analogous to those expressly enumerated), then the dismissal is illegal and he will be entitled to reinstatement and backwages in accordance with article 279.

    one of the grounds in article 282 is gross and HABITUAL neglect by the employee of his duties. if it is just one act, such as that single act of "call avoidance," then it's not habitual. therefore, even assuming that it is gross neglect, it will not be a valid ground for termination. however, as the TS admits, medyo tinatamad sya lately. there's really no hard and fast rule as to what kind of neglect is gross or habitual and it is addressed to the sound discretion of the labor arbiter. if he can convince the labor arbiter that his acts of neglect were isolated and/or do not show a failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, then just maybe, he might win.

    however, the fact that he was removed summarily and in violation of the twin notice rule will not "win" him the case in the sense that he will be entitled to be reinstated and be given backwages. hindi "tolats" kaagad ang empleyado. the rule has been definitively set in agabon vs. NLRC (2004) that where the dismissal is found to be for a just cause (ie for a cause enumerated under article 282, such as gross and habitual neglect of duty), the lack of statutory due process (ie violation of the twin notice rule) will not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. however, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights, in order to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later." specifically, the employer would be required to give the dismissed employee nominal damages only, not full backwages let alone reinstatement.

    TS, in simple words, if you were removed for a valid cause, even if they removed you in violation of proper procedure, then you will not be able to get your job back or be paid the salaries that would have accrued in your favor if you had not been dismissed. you may, however, be paid only nominal damages, for their violation of your right to (procedural) due process. please be reminded that nominal damages, by their nature, are paid only in recognition and vindication of your procedural rights, and are therefore supposed to be miminal.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Advertisement


Hot Topics

GILAS:

Gallant Gilas Pilipinas drops to 0-3 after 85-81 defeat vs Argentina

Gallant Gilas Pilipinas drops to 0-3 after 85-81 defeat vs Argentina

read more
SHOWBIZ:

Veteran actor Mark Gil passes away at 52

Veteran actor Mark Gil passes away at 52

read more
MUSIC:

Eraserheads to release two new songs

Eraserheads to release two new songs

read more
SPORTS:

Philippine Army crowned V-League Open Conference champions

Philippine Army crowned V-League Open Conference champions

read more
UAAP:

Red Warriors keep Final Four dream alive with 64-55 win over Bulldogs

Red Warriors keep Final Four dream alive with 64-55 win over Bulldogs

read more
CHIT CHAT:

Anong masasabi mo sa Anti-Selfie Bill?

Anong masasabi mo sa Anti-Selfie Bill?

read more

Advertisement