This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA found that Jardine's act of hiring contractual employees in replacement of the petitioners does not run counter to the argument that their positions are already superfluous.[29] According to the CA, the hiring of contractual employees is a management prerogative that Jardine has the right to exercise.[30] In the absence of any showing of malice or arbitrariness on the part of Jardine in implementing its redundancy program, the courts must not interfere with the company's exercise of a bona fide management decision.[31] The CA cited for this purpose the case of De Ocampo v. National Labor Relations Commission[32] which explains: The reduction of the number of workers in a company made necessary by the introduction of the services of Gemac Machineries in the maintenance and repair of its industrial machinery is justified. There can be no question as to the right of the company to contract the services of Gemac Machineries to replace the services rendered by the terminated mechanics with a view to effecting more economic and efficient methods of production. | |||||
|
2013-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| case has one of the restrictions- the presence of specific CBA provisions unlike in San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira,[26] De Ocampo v. NLRC,[27] Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, [28] and Serrano v. NLRC[29] cited by the Company. To reiterate, the CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[30] | |||||