This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In any event, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the Labor Arbiter and NLRC rulings that the termination of petitioner Almoite and the other employees of respondent company. As explained by the NLRC, the termination of petitioner Almoite was a necessary consequence of the partial closure of operations of respondent company. Petitioner Almoite's work as an oiler for both the wet line and dry line has become redundant or superfluous following the closure of the wet line. By and large, the determination of whether to maintain or phase out an entire department or section or to reduce personnel lies with the management.[16]Thus, his termination on the ground of redundancy is an authorized cause for termination under Article 283 of the Labor Code. | |||||