282 of the Labor Code, reveals that an employee who is dismissed for cause after appropriate proceedings in compliance with due process requirements is not entitled to an award of separation pay. The Labor Code of the Philippines Annotated – Volume II).Īn employee who is dismissed for just cause is generally not entitled to separation pay. The basis of the grant of financial assistance is equity. SEPARATION PAY AS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN LEGAL DISMISSAL UNDER ART. Disease as a Ground of Termination – An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year. The Labor Code of the Philippines Annotated – Volume II).Īrt. In case the CBA or company policy provides for a higher separation pay, the same must be followed instead of the one provided in Article 283. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. An employee lawfully dismissed for a just cause is not entitled to any separation pay while an employee separated for an authorized cause is entitled to separation pay in accordance with the rates prescribed by law. Perhaps the exchange will lead to a new Fox show, “When Justices Attack.”Įnter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.SEPARATION PAY FOR AUTHORIZED CAUSES UNDER ARTS. Of course, there is ample grounds for skepticism when dealing with any faux judge. This discrepancy led Justice Anthony Kennedy to ask, “Shouldn’t we view with some skepticism what you tell us?” Eric Brunstad, faced questioning by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others who noted that Preston says that he is licensed and Brunstad admitted that his brief should have been more clear on the point. The justices seems to take Ferrer’s lawyer to task over his bald assertion that Preston is unlicensed. “And I am sure that when you say you’ll arbitrate, it means you won’t litigate.” Notably, Justice Scalia cited his time as a law professor to question Ferrer’s claims: “I used to teach contract law,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. Ferrer claims that Preston is not a licensed talent agent and that state law required that the contract be reviewed by the agency. It comes down to both the binding elements of the arbitration clause and the preemption of the federal arbitration law over such state rules. His contract stipulates such arbitration but Ferrer argues that California regulation of talent agents permits the state agency to review the legality of the contract. Ferrer wants to avoid arbitration under a contract that allows Preston to receive 12 percent of a contract. Ferrer has a syndicated court show on Fox.įerrer’s contractual claim seems quite weak. I cannot say that I has ever heard of Judge Alex but as a this column indicates, I have a very low regard for such faux jurists and their impact on the public’s view of the law. Alex Ferrer’s contract dispute with an artists’ manager, Arnold Preston, made it to the Supreme Court this week and most justices appeared to reject the TV judge’s claims in the contract dispute. “Judge Alex” may get good review on his TV faux court show, but he faced decidedly poor review before real justices on the Supreme Court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |