Daisy’s Department Store hired Leo as a checker to apprehend shoplifters. Leo later became Chief of the Checkers Section and acquired the status of a regular employee. By way of a cost-cutting measure, Daisy’s decided to abolish the entire Checkers Section. The services of Leo, along with those of his co-employees working in the same section, were terminated on the same day. A month after the dismissal of Leo, Daisy’s engaged the services of another person as an ordinary checker and with a salary much lower than that which Leo used to receive. Given the above factual settings (nothing more having been established), could the dismissal of Leo be successfully assailed by him?


Suggested Answer:

Yes, Leo can successfully assail his dismissal based on the following grounds:

  1. Failure of Daisy’s Department Store to establish by convincing evidence the justification for the dismissal based on retrenchment or redundacy, i.e., that the cost-cutting measure is sought in order to prevent or minimize substantial business losses or expected losses;
  2. Failure to observe the one (1) month notice rule required under Article 283 of the Labor Code.


Be the first to comment

Add your comment now