Position Paper Draft Sample
Position Paper Draft Sample
Position Paper Draft Sample
Complainant,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
(For the Complainants)
THE PARTIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
However, on November 19, 2017, merely three months in, since the SM
KEPPEL Project started the HRD officer summoned the Complainant and informed
him that he has been terminated. When the complainant asked why he was being
terminated, he was informed that management decided to reduce staff members.
The Complainant argued that, it was clearly stated in the contract that his stay
with the company was CO-TERMINUS with the SM KEPPEL PROJECT, and as
such, his termination would be premature and thereby illegal. Also, he was merely
verbally terminated and was not given any prior written notice. This prevented him to
prepare for his untimely separation with the company causing him, and his family
much hardship in the succeeding days after he was terminated.
3
When the Complainant found out that he was a candidate for termination by
reason of the said incident, he informed the company that he did not violate any rule
nor committed any action contrary to the rules of the company since at that time he
was “Caught sleeping” he was not on duty. To attest the same, attached hereto as
“ANNEX C” is his LOG SHEET. Clearly showing that on November 29, 2017 he
was already OFF DUTY when he was caught sleeping.
Both SAFETY OFFICERS seek the help of this Honorable Office, because to
their minds, the Respondent company violated their labor rights specifically their
contractual right of security of tenure. The project has not been completed when they
were both terminated. In addition for Complainant Lumanao, he was illegally
terminated without any valid reason.
Both employees are also adamant that their termination was done illegally.
Sometime on December 2017 when they visited their former work place, they
observed that there were already NEW safety officers who were from another project
(OKADA project) who replaced them. Hence, if there was actually a need to reduce
staff on November 2017, hiring new people to replace them was simply illogical.
4
ISSUES
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
Section 1 (c), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code states:
xxxx
The law clearly states that “no employee shall be dismissed prior to the
completion of the project or phase thereof for which the employee was engaged.
Hence, the termination of complainant Retable obviously runs contrary to the spirit
of the law because at the time he was terminated, the SM KEPPEL PROJECT has not
yet been completed.
The respondent company clearly acted in bad faith and wanton disregard of
rules and procedures laid down by law. He should have not been terminated.
Law provides that project based employees may only be terminated while the
project for which the employees has been hired if (1) the project has already been
completed, (2) if the time or term of the project has already lapsed (3) if there are just
causes which merit his termination provided due process is observed.
Item number three (3) was not applied in this case because his (Lumanao)
termination was not due to a just cause and his counter evidence submitted was
simply disregarded by the respondent company.
In Brahm Industries, Inc. vs NLRC (G.R. No. 118853, October 16, 1997), the
Supreme Court had made it clear that the matter concerning the dismissal of workers
are admittedly within the ambit of management prerogative. However, there were
certain requirements laid down by law which must be complied with to insure that the
prerogative is exercised without arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. Our legal system
dictates that both the reason for and the manner of dismissing a worker must be
appropriate otherwise the termination itself is gravely defective and may be declared
unlawful. This is because a worker’s job has some of the characteristics of
property rights and is therefore within the constitutional mantle of protection
that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
of law nor shall any persons be denied the equal protection of the laws.
6
Considering that the complainants were made to discontinue their work for no
valid reason, they are entitled to reinstatement (if project has not yet been completed)
with full back-wages or separation pay and other benefits due him as provided for
under Labor Code.
In labor cases, however, in order to warrant an award for moral and exemplary
damages, it is not enough that the private complainant suffered injuries. It is of
greatest necessity that the injuries sustained by the private complainant arises out
from the wrongful or perverse act by the respondent. The act of the employer in
illegally terminating or dismissing the employee must be attended by bad faith, fraud
or constitute an act oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to laws, morals,
good customs or public policy.
7
In the instant case, not only was there a violation or breach of the
complainant’s right to security of tenure, but more importantly, the respondents acted
fraudulently, in evident bad faith and wanton disregard of the protection accorded by
labor to the working class when it disregarded the complainants’ right to due process.
Finally, in order to deter other employer from adopting similar devious acts
and to serve as an example to the public in general, public policy dictates that the
wanton and malevolent attitude of the employer be suppressed. Henceforth, the
award of exemplary damages is proper.
c) Moral and Exemplary damages and Attorney’s fees, the amounts of which
are left to the sound discretion of this Honorable Office.
1
Both complainants have a monthly salary of P14,500.00.
8
Other reliefs just and equitable under the laws and jurisprudence are likewise
prayed for.
By:
I, the undersigned affiant, after being duly sworn in accordance with law,
depose and state that:
2. I have caused the preparation of the above Position Paper, the contents of
which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge;