Key Takeaway: Employers Can Legally Terminate Employees Due to Redundancy If They Follow Strict Legal Requirements

3M Philippines, Inc. v. Yuseco, G.R. No. 248941, November 09, 2020

In the bustling world of business, companies often face the need to restructure their operations. This can lead to difficult decisions about workforce management, including the termination of employees due to redundancy. For employees like Lauro D. Yuseco, who worked for 3M Philippines, Inc., such decisions can drastically impact their lives. This case highlights the legal nuances of redundancy in the Philippines and what employers must do to ensure their actions are lawful.

The central question in 3M Philippines, Inc. v. Yuseco was whether Yuseco’s termination due to redundancy was legal. Yuseco, a long-time employee, was let go as part of a company reorganization. The case traversed multiple levels of the Philippine judicial system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, which had to determine if 3M’s actions met the legal standards for redundancy.

Legal Context: Understanding Redundancy and Its Requirements

Redundancy, as defined in the Philippine Labor Code, occurs when an employee’s position becomes superfluous due to various factors such as overstaffing, changes in business operations, or the adoption of new technology. Article 298 of the Labor Code allows employers to terminate employment due to redundancy, but they must follow strict procedural and substantive requirements.

These requirements include serving written notices to both the affected employees and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before the termination. Additionally, employers must provide separation pay, which should be at least one month’s pay for every year of service. The redundancy must be implemented in good faith, and employers must use fair and reasonable criteria to determine which positions are redundant.

In practice, this means that a company cannot simply declare redundancy without evidence. For example, if a company decides to automate a process that previously required human labor, it must demonstrate that the automation genuinely makes the positions redundant. This could involve presenting feasibility studies or affidavits from knowledgeable personnel explaining the change.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Lauro D. Yuseco

Lauro D. Yuseco’s journey began when he was called to a meeting on November 25, 2015, where he was informed that his position as Country Business Leader for the Industrial Business Group at 3M Philippines, Inc. was being abolished due to a corporate restructuring. The company was merging the Industrial Business Group with the Safety & Graphics Business Group, resulting in a new Industrial & Safety Market Center.

Yuseco was offered a separation package, but he refused to sign a waiver and quitclaim, leading to his immediate suspension from work. The following day, an announcement was made to the company’s employees that Yuseco was leaving to pursue other opportunities, which he found humiliating. On December 1, 2015, he received a formal notice of separation due to redundancy, effective January 1, 2016.

Yuseco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which led to a series of legal battles. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in his favor, finding the redundancy program to be arbitrary and in bad faith. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, upholding the validity of the redundancy program. The case then went to the Court of Appeals, which sided with Yuseco, ruling that 3M failed to prove the existence of redundancy.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It found that 3M had provided substantial evidence of redundancy, including affidavits from the company’s Human Resource Manager and various documents detailing the restructuring. The Court noted, “Chiongbian’s Affidavit dated March 31, 2016, Supplemental Affidavit dated April 7, 2016, and Supplemental Affidavit dated June 30, 2016 bore petitioner’s innovative thrust to enhance its marketing and sales capability by aligning its business model with some of the 3M subsidiaries in South East Asian Region.”

The Court also emphasized that the letters sent to Yuseco were not contradictory but complementary, stating, “The November 25, 2015 [letter] showed the impending dismissal of complainant due to redundancy and the separation package available to complainant incident thereto.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that Yuseco’s termination was valid, but ordered 3M to pay him the agreed-upon separation package.

Practical Implications: Navigating Redundancy in the Workplace

This ruling reinforces the importance of following legal procedures when implementing redundancy programs. Employers must ensure they have substantial evidence to justify the redundancy and must communicate clearly with affected employees. Failure to do so can lead to costly legal battles and potential reinstatement of terminated employees.

For businesses, this case serves as a reminder to document their restructuring efforts meticulously. This includes maintaining records of the decision-making process, the criteria used for selecting redundant positions, and all communications with employees and the DOLE.

Key Lessons:

• Employers must provide written notices to employees and the DOLE at least one month before termination due to redundancy.
• Separation pay must be provided, calculated as at least one month’s pay for every year of service.
• The redundancy program must be implemented in good faith, with fair and reasonable criteria for selecting redundant positions.
• Substantial evidence, such as affidavits and documentation of business restructuring, is crucial to prove the existence of redundancy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is redundancy in the context of employment?

Redundancy occurs when an employee’s position becomes unnecessary due to changes in the business, such as restructuring, automation, or a decrease in workload.

Can an employer terminate an employee due to redundancy without notice?

No, employers must provide written notices to the affected employees and the DOLE at least one month before the termination date.

What is the required separation pay for redundancy?

Employees terminated due to redundancy are entitled to separation pay equivalent to at least one month’s pay for every year of service.

How can an employer prove redundancy?

Employers can prove redundancy through affidavits, feasibility studies, or documents showing changes in business operations that justify the redundancy.

What should an employee do if they believe their termination due to redundancy is illegal?

Employees should file a complaint with the Labor Arbiter, providing evidence that the employer did not follow legal requirements or acted in bad faith.

Can an employee refuse a separation package offered due to redundancy?

Yes, employees can refuse the package, but they should be aware that this may affect their ability to claim separation pay if the redundancy is found to be legal.

ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.