Notes on employer's right to discipline workers

The right or prerogative to discipline covers the following:

[1] Right to discipline;
[2] Right to dismiss;
[3] Right to determine whom to punish;
[4] Right to promulgate rules and regulations;
[5] Right to impose penalty; proportionality rule;
[6] Right to choose which penalty to impose; and
[7] Right to impose heavier penalty than what the company rules prescribe.

What is the right to discipline?

The employer’s right to conduct the affairs of its business according to its own discretion and judgment includes the prerogative to instill discipline among its employees and to impose reasonable penalties, including dismissal, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative where the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose takes form.

The employer cannot be compelled to maintain in his employ the undeserving, if not undesirable, employees. The only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative to discipline or dismiss erring employees is that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, should be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.

What is the right to dismiss?

The right of the employer to dismiss its erring employees is a measure of self-protection. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privilege in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not towards the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to rule that justice is, in every case, for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.

What is the right to determine whom to punish?

The employer has wide latitude to determine who among its erring officers or employees should be punished, to what extent and what proper penalty to impose.

What is the right to prescribe company rules and regulations or a code of discipline?

The prerogative of an employer to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business and to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with has been recognized in this jurisdiction.

What is the right to impose penalty and the proportionality rule?

The employer may lawfully impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to its company rules and regulations. However, the “proportionality rule” should be observed. This means that infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding sanction demanded by the circumstances. The penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, the act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee and imposed in connection with the employer’s disciplinary authority. Accordingly, in determining the validity of dismissal as a form of penalty, the charges for which an employee is being administratively cited must be of such nature that would merit the imposition of the said supreme penalty. Dismissal should not be imposed if it is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges.What is the right to choose which penalty to impose?

The matter of imposing the appropriate penalty depends on the employer. It is certainly within the employer’s prerogative to impose on the erring employee what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations. Like all other business enterprises, its prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations must be respected.

What is the right to impose heavier penalty than what the company rules prescribe?

The employer has the right to impose a heavier penalty than that prescribed in the company rules and regulations if circumstances warrant the imposition thereof. The fact that the offense was committed for the first time or has not resulted in any prejudice to the company was held not to be a valid excuse. No employer may rationally be expected to continue in employment a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employer’s rules, and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office, has so plainly and completely been bared. Company rules and regulations cannot operate to altogether negate the employer’s prerogative and responsibility to determine and declare whether or not facts not explicitly set out in the rules may and do constitute such serious misconduct as to justify the dismissal of the employee or the imposition of sanctions heavier than those specifically and expressly prescribed therein. This is dictated by logic, otherwise, the rules, literally applied, would result in absurdity; grave offenses, e.g. , rape, would be penalized by mere suspension, this, despite the heavier penalty provided therefor by the Labor Code or otherwise dictated by common sense.

In Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. , Inc. , admittedly, the violation of the company rules committed by petitioner is punishable with the penalty of suspension for the first offense. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of his dismissal because respondent company has presented evidence showing that petitioner has a record of other violations from as far back as 1986.