31 March 2010

Probationary Employee

What are the grounds for the termination of a Probationary Employee?

Who is a probationary employee?
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer. The word "probationary", as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer at the same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. (Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio Faculty Education Workers Union, 1999)


What are the grounds for terminating a probationary employee?
Article 281 states that a probationary employee can be legally terminated: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. The limitations in dismissing a probationary employee are:
First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract.
Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law;
Third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.
In the recent case of Dusit Hotel Nikko vs. Gatbonton (G.R. No. 161654, 5 May 2006), the Supreme Court found that the employer failed to present proof that the employee was evaluated or that his probationary employment was validly extended.
In this case, the employee was hired for a 3-month probationary period (the period provided by law is six months, but this may be shortened or, in appropriate cases, extended by agreement between the employer and the employee). For its defense, the employer claimed that the 3-month probationary employment was extended for another 2 months because the employee was not yet ready for regular employment. The employer presented, as proof, a Personnel Action Form containing the recommendation.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the Personnel Action Form: (1) was prepared on only in the fourth month, well after the 3-month period provided under the contract of employment; (2) the recommended action was actually termination of probationary employment, and not extension of probation period; (3) the action form did not contain the results of the respondent's evaluation; (4) the action form spoke of an attached memo that allegedly contains the recommendation for extension, but the memo was not presented; (5) the action form did not bear the respondent's signature.
Therefore, in the absence of any evaluation or valid extension, there is no basis to show if the employee indeed failed to meet the standards of performance previously set.

Effect of validly terminating a probationary employment:
At the expiration of the probationary period, the status of the employee becomes regular. Since the employee in the Dusit Hotel Nikko case was not dismissed for a just or authorized cause, his dismissal was illegal, and he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges as well as to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Credits:
Published by Atty. Fred July 25th, 2006 in Corporate and Investments and Litigation and Labor Law in http://jlp-law.com/blog/probationary-employment/#respond

4 comments:

darklady said...

attorney na attorney dating ah..mahirap course mo noh? nga pala wat year ka na? di bale worth it naman din yung pinag aaralan nyo..good luck!! ^_^

nga pala pandang panda dating ng blog mo ah..^_^ cute!

Rah said...

hindi naman :) may nagtatanong kasi sakin kung anong karapatan ng isang probationary na empleyado eh, yan pinost ko nalang din para mabasa din ng iba.

Si panda ay fiction lang. Lahat ng nangyayari sa kanya ay kathang isip lamang, anu mang pagkakapareho sa tunay na buhay ay sadyang aksidente lamang. hihihi

Bobodawiseman said...

Uy! ngayon ko lang nakita to tol. Anyway, it looks like we will go to battle, ayaw nila patalo na mali nga sila eh.

Rah said...

Go lang tol. If there's a right, there's a remedy. Kung may katwiran, ipaglaban mo. But just don't take it too seriously. Enjoy mo lang siguro.