<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>@bogadomo.com &#187; Labor Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.abogadomo.com/archives/tag/labor-law/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.abogadomo.com</link>
	<description>Philippine Law. Simple.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:27:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Q&amp;A: In order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, what elements must be present or concur?</title>
		<link>http://www.abogadomo.com/archives/942</link>
		<comments>http://www.abogadomo.com/archives/942#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>abogadomo.com</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Q&A]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FASAP vs. PAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retrenchment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.abogadomo.com/?p=942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, all of the following elements under Article 283 of the Labor Code must concur or be present, to wit: (1)        That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">all</span></strong> of the following elements under Article 283 of the Labor Code must concur or be present, to wit:</p>
<p>(1)        That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely <em>de minimis</em>, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;</p>
<p>(2)        That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;</p>
<p>(3)        That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher;</p>
<p>(4)        That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right to security of tenure; and,</p>
<p>(5)        That the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers. (<a href="http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/178083.htm" target="_blank">FASAP vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 178083, October 2, 2009</a>)</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.tanjutcolaw.com/laborlaw_1.html" target="_blank">Click here for more Labor Law Q&amp;A&#8217;s</a></li>
<li>Powered by <a href="http://www.tanjutcolaw.com" target="_blank">Tanjutco Law Office</a></li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.abogadomo.com/archives/942/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
