hmmidontknow Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 good lawyer pls guve your argument on this topic... http://manilatonight.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=4866343 Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Is a minimum period in a contract of employment not a valid provision? If an employer provides training, education or out of country training to an employee, it would incur costs. Would it not be reasonable for it to require a minimum employment period with a provision for reimbursement if the employee decides to resign? I mean, you hear about PBA players having a number of years contract, is this binding only to the employer and the player could quit anytime because he despises the team he's playing for? For all intents and purposes, resignation would still amount to the violation of the period of employment agreed upon. A minimum period of employment, if the employer provides for training, etc. is a perfectly valid provision. Provided that that the employment will not amount to involuntary servitude. Example is if the employer is the one who provided for the IT training of an employee but the minimum period of employment required the employee trained to render service for 12 straight hours a day without night salary differential or overtime pay. (Actually, what amounts to involuntary servitude is a case to case basis. It really depends on the situation). In our example, if after IT training, the employee trained is required only to render srvice for eight hours (which is allowable uinder Labor Laws) and excess hours entitles him to OT pay, that is valid. In such a case, if the minimum employment period is, say 3 months and the employee resigns before the lapse of this period, the employer is entitled to demand reimbursement. That would also be fair and legal. Just remember always that if the employer is the one who provided for the training of the employee, the first presumption is that the employer is doing it for its (employer) benefit so that it can expect better performance from the employee trained. If after training, the employee suddenly resigns without justifiable reason, of course, it will be unfair to the employer who spend money for the training so the law allows it to require some fair reimbursement. Of course, if the employer itself is the one which gave cause why the employee was forced to resign, the employee can always invoke that in order to justify his resignation and to avoid being forced to give reimbursement. As I had said in my earlier statements, the law cannot force anybody to remain in a group, association or company which he doesn't want to be connected any longer. Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 a good argument. when is "breach of contract" null & void given the circumstances above? When is breach of contract null and void. That is a trick question. If it is a breach of contract, then the party which committed the breach may be held liable. But exactly when is a "violation" considered as a breach of contract? Answer: If the violation is minor and does not substantially alter the actual intent of the parties, then the violation can not actually be called as breach of contract. Example. In a company, an employee was trained, at the expense of the employer, in IT and after training, the employee is assigned at the personnel records division where computers are also used. The employee complains and says that he thought that he will be assigned to the Operations division of that company. Is there breach of contract on the part of the company? No. This may be construed as mere misunderstanding. But let us say that after the IT training, the employee was assigned at a division where he is required to do manual labor. Is there a breach of contract on the part of the company? Of course. If the employee refuse to work and in fact resigns, can the company sue him for reimbursement? Obviously the company is the one which gave cause why the employee was forced to resign. In this case, the employee can always invoke this issue as justification for his resignation and to avoid being held liable for reimbursement. So going back to the original question, "when is breach of contract null and void under the circumstances above?" Answer: Breach of contract, by definition, is a violation of the essential terms and conditions of the contract. Which means, it is not allowed by law and those who commit it may be held liable. But, if the one sued has justifiable reasons for the breach, her may get away with it. Quote Link to comment
jps0218 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Hi, seriously need advice regarding the following labor situation. http://manilatonight.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=4865033 TIA Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 can we clarrify the meaning of training... in terms of this issuewhat are the things to consider that the employer really gives the employee.. a training... in my case...the company just told me that they trained me.... because i use their facility when i start at their company....at the same time my actual project is being initiated... it is more than a test for me rather than a training.... but pls give me some advice... much thanks.... Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 can we clarrify the meaning of training... in terms of this issuewhat are the things to consider that the employer really gives the employee.. a training... in my case...the company just told me that they trained me.... because i use their facility when i start at their company....at the same time my actual project is being initiated... it is more than a test for me rather than a training.... but pls give me some advice... much thanks.... When we say training, that means training in the strict sense. May intsructor teaching you the hows and whys of the skill until you get proficient in it. If the company merely allowed you to use their facility, that is not training. And the company cannot charge you anything (or any amount) for the use of any of their facilities. In this case, the more that they cannot hold you liable for it. Strictly speaking, there is no training (if what you said is exactly what happened) Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 can we clarrify the meaning of training... in terms of this issuewhat are the things to consider that the employer really gives the employee.. a training... in my case...the company just told me that they trained me.... because i use their facility when i start at their company....at the same time my actual project is being initiated... it is more than a test for me rather than a training.... but pls give me some advice... much thanks.... follow - up i can say that its just part of my time table.... for the project assign to me...but i dont understand why they call it training.. just because i use their computer while im doing my job.... Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 follow - up i can say that its just part of my time table.... for the project assign to me...but i dont understand why they call it training.. just because i use their computer while im doing my job.... Thats not "training" bro. Dapat yata bigyan mo sila ng dictionary. Hehe Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Thats not "training" bro. Dapat yata bigyan mo sila ng dictionary. Hehe the actual thing happen is that the team leader just assign me thisthing to be done... from 1 assignmnet to another... Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 what if the company still insist the argument.. what kind of evidence can they show to prove that there was an actual training... kelangan po ba may certificate or trainor....or kelangan po ba mapatunayan na proficient na.... yung employee... lets say... nde pumasa.. or something masasabi po ba natin na liable padin....or lets say na ganun na nga po ang nagyari... is this subject to criminial offense...???? or something that can damage any document that the employee have.. like NBI or Police pls help... just a hypothesis... tmany thanks po..senxa nasa pangngulit... Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 what if the company still insist the argument.. what kind of evidence can they show to prove that there was an actual training... kelangan po ba may certificate or trainor....or kelangan po ba mapatunayan na proficient na.... yung employee... lets say... nde pumasa.. or something masasabi po ba natin na liable padin....or lets say na ganun na nga po ang nagyari... is this subject to criminial offense...???? or something that can damage any document that the employee have.. like NBI or Police pls help... just a hypothesis... tmany thanks po..senxa nasa pangngulit... Well, the only evidence I can think of to prove that there exists an actual training are: certificate of training, attendance sheet signed by the trained employee, contract where the employee agreed to be trained at the expense of the emplkoyer, or anything similar. These are documentary evidence. There is also such a thing as testimonial evidence where eyewitnesses may testify to prove that an actual training was done and that the subject employee (you in this case) participated. Mayroon ba? If none, then that means they have no evidence against you. If the employee was actually trained but hindi pumasa, the employer cannot force him to pay up. As I have said, training is usually for the benefit of the employer so that it will get better performance from the employee. If the employee failed, there is nothing they can do about it. The employee cannot be held liable. Walang criminal liability dito (kung hindi pumasa ang employee sa training) and consequently, no criminal offense committed. Your employment record is perfectly safe. You know, the only thing which may affect a person's record (NBI, police) is a criminal record. In your case, I can't think of any case na puwede nilang isampa. Certainly, no crime committed. Hindi rin ito magku-qualify as a labor case. Civil case (in case they want a reimbursement of the "training" expenses)? As we had seen, walang training na nangyari (assuming that what you said is what actually happened). Siguradong talo sila sa Court if they insist on filing such a thing. Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Well, the only evidence I can think of to prove that there exists an actual training are: certificate of training, attendance sheet signed by the trained employee, contract where the employee agreed to be trained at the expense of the emplkoyer, or anything similar. These are documentary evidence. There is also such a thing as testimonial evidence where eyewitnesses may testify to prove that an actual training was done and that the subject employee (you in this case) participated. Mayroon ba? If none, then that means they have no evidence against you. If the employee was actually trained but hindi pumasa, the employer cannot force him to pay up. As I have said, training is usually for the benefit of the employer so that it will get better performance from the employee. If the employee failed, there is nothing they can do about it. The employee cannot be held liable. Walang criminal liability dito (kung hindi pumasa ang employee sa training) and consequently, no criminal offense committed. Your employment record is perfectly safe. You know, the only thing which may affect a person's record (NBI, police) is a criminal record. In your case, I can't think of any case na puwede nilang isampa. Certainly, no crime committed. Hindi rin ito magku-qualify as a labor case. Civil case (in case they want a reimbursement of the "training" expenses)? As we had seen, walang training na nangyari (assuming that what you said is what actually happened). Siguradong talo sila sa Court if they insist on filing such a thing. i just want to make a hypothesis again... i think the only thing they can produce of is the "testimonial evidence" <--- they can do it if they want...plus there is something in my contract that i will pay the said amount.... if nag resign ako with after 1 year na maging regular ako...pero wala pong nkalagay na i ti trained nila ako... assuming that the case reinbursemnt is filed... anu pong pdeng mangyari sakin kung nde ako magbabayad?....gusto ko lng pong malaman makaka apekto po ito sa NBI and Police Records ko..madaming salamat po... good lawyer... Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 my concern is that if its just my back pay is at stakes in here ill just let it go....but if ther's something that can affect my Document... or can put me in jail to the extent of things that they might do...cguro po gagawin ko yung dapat gawin... salmat po salahat ng mg tulong... Quote Link to comment
jojoendejr Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 i just want to make a hypothesis again... i think the only thing they can produce of is the "testimonial evidence" <--- they can do it if they want...plus there is something in my contract that i will pay the said amount.... if nag resign ako with after 1 year na maging regular ako...pero wala pong nkalagay na i ti trained nila ako... assuming that the case reinbursemnt is filed... anu pong pdeng mangyari sakin kung nde ako magbabayad?....gusto ko lng pong malaman makaka apekto po ito sa NBI and Police Records ko..madaming salamat po... good lawyer... If that is the case, that patricular provision is null and void. Firstly, there is no training to speak of. Secondly, under labor laws, that kind of deduction si not allowed. There is such a thing as allowable deductions from an employee's salary and this includes SSS (or GSIS if u are a government employee) remittances, Philhealth, taxes, etc. Labor laws expressly enumerated such allowable deductions. The training expenses you are saying does not fdall under allowable deductions. Of course, anybody can say anything. Madali lang gumawa ng kuwento na papabor sa kumpanya ninyo. The problem is, can they back it up with solid evidence? That is the hard part. Based on what you said earlier, it would appear na there is rerally no such "training" in the strictest sense of the word. Assuming that a case is filed against you for reimbursement, that case will go nowhere. Baka ikaw pa ang mabigyan ng Court ng award for damages. One thing for sure, hindi maaapektuhan ang NBI or police record mo. Only criminal cases can affect these. That is, kung ma-convict ka of a criminal offense. Quote Link to comment
hmmidontknow Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 If that is the case, that patricular provision is null and void. Firstly, there is no training to speak of. Secondly, under labor laws, that kind of deduction si not allowed. There is such a thing as allowable deductions from an employee's salary and this includes SSS (or GSIS if u are a government employee) remittances, Philhealth, taxes, etc. Labor laws expressly enumerated such allowable deductions. The training expenses you are saying does not fdall under allowable deductions. Of course, anybody can say anything. Madali lang gumawa ng kuwento na papabor sa kumpanya ninyo. The problem is, can they back it up with solid evidence? That is the hard part. Based on what you said earlier, it would appear na there is rerally no such "training" in the strictest sense of the word. Assuming that a case is filed against you for reimbursement, that case will go nowhere. Baka ikaw pa ang mabigyan ng Court ng award for damages. One thing for sure, hindi maaapektuhan ang NBI or police record mo. Only criminal cases can affect these. That is, kung ma-convict ka of a criminal offense. madaming salamat po master.... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.