Law allows termination due to redundancy

Law allows termination due to redundancy "My cousin was informed by her private employer that they need to terminate her because her position has already become redundant. Is this legally possible? How will they go about it and will my cousin receive anything? Please advise me on this matter. DarcyDear Darcy, Our laws provide causes to lawfully terminate an employee. One of the authorized causes under the Labor Code of the Philippines is redundancy. It is explicitly provided for under Article 283 of the said law:“The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.” (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, it is possible for your cousin to be terminated from her private employment based on redundancy. However, it bears stressing that her employer must meet the requirements for a valid and legal termination. In addition, her termination due to redundancy must be done in good faith. As laid down by our Supreme Court in the case of General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar (GR 181738, Jan. 30, 2013, Ponente: former Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes):“x x x From the above provision, it is imperative that the employer must comply with the requirements for a valid implementation of the company’s redundancy program, to wit: (a) the employer must serve a written notice to the affected employees and the DoLE (Department of Labor and Employment) at least one (1) month before the intended date of retrenchment (b) the employer must pay the employees a separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher (c) the employer must abolish the redundant positions in good faith and (d) the employer must set fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are redundant and may be abolished.“While it is true that the “characterization of an employee’s services as superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer,” the exercise of such judgment, however, must not be in violation of the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious. The Court has always stressed that a company cannot simply declare redundancy without basis. To exhibit its good faith and that there was a fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining redundant positions, a company claiming to be over manned must produce adequate proof of the same.”We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to " - https://www.affordablecebu.com/