Does participating in profane conversations with co-workers using company resources during office hours and sending company information to one's personal email address in violation of company rules be considered as enough basis for the termination of an employee's employment?
According to one decision by the Supreme Court, yes it is.
This is what happened in the case, Jannsen D. Perez vs. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. - Philippine Global Service Center (G.R. No. 256939, Nov 23 2023). The facts of the case are as follows:
IT STARTED IN A CHATROOM.
On June 27, 2008, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (JP Morgan) hired Jannsen D. Perez (Perez) as a customer service representative under its Human Resources Department.
On May 2014, Perez received a Notice to Explain from JP Morgan Chase officers accusing him of using the Office Communicator, a private chatroom for employees, to talk about agents, supervisors, and other colleagues using indecent, profane, and disrespectful language with other employees. He admitted to responding "hahaha" and "up down up down left right left right" in the private chatroom, but denied using profane and abusive language. He admitted to knowing that obscenity was prohibited in the company's Code of Conduct and admitted having access to employee information and having sent emails to his personal email address. He denied, however, sending any confidential company information.
After a number conferences, Perez received on October 24, 2014 a Notice of Resolution informing him that the company decided to terminate his employment effective October 23, 2014 for violating the Guidelines on Workplace Behavior.
On March 2, 2018, Perez filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, asking for separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees against JP Morgan.
LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC DECIDED IN FAVOR OF PEREZ, BUT WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT.
In a July 9, 2018 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, it found Perez illegally dismissed stating that the chatroom snapshots were edited and that the deplorable statements could not be imputed to him. The Labor Arbiter did found no basis to determine if the contents of the emails Perez forwarded were confidential and proprietary information of JP Morgan.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued its September 10, 2018 Resolution, upholding the Labor Arbiter's Decision.
However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the rulings of the NLRC, stating it found to have ignored the evidence on record, resulting in a gross misapprehension of facts. The CA found the following established: (1) Perez clearly participated in lewd conversation with coworkers using company resources during office hours; and (2) he sent an official communication by his manager to his personal email address, without any authorization and justification.
Perez, now a petitioner before the Supreme Court, argues that he was illegally dismissed from work as the evidence submitted against him did not justify his dismissal. At any rate, petitioner insists that his purported acts of participating in a discussion with several colleagues using the Office Communicator and his office email address to send an email cannot amount to serious misconduct sufficient to justify his dismissal.
The Supreme Court denied his Petition.
The SC agreed with the CA wherein the latter held that JP Morgan sufficiently established Perez actively participated in profane conversation with coworkers using company resources or the Office Communicator during office hours.
As to the issue of violation of confidentiality, the CA considered JP Morgan's prevailing Code of Conduct provisions on confidentiality in ruling against Perez. It appears that JP Morgan's Code states that the best practice is to assume that all personal information an employee has about the company is confidential, unless contrary is clear.
Moreover, Perez' own admissions bolster the correctness of the CA's ruling. Perez admitted responding "hahaha" and "up down up down left right left right" to lewd remarks about female colleagues, female and male genitalia, and the act of sexual intercourse in the Office Communicator. Such admission and acts amount to willful transgression of company guidelines, and such transgressions patently relate to the performance of his duties as part of the Human Resources Department. his acts rendered him unfit to continue working for JP Morgan and thus, was validly terminated for just cause.
Click HERE to read the actual Supreme Court case in this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment