This is an interesting case of dismissal of an employee on the ground of serious misconduct as provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code. The issue here is the meaning of the term “fighting” that would constitute serious misconduct. The incident involves two Manila based flight attendants of a foreign airline company (the Company): Connie who is assigned in the Business Class section, and Kathie, who is assigned in the First Class section in one of the Company’s aircraft.
During the boarding preparation in one of the Company’s flights to Japan, Kathy wanted to borrow a wine bottle opener since her wine bottle opener was dull. So she sent her runner Vangie to the Business Class section to borrow the wine bottle opener of Connie. But the latter refused and remarked that “any flight attendant who could not bring a wine bottle opener had no business working in the First Class Section.” So another flight attendant Liza just offered her wine bottle opener to Vangie for Kathy’s use.
Apparently, Kathy overheard Connie’s remarks and later on confronted her. Their confrontation escalated into a heated argument prompting Liza to intervene. But the two ignored Liza. So Liza rushed outside the aircraft to get Rose, the Assistant Base Manager to pacify them. Since the two were still arguing when the Business Class passengers were already boarding, Rose ordered them out of the plane and transfer to another nearby aircraft of the Company. Rose inquired from them what had happened. Eventually she did not allow both of them on the said flight apparently because Connie did not want to commit to the condition that they stay away from each other during the flight.
The following day, Rose sent a letter to Connie informing her that the Company would conduct an investigation of the incident between her and Kathy ten days thereafter. After the investigation conducted by the Head of the Human Resources Department where all parties attended, Connie was informed of her termination from the service. The Company stated that based on the results of the investigation, Connie and Kathy had engaged in a fight on board the aircraft, even if there had been no actual physical contact between them. And since fighting was strictly prohibited by the Company as provided in its Rules of Conduct, her dismissal is justified even if committed for the first time.
Thus Connie filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the Company. She contended that the incident between her and Kathy was only an animated discussion and not a fight which entails a brawl, a hostile encounter or a pugilistic combat. The Company insisted that what transpired between Connie and Kathy was a fight which it strictly prohibited. In fact according to Rose its Base Manager, Connie even challenged Kathy to a “sabunutan” or a brawl.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Company and said that fighting among its employees even in the form of heated arguments or discussions were very contradictory to the good public image which is necessary in an airline business. On appeal to the NLRC, said decision was reversed. According to the NLRC “fighting” refers to a hostile encounter, affray or altercation, a pugilistic combat. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Was the CA correct?
Yes. As provided by Article 282 of the Labor Code an employer may terminate an employee for grave or serious misconduct. To be considered serious, Connie’s misconduct during the incident in question must be akin to a fight which requires physical combat as differentiated from or brief exchange of words. Such kind of a fight is absent in this case. The claim of Rose that Connie challenged Kathy to a “sabunutan” could not be given credence by virtue of its being self-serving in favor of the Company and of being an apparent afterthought during the investigation of the incident.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the incident was the kind of fight prohibited by the Company’s Rules of Conduct, the same could not be considered as of such seriousness as to warrant Connie’s dismissal. The gravity of the fight which was not more than a verbal argument between them was not enough to tarnish or diminish the Company’s public image.
So the Company should pay Connie, separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service plus full back-wages without deduction or qualification, counted from the date of dismissal until finality of this decision including other benefits to which she is entitled under the law. The Company should also pay her attorney’s fees of 5% of the adjudged amount of relief (Northwest Airlines vs. Del Rosario, G.R. 157633, September 10, 2014)
* * *
Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com