PAL Has Contacted The G.C. Services, As Per The Case Study Mentioned

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

PAL has contacted the G.C.

services, as per the case study mentioned above to recruit employees


to operate
under the direction of PAL. G.C. Services have searched for and hired carpenters, welders, painters,
and electricians to
work for the PAL organization. As a result. we can conclude that the staft that G.C. Services which
have been hired will be
considered regular PAL employees. The workers were obviously recruited by PAL to serve as
painters, carpenters.
welders, or electricians in its maintenance department through .C. services, therefore their services
to PAL can be
recognized as regular employees. These employees were performing jobs and activities that were
directly related to
PAL'S business. They were hired for a period of one year and four months to eleven years and ten
months. Because of
their consistent employment, these jobs are vital to the smooth running of PAL's operations. As an
outcome of this, G.C.
Services Enterprises is a "labor-only" contractor that provided personnel to PAL's maintenance
department. Thus, the
staft hired by G.C. services entreprises were not their workers, but they will now work for PAL on a
regular basis
Individuals who do tasks directly related to PAL's business are also considered regular workers
under Article 280 of the
Labor Code. Furthermore, as regular employees, they must be given job security. Also, because the
hired personnel
would not work on a specific date or year, PAL did not hire them to work on a specific project, they
were employed to be
a part of their firm and organization and see how they can contribute to the company's success and
good reputation.

● Ciro Betila's termination was handled correctly and is extremely valid in light of the
circumstances. According to the Termination of Employment Act, it an employee exhibits poor
performance or wrong doings that jeopardizes the company's image, the employer has the
right to terminate the employee's contract, provided that the employer provides the emplovee
with a letter explaining why when and now the emplovee wil be onsmissed trom nis or ner oo,
in the case of Ciro Betila, the incident did not only occur once, but he is now labeled a repeat
offender, meaning he is repeating the same strategy that the investigator has identified as a
modus operandi. Thus, the corporation had the authority to cancel its contract and fire Ciro
Betila from the first time he committed the offense. however, the company did the right thing
and performed an investigation first before deciding on his dismissal. However. Betila was not
acquitted of the crime following the investigation, and he ignored the request to attend the
hearings and meetings to clear his name. The claim that Betila was not given due process is
false. He had at least three (3) opportunities to justify the stated losses. According to the
investigation findings, he was asked to respond on the hotel's concerns from Japanese
visitors on two occasions. The investigations did not include Betila. He also failed to submit
any written answer to the investigators

You might also like