Last month, there has been an incident of robbery in the office. It occurred at the period when the Head of the Operations Department requested for extension of the office hour because the department is on the rush to prepare for the upcoming events and activations of their projects. The Chief Executive Offeicer aprroved the request, leaving the trust that the decision will help the company and the performance of the employees.
But before the application of the request, the management held a meeting, having an agreement that there will be decrease in the security manpower because as they reasoned out, there are the members of the team who will take a look out for their material and equipments. And besides, there has never been an incident of robbery in the vicinity so they are confident that there will no harm to happen if they lessen the security. But the Chief Executive ordered a rigid security for those who will be assinged for the duty.
The twenty four hour operation of the team extended into four days. At the fourth day of their working in the office, there comes the report that a laptop and two handy cameras are lost in the three successive cubicles near the reception area. The reception area is very open and the cubicles are found having no enclosing or confining barrier. In the investigation, it is concluded in by the authorities that it was chance robbery of the small things with big amounts.
The chief Executive then terminated the security guard on duty, charging him of negligence with the incident. The Head of the Security Management was also axed in his position by the order given by the Chief Executive Officer. Before the latter gave his decision stated in papers, the security guard on duty, as well as the Head of the Security talked to the Executive Chief. They beg for his forgiveness and promised that it would happen again if they will be given the chance.
The chief asked if they have really unconsciously neglected their duty of security, and they said they did not. They reasoned out that it could not happen if ever the chief did not allow the twenty-four hour operation of the office. The employees said that the incident occurred due to the changes in the system that the chief implemented. The Chief Executive was pissed off by the reasoning. He did not accede to his first decision and finalized his termination with the guard-on-duty that day and axed the Head of the Security Management.
The decision of the Chief Executive Offricer is legitimate and in accordance with the law. It is his priviledge to terminate whoever fails to his rules and regulations, especially the negligence with the call of duty. In fact, the moment that he have talked to the terminated employees is a sign that he is giving them the chance to justify themselves before they will be sentenced of termination. It’s just so happened that what they reasoned out is something unreasonable, invalid and inappropriate with the sitaution.
Regardless if the terminated security guard and the axed Head of the Security Management gave their unreasonable justifications, it is always the priviledge of the head of the company to make decisions if cases like this occurs. The Labor Code gives the employee their rights, but the Chief Executive always bear the prerogative in making the decision if there are cases and an incident like this happened in his office. Whatever the chief implemented about the extension of the office’s operation, it is his power to impose whatever activity he wants to approve.