Management Prerogatives

The Supreme Court discussed that an employer has the prerogative to prescribed rules and regulation necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. Thus, disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition. Hence, in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively (SMC v. NLRC). It includes the right to transfer its employees to other work station which cannot be considered as constructive dismissal (Automatic Appliances v. Deguildo). While it is true that employer's Management Prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment such right is not absolute. It must ensure that its policies rules and regulation on work related activities must be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties commensurate to the offense involved (Mirant Corp v. Caro). Such right to regulate includes the manner of hiring of the employer's employees. thus the employer has the right to impose qualifications or standards to be met by the nominees or set hiring standards for the recommendees of its employees (United Kimberly Clark Employees Union v. Kimberly Clark Philippines). Moreover, the employer may require the disclosure of any existing or future relationship with co-employees or employees of competing companies and require its employees to resign in case such relationship pose a possible conflict of interest. Since Constitution recognizes the right of the enterprise to adopt and enforce policy to protect its right to reasonable returns and expansion and growth. (Duncan Association of Detailman-PTWGO v. Glaxo Wellcome). However, to justify the policy as a bona fide occupational qualification, there must be a compelling business necessity for which no alternative exists other than the discriminatory practice. (Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol). Moreover, a condition to contract marriage as a remedy in case of premarital sex of the employee which the employer proscribed, cannot be allowed without violating the right of the woman employee to choose freely a spouse and enter into marriage only with their free and full consent (Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.). Noteworthy, the employer has the burden of proof to prove that its restriction is reasonable and not greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interest in a case where a restrictive covenant which provides non-employment to a competitor company of the employer form part of the employment contract. (Rivera v. Solidbank Corp.)