No – spouse employment rule cannot be justified
By J.Lo
“An employer’s blanket policy of no-spouse employment is discriminatory…to justify its enforcement, the employer must clearly establish reasonable business necessity,” the Supreme Court has reversed Court of Appeals ruling and reinstated Labor Arbiter’s decision that a bank employee who had been terminated after marrying co-worker was illegally dismissed.
In a 15-page decision of the Second Division penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC ordered bank to reinstate Catherine Cruz-Cagampan and pay her back wages “from the time she was illegally dismissed on February 17, 2010.”
The High Tribunal said she was also entitled to attorney’s fees of 10% of total monetary award, subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this decision until full payment.
“Friends, lovers, and couples share secrets…any bank employee may potentially craft elaborate schemes to embezzle bank’s funds, while bank must observe high standards of diligence, enforcing an arbitrary no-spouse employment rule that directs immediate dismissal of an employee who marries co-worker cannot be justified. ..that is illegal dismissal” the SC said.
Court records showed that Cruz-Cagampan in October 2009 married her co-worker, Audie Cagampan, who served as loan specialist in the same bank.
The following month, the couple requested permission from the bank to continue working for their employer, proposing for Audie to be transferred to another branch.
However, their request was denied a few days later and her employment was terminated.
In 2010, the Labor Arbiter ruled that she was illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later affirmed ruling.
The CA, however, reversed in 2015 NLRC. It found dismissal “substantively valid” but ordered payment of damages and separation because of bank’s non-compliance with due process.
The SC said CA “erred in heavily relying on higher standards of diligence required of banks to allow their immediate resort to an employee’s dismissal in case of marriage to a co-worker.”
“As petitioner pointed out, respondents may transfer either of them to different branch or reassign them in different role, among others, to minimize alleged risk that married loan specialist and account specialist expose them to,” the SC said.
The High Tribunal said, “To justify their otherwise discriminatory policy, respondents have the burden to establish by substantial evidence reasonable necessity for it… must show that no other alternative to the policy exists.”
“Weighed against constitutionally mandated full protection to labor and various statutory protections accorded to the sector, this Court finds that respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable business necessity for its no-spouse employment policy,” the SC concluded.
ISKUP! 