Download SAMPLE REPLY TO RESPONDENTS' POSITION PAPER PDF

TitleSAMPLE REPLY TO RESPONDENTS' POSITION PAPER
Tags Employment Labour Withholding Tax
File Size183.0 KB
Total Pages25
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region

Quezon City

ARVIN A. PASCUAL,

Complainant,

- VERSUS - NLRC NCR Case No. NCR-05-05071-15
LABOR ARBITER MARCIAL GALAHAD T.
MAKASIAR

SITEL PHILIPPINES and/or
MICHAEL LEE,
ASWIN SUKUMAR,
PHOEBE MONICA ARGANA
REMIL CANDA, and
AMOR REYES,

Respondents.

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x

REPLY
(To Respondents’ Position Paper)

COMPLAINANT, by himself and unto this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submits this Reply to Respondents’ Position Paper, thus avers

that:

1. Respondents, in paragraph #3, page #2 of their position paper

alleged that - “Mr. Aswin Sukumar never passed any derogatory or racist

remark to Complainant.”

Complainant denies the foregoing allegation. Nowhere in the email of

Respondent Sukumar sent to Complainant on 26 November 2014 (Annex 6

of Respondents’ position paper) that he ever denied casting aspersions

against the reputation of Complainant on 21 November 2014 when he,

together with Respondents Reyes and Argana, served the 5-day suspension

notice. All that he said in his email reply was – “we do feel that you are

wrongly interpreting things.”

1 | P a g e

Page 2

Additionally, paragraph #3, page #2 of Respondents’ position paper,

further alleged – “If at all, it was the Complainant who is being unfair to Mr.

Aswin Sukumar by casting dirt on the image and reputation of the Sitel

Officer. He even conveniently alleges that he is being singled out by Mr.

Aswin Sukumar from among all the Respondent Sitel’s thousands of

employees.”

Complainant denies the foregoing allegation. It has no knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth and correctness of the

foregoing allegations.

2. Respondents, in paragraph #4, page #2 of their position paper

alleged that -

“Complainant’s allegations that he suffered several illnesses such as cervical

disc prolapse, peripheral neuropathy, cervical stenosis, cervical

radiculopathy, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and acute

pharyngitis deserve scant consideration. Those illnesses are mere

fabrications of Complainant’s very creative mind. It is also

noteworthy to point out that if indeed Complainant suffered such illnesses,

he could have easily submitted a medical certificate to the management but

none was ever presented.”

Complainant could only wonder how could Respondents alleged that

Complainant fabricated several illnesses such as cervical disc prolapse,

peripheral neuropathy, cervical stenosis, cervical radiculopathy, myofascial

pain syndrome, migraine headache, and acute pharyngitis. Where did

Respondents get all these medical terms if Complainant truly did not submit

any medical certificate?

Whereas, the truth is that Complainant has never verbally

communicated to any of the Respondents that he (Complainant) is in

extreme pain and unable to report for work due to the foregoing illnesses

which Respondents alleged are but mere fabrications of Complainant’s very

creative mind. Neither did Complainant communicate in writing to any of the

Respondents that he (Complainant) could not report for work and merely

feigned the foregoing illnesses to justify absences which Respondents

alleged are but mere fabrications of Complainant’s very creative mind.

2 | P a g e

Page 13

This introduction of alleged results (Team Performance vs. Goal and

FGD) is but a desperate attempt by Respondents to prove that Complainant

is so inept in the performance of his duties and responsibilities as coach.

It is rather peculiar, though, that the alleged ineptness of Complainant

did not prompt Respondents to discuss these results to Complainant

considering that the solemnity of Complainant's alleged non-performance

was so immense.

It bears stressing that Complainant, prior to his illegal dismissal on 8

December 2014, has already rendered eight (8) long and loyal service with

Respondent Sitel. He was promoted twice: from agent to trainer/certified

coach and then to coach/supervisor assigned to the Comcast Customer

Service Group.

Shortly after Complainant’s transfer to Comcast CSG, his worst

nightmare began. He (Complainant) was made a scapegoat by Respondent

Sitel’s managers like Glenn Kuan including Respondents Argana, Reyes, and

Canda. Respondents and Glenn Kuan, in cahoot with one another, framed-up

Complainant for him to be blamed solely for the continued employment of

Diosdado Jayson Remion (Agent - Comcast CSG) even after an alleged

violation of Comcast Zero Tolerance Policy on or about 13 May 2014.



The almost two months of agony suffered by Complainant resulting

from sustained and concerted machinations by Respondents in order that

Complainant could be blamed and held solely responsible for the continued

employment of Remion induced in Complainant an immense sense of

insecurity with his job – the threat of immediate termination from work, if

not aggression. This is a heavy burden carried on Complainant’s shoulder

which resulted to a resolution on his part to protect himself from

uncertainty. Thus, Complainant felt compelled to give up his employment.

14. Respondents, in pages #9 of their position paper, alleged that -

“During the mediation, SENa Mediator Ma. Zenaida Nicolas consistently

advised Complainant to speak up and air out his concerns to reach an

amicable settlement between the parties. However, Complainant neither

13 | P a g e

Similer Documents