Job Description that is Self-Descriptive in the case of Probationary Employee

Job description is one of the necessary ingredients for the dismissal of an employee for failure to qualify to ensure that reasonable standards have been made known to employee at the time of engagement.

An employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would qualify a probationary employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he is expected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. This goes without saying that the employee is sufficiently made aware of his probationary status as well as the length of time of the probation.

This is the general rule.

The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self- descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers.

Thus, in the case of Aberdeen Court, Inc. vs. Agustin, it has been held that the rule on notifying a probationary employee of the standards of regularization should not be used to exculpate an employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met. In the same light, an employee’s failure to perform the duties and responsibilities which have been clearly made known to him constitutes a justifiable basis for a probationary employee’s non regularization.

Further, in the same Abbott case, the company’s procedure mandates, inter alia, that the job performance of a probationary employee should be:

1. Formally reviewed and discussed with the employee at least twice: first on the third month and second on the fifth month from the date of employment.
2. The company is also required to come up with a Performance Improvement Plan during the third month review to bridge the gap between the employee’s performance and the standards set, if any.
3. In addition, a signed copy of the performance evaluation form should be submitted to HRD as the same would serve as basis for recommending the confirmation or termination of the probationary employment.

The company failed to follow the above-stated procedure in evaluating the probationary employee.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

There was no evidence that a signed copy of the evaluation form was submitted to the HRD. It was not even shown that such form was completed to formally assess the employee’s performance. Neither was the performance evaluation discussed with her during the third and fifth months of her employment. Nor did the company come up with the necessary Performance Improvement Plan to properly gauge the employee’s performance with the set company standards. Hence, the Court ruled that the dismissal in this case was procedurally infirm.