Quiet firing

Quiet quitting (or the act of an employee of doing only the minimum requirements of his or her job) has a counterpart in the employer’s sector: quiet firing.

It is the act of an employer to make working conditions difficult or unpleasant to some employees to force them to quit their job.

The motivation to resign may be engendered by, among others, turning down the employee’s request for a wage increase or promotion, giving him or her additional work without commensurate compensation and degrading his or her level of authority.

In the latter case, the employee is ordered to report to somebody lower in rank or seniority, or his or her signing or supervisory authority is reduced and transferred to somebody else.

Often, no reasons are given for those actions or, if there are, they’re shallow or flimsy. The idea is to belittle the employee’s self-esteem or standing in the work area.

Under these circumstances, those who cannot stomach that treatment and can find similar or better employment elsewhere are forced to resign in a huff.

Not so, however, for employees who are not similarly situated. They would just swallow their pride (or what’s left of it) and quietly suffer the indignities until they reach retirement age or, hopefully, the employer undergoes a change of heart.

Based on past experiences, these “passive-aggressive” moves are usually resorted to by employers if they are not satisfied with an employee’s performance but the latter has not committed any act that would justify his or her termination, or the employer wants to downsize without having to pay separation or retirement benefits, or the employee is a union officer who actively espouses the interests of the union members to the chagrin of the employer.

Note that in many jurisdictions, dismissing a union member without a just or valid cause could give rise to a complaint for unfair labor practice which, if proven, may result in an order of reinstatement and payment of backwages to the employee.

Incidentally, the same tactics are sometimes employed by executives who feel uncomfortable with employees under them who, on account of the latter’s exemplary work performance, may pose a threat to their position.

By and large, quiet firing is an accepted work practice in developed countries. It is justified under the principle of management prerogative, i.e., management has the right to decide who to hire or fire depending on its judgment.

After all, it’s its money or investment that stands to be affected, one way or the other, in making those decisions.

That discretion, however, may be questioned if, for example, the dismissal is discriminatory in character or was based on the employee’s gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

In the Philippines, quiet firing may be considered a form of “constructive dismissal” if it results in the employee’s resignation.

Although, as a rule, resignation is considered a voluntary act, a resigned employee can claim that he or she resigned because the employer committed certain acts that forced him or her to do that. And that without those acts, he or she would have remained in the employer’s employment.

This argument often resonates with the Department of Labor and Employment if the employee is able to prove, among others, that he or she has a good employment record, has been an employee for years without serious disciplinary issues, is nearing retirement, or is an active member of the company’s labor union.

Also working in the employee’s favor is the Labor Code’s and Supreme Court’s mantra that any doubts in labor cases should be resolved in favor of the employees.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, a favorable ruling on constructive dismissal could result in an order of reinstatement and payment of backwages with legal interest, damages and, worst, reputational damage to the employer.

Those are clearly unpleasant consequences. INQ

For comments, please send your email to “[email protected].”