Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Explanation Letter-Termination

    Uploaded by

    James
    1) The employee provides explanations to refute the three allegations against them regarding language proficiency issues and a customer escalation. 2) For the first allegation of language incompetency, the employee cites their high QA scores and lack of direct customer complaints as evidence against the claim. 3) For the second allegation involving a customer escalation, the employee explains they followed proper procedures by seeking guidance from supervisors due to being unfamiliar with the issue. 4) For the third allegation of potential termination under the Labor Code, the employee argues the grounds do not directly apply to their situation and termination would be unlawful, citing jurisprudence supporting their view.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Explanation Letter-Termination

    Uploaded by

    James
    2K views4 pages
    1) The employee provides explanations to refute the three allegations against them regarding language proficiency issues and a customer escalation. 2) For the first allegation of language incompetency, the employee cites their high QA scores and lack of direct customer complaints as evidence against the claim. 3) For the second allegation involving a customer escalation, the employee explains they followed proper procedures by seeking guidance from supervisors due to being unfamiliar with the issue. 4) For the third allegation of potential termination under the Labor Code, the employee argues the grounds do not directly apply to their situation and termination would be unlawful, citing jurisprudence supporting their view.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The employee provides explanations to refute the three allegations against them regarding language proficiency issues and a customer escalation. 2) For the first allegation of language incompetency, the employee cites their high QA scores and lack of direct customer complaints as evidence against the claim. 3) For the second allegation involving a customer escalation, the employee explains they followed proper procedures by seeking guidance from supervisors due to being unfamiliar with the issue. 4) For the third allegation of potential termination under the Labor Code, the employee argues the grounds do not directly apply to their situation and termination would be unlawful, citing jurisprudence supporting their view.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views4 pages

    Explanation Letter-Termination

    Uploaded by

    James
    1) The employee provides explanations to refute the three allegations against them regarding language proficiency issues and a customer escalation. 2) For the first allegation of language incompetency, the employee cites their high QA scores and lack of direct customer complaints as evidence against the claim. 3) For the second allegation involving a customer escalation, the employee explains they followed proper procedures by seeking guidance from supervisors due to being unfamiliar with the issue. 4) For the third allegation of potential termination under the Labor Code, the employee argues the grounds do not directly apply to their situation and termination would be unlawful, citing jurisprudence supporting their view.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    23 November 2020

    RE: EXPLANATION LETTER


    Dear:
    Greetings!
    This has reference to the Notice to Explain sent to me by this office which I
    received on 20 November 2020. In the said notice I was made to explain
    why no disciplinary action including termination should be taken against me
    based on the following allegations:
    I.
    At the outset, it worthy to emphasize that it is our fifth month into
    production and I have not received any direct feedback from the
    customers complaining about being incompetent or not skilled in the
    Cantonese language. The allegation against me lacks a sustainable
    basis and the supposition is just a conclusion of fact for there is no
    sufficient proof to prove the claim. The result of my QA dated 31 August
    2020 reveals that I got ninety percent (90%). Verily, I have met the
    quality that the company has set and not to mention the satisfaction I
    delivered to the customer during the call. I understand that I incidentally
    got seventy-five percent (75%) in my QA dated 02 September 2020. It
    should be noted that it was neither shown in the result of the evaluation
    from the Quality Analyst that the main factor of the low score was my
    language. It was not even mentioned in the said QA. Additionally, we
    were still familiarizing ourselves with how the different processes work.
    So there was no chance of catching-up and discussing goals with our
    supervisor.
    While it is true that during a metric review with my Team Leader (TL),
    _____, it was raised that I used the English terms in some of my
    conversations with my customer. It should be recalled that we were
    informed that we can speak in English whenever a customer requests to
    use English as a medium of communication. No hard and fast rule
    enjoins a representative from speaking in English especially when a
    customer manifests his/her intention to speak in English. As long as a
    representative can deliver the message across and the customer is
    comfortable and understand the message, the same is acceptable.
    Further, there were several emails from the higher operations with a
    singular judgment that my Cantonese language is incompetent based on
    my calls that they randomly monitored. The emails unanimously held
    that my Cantonese language does not meet the minimum standard that
    the company has set. I cannot deny the fact the used English terms
    during the call that they monitored but it is worthy to note that the use of
    English terms was with the customer’s concurrence and it was done so
    that the can have a grasp of the information being communicated as
    there were terms that cannot be translated into pure Cantonese
    language. Thus, I cannot be faulted for using some English terms during

    Page 1 of 4
    the call as there were instances that do not require full Cantonese
    language for the customer to better understand the concept.
    Furthermore, I and my TL, ____ have agreed that we will continue to talk
    and converse in the Cantonese language as part of our action plan. This
    is anchored on the identical findings that some of the representatives
    used a language other than Cantonese during the call. This is also the
    very same opportunity that other representatives have during the call. It
    was agreed that the members of the team will also converse in the
    Cantonese language even not engaged in a call. The intention of my TL
    in coming up with an action plan may be good and for the betterment of
    the team but the same was not properly executed since the action plan
    as agreed upon i.e. speaking the Cantonese language was not complied
    with by my TL as she speaks in English and Tagalog in the production.

    II. THAT A CLIENT ESCALATION WAS RECEIVED FROM ICE LAI OF


    THE HK/SG TEAM, ALLEGEDLY DUE TO IMPROPER
    INVESTIGATION AND COMMUNICATION MADE TO THE
    CUSTOMER’S CONCERN RESULTING IN INCORRECT
    RESOLUTION.

    I would like to emphasize that the issue of the customer that resulted in
    an escalation is new and unusual in the production. The ultimate
    allegation posited against me was that I committed fraud during the call
    which I vehemently object and deny the same.
    It should be recalled that during the call I have asked assistance from
    the different tenured representatives for a possible and appropriate
    resolution being new to the account and industry unfortunately, my
    request for assistance went unheeded as they can’t come up with an
    appropriate resolution. Being new and unfamiliar with the concern of the
    customer I asked my Team Leader Wong for an appropriate resolution
    which I eventually relayed the said suggested resolution to the
    customer.
    Basic is the rule in this industry that in case of doubt as to the right
    resolution, it is advised to ask for assistance. We were informed during
    training that when confronted with difficult and complicated concerns
    from the customer, we should ask for assistance to our supervisor to
    come up with an appropriate resolution, which is exactly what I did
    during the call. We were assured during training to focus more on the
    quality, less on the numbers, and learning where they have also
    encouraged committing mistakes for us to grow.
    I cannot be faulted for some misunderstanding and miscommunication
    between me and the customer because even my TL was not sure of the
    proper resolution. Moreover, no one in his right mind will put himself into
    an unwarranted ordeal like committing fraud knowing fully well that his
    treasured property like his employment, as enshrined under the
    Constitution will be curtailed. I am a firm believer in character
    development. To insist, I do not and will not commit any fraud that will
    compromise my integrity and that of the company.

    Page 2 of 4
    III. THAT MY EMPLOYMENT WITH 24-7 INTOUCH CONTACT CENTERS
    MAY BE TERMINATED BASED ON ARTICLE 297 OF THE LABOR
    CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

    To begin with, my employment with 24-7 Intouch Contact Centers


    should not be severed. Article 297 cannot be applied in my case as it
    was neither shown nor proven that the grounds therein are directly
    attributable to my fault or negligence.
    In a case the Supreme Court faulted an employer for unlawfully
    terminating its employee and ordered the payment of damages in favor
    of the employee. The Court was emphatic, to wit:
    “Xxx Misconduct is defined as the "transgression of some established and
    definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character,
    and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. In order for serious
    misconduct to justify dismissal, these requisites must be present: (a) it must
    be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties,
    showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
    employer, and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. On
    the other hand, to be considered as a just cause for terminating an employee's
    services, "insubordination" requires that the orders, regulations or instructions
    of the employer or representative must be (a) reasonable and lawful; (b)
    sufficiently known to the employee; (c) in connection with the duties
    which the employee has been engaged to discharge; and (d) the
    employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the
    willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. 1
    (Emphasis supplied)

    My act of using English terms in some of my calls especially when


    requested by the customers might be inconsistent with the lawful order
    of the company but not a serious and willful one as to cost me of my
    livelihood. Be that as it may, such disobedience cannot be deemed to
    depict a wrongful attitude on my part, because it was prompted by my
    desire to carry out my duties as a customer service representative to the
    satisfaction of my customer. It must be stressed again that I was
    constrained to speak some English terms during the call because of the
    customer’s request. Thus, I cannot be faulted for that.
    The same jurisprudence further provides that:
    “Xxx As a just cause for termination of employment, on the other hand, the
    neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. Gross
    negligence means an absence of that diligence that a reasonably
    prudent man would use in his own affairs, and connotes want of care in
    the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated
    failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the
    circumstances.  A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a
    just cause for the dismissal of the employee.” (Emphasis supplied)

    Suffice it to say that by no stretch of reasoning can the use of English


    terms in some of my calls especially when requested by a customer
    imputed against me be collectively considered as gross and habitual
    negligence. In citing that my language proficiency is not at par with the
    company’s language proficiency guidelines as ground for my termination
    of employment, the company cannot also ignore the other factors where
    1
    RICARDO G. SY and HENRY B. ALIX vs. NEAT, INC., BANANA PEEL and PAUL VINCENT NG, G.R.
    No. 213748, November 27, 2017

    Page 3 of 4
    I was rated ninety percent (90%) in my QA not to mention the
    commendation calls from my customers.
    Further, the same case law also discussed that the termination and
    imposition of imposable sanction against an employee is governed by
    the Principle of totality of infractions. The Supreme Court went on to
    state that:

    “Xxx In determining the sanction imposable on an employee, the


    employer may consider the former's past misconduct and previous
    infractions. Also known as the principle of totality of infractions, the
    Court explained such concept in Merin v. National Labor Relations
    Commission, et al., thus:

    The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during


    the period of employment shall be considered in determining the
    penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses
    committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately.”
    (Emphasis supplied)

    A review of my alleged violation reveals that the company, other than


    several emails from the higher operations with singular judgment that my
    Cantonese language is incompetent based on my calls that they
    randomly monitored and emails unanimously held that my Cantonese
    language does not met the minimum standard that the company has set,
    the company failed to prove with substantial evidence that the totality of
    my infractions allegedly committed constitutes as a just cause for my
    dismissal under the Labor Code.
    Significantly, the Supreme Court discussed in the case above-
    mentioned that:
    “Xxx To be lawful, the cause for termination must be a serious and grave
    malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood. This is merely
    in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution and laws which lean over
    backwards in favor of the working class, and mandate that every doubt must
    be resolved in their favor. After all, an employment is not merely a
    contractual relationship, since in the life of most workers it may spell
    the difference of whether or not a family will have food on their table,
    roof over their heads and education for their children.” (Emphasis
    supplied)

    Clearly, my employment with should not be terminated based on the


    above-mentioned reasons. Lastly, I am amenable to any settlement or
    conference regarding my case as the need arises

    Thank you for you for considering my explanation letter.

    Sincerely,

    24-7 Intouch Contact Centers Representative

    Page 4 of 4

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy