DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017

TO: PROCOPIO INOT

FROM: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, THE BIG 5 COMPANY
SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM ORDER 118 SERIES OF 2017

NOTICE OF EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION

This serves as the official notice of termination as a result of 1due investigation. Such 2decision was made on the
following grounds:

1. That on 3July 2, 2017, you were intercepted by the Security Guard while 4cans of cooking oil and bottles of
vinegar were found in your possession. This is based on the report of the Security Guard dated 5July 13,
2017.
2. That as one of the employees of The Big 5 Company, you were provided a 6copy of the employee handbook
and the pages covering the Code of Business Ethics and Conduct was fully explained by the hiring manager
during the employee orientation.
3. That the aforementioned incident is a direct violation of the company policy stated in the Code of Business
Ethics and Conduct in Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1 which states,
“The Company will not tolerate monetary or property theft of any type. We consider property theft to include
the unauthorized use of Company services or its facilities as well as the taking of any unauthorized property for
personal use. No item purchased or supplied by the Company should ever be removed from the Company premises
without the expressed authorization of the President. Employees that violate this policy will be subject to discipline up
to and including possible 7dismissal and prosecution.”
4. That you were given 30 days from receipt and acknowledgement date to furnish the undersigned an
explanation letter regarding the incident but failed to do so.
5. That an 8eyewitness, in the person of the Security Guard, was able to 9recover the 10stolen 10 cans of
cooking oil and 10 bottles of vinegar that were in your possession. Furthermore, the 11CCTV footage
reinforced the Security Guard’s testimony.
Profounded with evidence, the Company is compelled to inform you that your employment with us has been
permanently terminated.

For your reference and strict guidance.

ANDREW ESMERO
Human Resource Manager, The Big 5 Company

Received:

12
PROCOPIO INOT

1
Complainant was not afforded due process.
2
Decision invalid. Non-compliance of substantive and procedural due process.
3
Not recorded in the Blotter Book.
4
With receipt.
5
It took the gurad 11 days to report. Doubtful.
6
Self-serving.
7
Even if provided in the contract, the penalty is to excessive and harch which is a violation or contrary to public
policy.
8
Not identified.
9
If recovered, where is it now? No picture of the confiscated items attached. Granting for the sake of argument
that there is a confiscation, where is it now?
10
10 cans of cooking oil and vinegar? It is contrary to human experience for one to steal such items and pass
through the guard. Allegation is a hoax, unfounded, baseless, untrue.
11
You made mention of the CCTV, where is it placed? Who was in charge of the monitoring? How could one make
sure that it is not tampered, edited, and tailored-fit to benefit the employer who has all the resources to twist the
story to their side? Why is it not mentioned in the First Notice to afford the complainant ample opportunity to
defend himself?
12
Not received by the employee, granting arguendo, where is the received copy? Why is it not attached?