She wrote petitioner about her complaint on July 3 2007 however no explanation

She wrote petitioner about her complaint on july 3

This preview shows page 4 - 5 out of 5 pages.

prizes and incentives. She wrote petitioner about her complaint on July 3, 2007;however, no explanation was forthcoming from petitioner, and it was only duringthese proceedings – or after a case had already been filed – that petitionerbelatedly and for no other useful purpose attempted to address her concerns.This may have caused a bit of disillusionment on the part of respondent, whichled her to miss work for a few days in July 2007. Her grievance should have beenaddressed by petitioner; after all, they were serious accusations, and have abearing on the CSRs/TSRs’ overall performance in the Washington Mutualaccount.Respondent’s work as a CSR – which is essentially that of a call center agent – isnot easy. For one, she was made to work the graveyard shift – that is, from late atnight or midnight until dawn or early morning. This certainly takes a toll onanyone’s physical health. Indeed, call center agents are subjected to conditionsthat adversely affect their physical, mental and emotional health; exposed toextreme stress and pressure at work by having to address the customers’ needsand insure their satisfaction, while simultaneously being conscious of the needto insure efficiency at work by improving productivity and a high level of service;subjected to excessive control and strict surveillance by management; exposed toverbal abuse from customers; suffer social alienation precisely because theywork the graveyard shift – while family and friends are at rest, they are working,and when they are at rest, family and friends are up and about; and they work ata quick-paced environment and under difficult circumstances owing toprogressive demands and ambitious quotas/targets set by management. To topit all, they are not exactly well-paid for the work they have to do and theconditions they have to endure. Respondent’s written query about the prizes andincentives is not exactly baseless and frivolous; the least petitioner could havedone was to timely address it, if it cared about its employee’s welfare. By failingto address respondent’s concerns, petitioner exhibited an indifference and lackof concern for its employees – qualities that are diametrically antithetical to thespirit of the labor laws, which aim to protect the welfare of the workingman andfoster harmonious relations between capital and labor. By its actions, petitionerbetrayed the manner it treats its employees.Thus, the only conceivable reason why petitioner transferred respondent toanother account is the fact that she openly and bravely complained about thesupposed anomalies in the Washington Mutual account; it is not her "derogatoryrecord" or her "attendance and punctuality issues", which are insignificant andthus irrelevant to her overall performance in the Washington Mutual account.And, as earlier stated, respondent’s "attendance and punctuality issues" wereattributable to petitioner’s indifference, inaction, and lack of sensitivity in failingto timely address respondent’s complaint. It should share the blame forrespondent’s resultant delinquencies.
Background image
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture