THE Court of Appeals (CA) has rejected a bid by a flight attendants’ union to scuttle a Philippine Airlines (PAL) program that requires female attendants to be retired five years earlier than males, saying the safety of passengers, which the differentiated exit scheme sought to guarantee, was a primary goal.
In a 20-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the CA pointed out the biological difference between male and female and how it would affect the performance of their duty to guarantee the safety of passengers.
The appellate court explained that the task of a cabin crew is not limited to serving meals or attending to the whims and caprices of the passengers.
The major task of a flight attendant, according to the CA, is to look after the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft during emergencies.
“Passenger safety goes to the core of the job of a cabin attendant. Truly, airlines need cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules,” the CA stressed.
Furthermore, the CA said imposing an early retirement for female flight attendants does not place them at great disadvantage compared to their male counterparts. Instead, the appellate court said, an early retirement would give them “a great window of opportunity to make positive lifestyle changes and restore a well-balanced life.” The court continued: “Here, petitioners-appellees will have more time to spend with their families and friends, as well as the opportunity to pursue activities and hobbies that they may not have had the time to do in the past. Early retirement can also potentially improve their physical and mental health, which, in turn, can help them live a longer and happier life,” it added.
The CA’s ruling stemmed from the petition filed by Philippine Airlines Inc. seeking the reversal of a May 22, 2015, decision by the Regional Trial Court in Makati City that declared null and void the Section 144 of the 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PAL-Fasap for being discriminatory.
The said provision imposed a compulsory retirement age of 55 for female flight attendants and 60 for male flight attendants.
The appellate court granted PAL’s petition and declared the provision was valid and binding.
Aside from safety issues, the CA said the provision in question was in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code, which allows employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at 60 years or below, “provided that the employees’ retirement benefits under any CBA and other agreements shall not be less than those provided therein.”
The CA did not give credence to the claim of petitioners—composed of the female flight attendants of Fasap—that the said provision was discriminatory in the context of gender and equal work opportunities.
Based on its review of the records, the CA said the questioned provision providing a different compulsory retirement age for male and female flight attendants is not new.
The CA noted that in 1972-1975, 1976-1978 and 1979-198 CBA, the compulsory retirement age was mutually agreed upon at 35 years for female flight attendants and 45 years for male attendants; in the 1982-1985 CBA, the compulsory retirement age was increased to 45 for female flight attendants and 55 for male flight attendants; in 1986-1988 and 199-1995 CBA, the compulsory retirement age was increased to 55 years for female flight attendants and 60 for their male counterparts; in the 1995-2000 and 2000-2005 CBA, depending on the date of the hiring, the compulsory retirement age for female
flight attendants was fixed at 55 years and 60 years for male flight attendants.
“The questioned provision on compulsory retirement cannot be said to be void or discriminatory because Fasap was free to accept or refuse the same. But since Fasap voluntarily assented to the questioned provision, there is a reasonable presumption that it is beneficial and acceptable to its members,” the CA noted.
Furthermore, the CA said, the early retirement age for female flight attendants is part of PAL’s obligation to observe due diligence in ensuring the safety of the passengers.
“Moreover, well-enshrined is the rule that employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality standards at work. Even more so for PAL, from which exacting standards are demanded, by virtue of its being a common carrier,” it said.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao and Manuel Barrios.