Cabin crew members from Philippine Airlines arrive at the airport for a international flight in Manila on August 5, 2010. AFP FILE PHOTO
Female cabin attendants of flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) cannot be forced to retire upon reaching 55 years old, or five years earlier than their male counterparts after the Supreme Court voided an agreement between PAL and its employees’ union, which set different mandatory retirement ages based on gender, for being unconstitutional.
In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the high court said Section 144(A) of the 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PAL and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) “was deemed void for lack of basis, discriminating against women, and being contrary to laws, international convention, and public policy.”
The high court found merit in the 2019 petition filed by the female cabin attendants of PAL, emphasizing the fundamental equality of women and men before the law which is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Magna Carta of Women, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.
READ: Setting lower mandatory retirement age for female cabin attendants is void — SC
‘Without factual basis’
The high tribunal held that considering the constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure, the flag carrier failed to provide a reasonable basis for differentiating compulsory retirement age based on sex, it said in a statement summarizing the decision made public on Thursday.
“It found insufficient proof to support the conclusion that female cabin attendants between 55 to 59 years old did not 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’ unlike their male counterparts,” it added.
The court ruled that under the CBA provision, female airline employees were denied employment opportunity at an age “not young enough to seek for a new job but not old enough to be considered retired.”
“This deprived them of benefits attached to employment, such as income and medical benefits, five years earlier than their male counterpart, without any factual basis,” the tribunal stressed.
It added that aside from being repugnant to the Constitution, laws and international convention, the compulsory retirement provision in the agreement was not voluntarily agreed upon by petitioners, the high court pointed out.
READ: Retired female flight attendants win gender discrimination suit vs PAL
Protracted legal battle
Petitioners, all members of Fasap, were employed as female flight attendants of PAL prior to Nov. 22, 1996.
After their demand for PAL management to remove the questioned provision in the CBA was rejected, they filed at the regional trial court (RTC) of Makati City on July 29, 2004, a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the management.
On August 9, 2004, the RTC issued an order upholding its jurisdiction over the case after PAL claimed it involved a labor dispute that should be handled by the Department of Labor and Employment.
Through a TRO dated August 10, 2004, the Makati court enjoined PAL from implementing Section 144(A) of the PAL-Fasap CBA. This was followed by a writ of preliminary injunction on Sept. 27 of the same year freezing the implementation of the CBA provision pending the resolution of the case.
On October 8, 2004, PAL went to the Court of Appeals (CA), asking it to annul and set aside the RTC’s orders.
The CA on August 31, 2005, granted PAL’s petition and ordered the Makati RTC to dismiss the case filed by the female cabin attendants.
After their motion for reconsideration was rejected by the CA, the complainants elevated their case to the Supreme Court, which in 2009 reversed and set aside the CA decision and directed the Makati RTC to continue the proceedings on the case.
In 2010, the Makati court issued an injunction stopping PAL from carrying out the labor policy, and in 2015, wrote a decision nullifying, for being discriminatory, the questioned provision of the CBA.
PAL again went to the CA, which in 2018 reversed the decision of the Makati RTC and affirmed the validity of PAL’s compulsory retirement age policy.
The appellate court pointed out that the early retirement age for female attendants was part of PAL’s obligation to observe due diligence in ensuring the safety of its 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.
READ: But of course it’s discrimination
Early retirement benefits
The court also noted the biological difference between males and females and how it would affect the performance of their duty to guarantee the safety of passengers.
It noted that the task of a cabin attendant was not limited to serving meals or attending to the needs of passengers.
The major task of a flight crew was to look after the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft during emergencies, the CA said.
“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,” read the decision of the court.
It added that imposing an early retirement for female flight attendants did not place them at a great disadvantage compared to their male counterparts.
Instead, it said, early retirement would give them “a great window of opportunity to make positive lifestyle changes and restore a well-balanced life.”
“Here, petitioners 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 said.
The case was then elevated by the petitioners to the high tribunal in 2019.
The CBA provision at that time covered some 600 female flight attendants hired by the airline before November 2006, according to Fasap.
RELATED STORY
Women empowerment and social change