The Court of Appeals has upheld that early retirement of female flight attendants of the country’s carrier, Philippine Airlines, is necessary to ensure the safety of its passengers.
In a 20-page decision, the appellate court through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez said that the biological difference between male and female and how it would affect the performance of their duty to guarantee the safety of passengers.
The CA said 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 is to look after the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft during emergencies, the appellate court pointed out.
“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 m emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules,” the CA noted.
Besides, the CA said imposing an early retirement for female flight attendants does not place them at great disadvantage compare 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.”
“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 ruling arose from the petition filed by Philippine Airlines Inc. seeking the reversal of the decision issued on May 22, 2015 by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City which declared null and void the Section 144 of the 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement 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 CA granted PAL’s petition and declared that the said provision was valid and binding.
Aside from safety issues, the appellate court ruled that the said provision was in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code which allow 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 appellate court rejected the assertion of the petitioners composed by female flight attendants of FASAP who said that the provision was discriminatory in the context of gender and equal work opportunities.
Based on its review of the records, the CA said the question 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 to 35 years for female flight attendants and 45 years for male attendants; in 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.
The CA also 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.
Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao and Manuel Barrios concurred with the ruling.
