Photo from Pexels | Ismail Mohamed – SoviLe
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court voided a stipulation in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) providing for the compulsory retirement of female cabin attendants at 55 years old and male cabin attendants at 60 years old for lack of basis, discrimination against women, and for being contrary to law and public policy.
In the case of Halagueña v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 243259, 10 January 2023, the Supreme Court declared Section 144(A) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) and Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) void for being contrary to the Constitution, laws, international convention, and public policy.
The petitioners are female flight attendants who are members of FASAP. FASAP is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of PAL flight attendants, stewards and pursers hired on different dates prior to November 22, 1996. In 2011, PAL and FASAP entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of employment of cabin attendants for the years 2000 to 2005. Section 144(A) of the CBA sets the compulsory retirement age of female employees to 55 years of age and male employees to 60.
The Supreme Court took the opportunity to emphasize that the fundamental equality of women and men before the law is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution, statutes, and international convention where the Philippines is a signatory.
Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to actively “ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.” The Constitution requires the State to ensure gender equality. This does not only mean that the Philippines shall not countenance nor lend legal recognition and approbation to measures that discriminate on the basis of one’s being male or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage in securing the fundamental equality of men and women.
Meanwhile, Article XIII, Section 14 of the Constitution commands the State to protect working women through providing opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential.
The Labor Code affirms the State’s basic policy to ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex and expressly prohibits an employer from discriminating against women employees solely based on sex.
In addition to this, the Philippines is a State Party to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which requires State Parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights.
Pursuant to our international obligations under the CEDAW, the legislature enacted Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women which compels the State to provide the necessary mechanisms to enforce women’s rights and adopt and undertake all legal measures necessary to foster and promote the equal opportunity for women to participate in and contribute to the development of the political, economic, social, and cultural realms.
In finding merit in the petition, the Supreme Court held that PAL was not able to provide any reasonable basis for differentiating the compulsory retirement age for female cabin attendants at 55 years old and the male cabin attendants at 60 years old. It ruled that the compulsory retirement age for female cabin attendants was made lower than their male counterparts on the “mere basis of their being women.” This is discriminatory against women. There is no proof that female cabin attendants, between 55 to 59 years old, do 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” as compared with their male counterparts.
The Court found that the petitioners substantiated that they were discriminated upon when they were forced to retire at 55 years old while their male counterparts were compulsory retired at 60 years old. They were denied the opportunity for employment as they were retired at an age “not young enough to seek for a new job but not old enough to be considered retired.” They were further denied the benefits attached to employment, such as income and medical benefits, five years earlier than their male counterpart, without any factual basis.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory retirement provision in Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA is repugnant to the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Magna Carta of Women, and the CEDAW.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- What the anti-age discrimination law means for employers
- Are working senior citizens entitled to labor standards benefits?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.