Can an airline company provide a different retirement age for its female and male flight attendants?
NO. And this is the story.
On 11 July 2000, the Flight Attendants Association (FAA) entered into a CBA with Polo Airlines, Inc. (PAI). The said CBA contained a stipulation providing a compulsory retirement of female FAs at 55 years old and male FAs at 60 years old [Section 144(A)].
Sometime in 2004, an FA (Janine Anne R. Trinidad) nearing the age of 55 -years old filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. She sought to nullify Section 144 (A) for discriminating against female FAs in violation of the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The trial court in a Decision granted the petition for declaratory relief and declared Section 144 (A) of the CBA null and void for being discriminatory.
But on 31 May 2018, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The CA ruled that the questioned provision is a valid and binding undertaking as there was nothing illegal in the retirement clause warranting its nullification. It likewise held that Ms. Trinidad failed to prove with competent evidence that the assailed provision is void and discriminatory or that she was coerced to ratify the said CBA.
In the Supreme Court (SC), Ms. Trinidad alleged that PAI failed to show any difference between male and female cabin attendants either in qualification or function so as to justify the adoption of the assailed provision and that she cannot comprehend the rationale for such distinction. She claimed that she is not estopped from assailing the provision just because she already received her retirement benefits when she was in fact forced to retire.
PAI contended that Section 144(A) of the CBA complies with the Labor Code and is not discriminatory against women since female FAs belong to a special class of occupation requiring special standards for retirement. It also claimed that the assailed provision did not contain any legal infirmity and has been repeatedly adopted and carried over in succeeding CBAs.
But the SC ruled in the following tenor:
“However, it must be emphasized that the option to retire below the ages provided by law must be assented to and accepted by the employee, it will be an adhesive imposition resulting in deprivation of property without due process of law.
x x x
Article 1700 of the Civil Code provides that “the relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. As labor contracts are impressed with public interest, a CBA must be construed liberally, and the courts must give due consideration to “the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which is intended to serve”. Any doubts should be resolved in favor of labor and in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes.
x x x
The Court of Appeals’ reasoning supports the view that the compulsory retirement age for female cabin attendants was made lower than their male counterparts on the “mere basis of their being 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 of Appeals’ inference is manifestly mistaken and its conclusion is grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures.
x x x
As a State Party to the CEDAW, the Philippines, including the judiciary as a State instrumentality, bound itself to take all appropriate measures “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes or stereotyped roles for men and women.”
The compulsory retirement provision in the CBA is indeed repugnant to the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Magna of Women, and the CEDAW. But the ending of this story would have been otherwise had the airline company offered any regulation issued by the Secretary of Labor in “appropriate cases”.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions or comments, please email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS COLUMN: Forwarder Liability to Unpaid Seller (Exporter) of Goods
