Although the Makati court agreed with Fasap's female members that the two sets of retirement age was discriminatory in terms of gender and equal work opportunities, the appellate court said 'biological differences' between males and females could affect their work performance.
The court also noted PAL's decades-long practice of setting different retirement ages for its flight attendants, and said that Fasap had 'voluntarily' agreed to the policy when it signed the CBA with management.
"The questioned provision on compulsory retirement cannot be said to be void or discriminatory because FASAP
was free to accept or refuse the same.
While consultations between Fasap and PAL were ongoing, the latter began implementing its retrenchment program by initially terminating the services of 140 probationary cabin attendants only to rehire them in April 1998.
On June 22, 1998 Fasap filed a Complaint against PAL for unfair labor practice, illegal retrenchment with claims for reinstatement and payment of salaries, allowances and backwages of affected Fasap members, actual, moral and exemplary damages with a prayer to enjoin the retrenchment program then being implemented.
On Thursday, FASAP
filed a notice of strike before the Department of Labour and Employment warning of possible work stoppage at the country's premier airline until its demands are met.
members had pointed out that Mendoza's letter was already a second motion for consideration, which was considered a prohibited pleading under the tribunal's own rules.
It also held that, contrary to the 2008 and 2009 ruling of the SC's Third Division, the retrenchment of the Fasap members was done in good faith and that PAL used fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employees to be retrenched pursuant to the their collective bargaining agreement.
'PAL could not have been motivated by ill will or bad faith when it decided to terminate Fasap's affected members.
The appellate court had directed PAL to grant a lump sum salary hike of P100 million to FASAP members in keeping with its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the airline covering the period July 16, 2007, to July 25, 2010.
The appellate court had also set the compulsory retirement age of FASAP members based on their date of hiring.
In an 11-page resolution, the appeals court through Associate Justice Ramon Cruz of the Special Former Seventh Division denied Fasap
motion for reconsideration to reverse its earlier decision for its failure to present persuasive arguments that would warrant the reversal of its ruling.