ARMANDO
G. YRASUEGUI, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 168081 | October 17, 2008
TOPIC:
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications
FACTS:
Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a
former international flight of Philippine Arlines, Inc. He stands at 5’8”. As
mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL, the proper weight
for a man of this height is from 147-166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166
pounds.
To address his weight concerns, petitioner
was advised to go on leave without pay. But after gaining 43 pounds over his
ideal weight, petitioner was removed from flight duty, as per company
policy. He was formally requested to
trim down to his ideal weight and report for weight checks on several dates.
However, instead of losing weight, he gained them instead.
On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the
PAL decision for him to remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily
complies with the weight standards and was directed to report every 2 weeks for
weight checks.
After petitioner’s repeated failure to
report for weight checks, he was formally warned that a repeated refusal to
report for weight check would be dealt with accordingly. He was given another
set of weight check dates which petitioner ignored. When petitioner finally
tipped the scale on July 30, 1990, he weighed at 212 pounds which is way over
his ideal weight of 166 pounds.
From then on, nothing was heard from
petitioner until he followed up his case requesting for leniency on the latter
part of 1992.
On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served
petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards
on weight requirements. Petitioner claimed that PAL discriminated against him
because “the company has not been fair in treating the cabin crew members who
are similarly situated.”
On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally
informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal weight, “and
considering the utmost leniency” extended to him “which spanned a period
covering a total of almost 5 years,” his services were considered terminated
“effective immediately.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against PAL.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal for
obesity can be predicated on the “bona fide occupational qualification” defense
RULING:
In British Columbia Public Service Employee
CommissionA (BSPSERC) v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s
Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called “Meiorin
Test” in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under this
test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose
rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must
establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of
that workrelated purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard
is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related
purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, the SC held that in
order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment
qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved;
and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the
duties of the job.
In short, the test of reasonableness of the
company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided
it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job
performance.”
A common carrier, from the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary
diligence for the safety of the passengers it transports. It is bound to carry
its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances. The law leaves no room for mistake or oversight on the part of a
common carrier. Thus, it is only logical to hold that the weight standards of
PAL show its effort to comply with the exacting obligations imposed upon it by
law by virtue of being a common carrier.
The business of PAL is air transportation.
As such, it has committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order
to achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly
the cabin flight deck crew who are on board the aircraft. The weight standards
of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its
employees.
In other words, the primary objective of
PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety.
It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times
in order to inspire passenger confidence on their ability to care for the
passengers when something goes wrong.
The task of a cabin crew or flight
attendant is not limited to serving meals or attending to the whims and
caprices of the passengers. The most important activity of the cabin crew is to
care for the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft when an
emergency occurs. Passenger safety goes to the core of the job of a cabin
attendant. On board an aircraft, the body weight and size of a cabin attendant
are important factors to consider in case of emergency. Aircrafts have
constricted cabin space, and narrow aisles and exit doors. Thus, the arguments
of respondent that “whether the airline’s flight attendants are overweight or
not has no direct relation to its mission of transporting passengers to their
destination”; and that the weight standards “has nothing to do with
airworthiness of respondent’s airlines,” must fail.
The biggest problem with an overweight
cabin attendant is the possibility of impeding passengers from evacuating the
aircraft, should the occasion call for it. The job of a cabin attendant during
emergencies is to speedily get the passengers out of the aircraft safely. Being
overweight necessarily impedes mobility. Indeed, in an emergency situation,
seconds are what cabin attendants are dealing with, not minutes.
Comments
Post a Comment