 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives
April 29, 2013 FASAP President Bob Anduiza calls on all PAL Flight Attendants to Support and Vote for Risa Hontiveros for Senator
This coming national election in May, we will once again exercise our right to choose leaders who we believe will truly serve the interest of the people, for the good of the country. I would like to make a personal appeal to all FASAP members. Let us throw our support behind Ms. Risa Hontiveros who is running to become a Senator of the Republic. I sincerely believe that Ms.Hontiveros will do well as a Senator. Let us cast our principled vote. I believe that we can make a difference if we exercise our right to vote with diligence. I know her personally and we had the privilege to meet and work with her during FASAP’s campaign against Age and Gender Discrimination. Your vote for Risa will not be in vain and I assure you that she will work for the interest of workers like us. All her life after graduating Cum Laude at the Ateneo de Manila University, she has shared her time and craft in making a positive and progressive impact for the lives of others. She was very successful as a media practitioner in the 1990's. She was Executive producer of IBC 13’s “Public Life with Randy David”, Co-host in GMA 7’s “Firing Line” and also a Co-anchor in the “GMA Network News”. In 1994, Risa won as the Best Female Newscaster, Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and in 2001 was awarded The Outstanding Young Men (TOYM) Award for Peace and Advocacy, Philippine Jaycees. But recently, what really brought Risa Hontiveros into the national consciousness was when as the Representative in Congress of the AKBAYAN party list, she was very active and in the forefront of the fight against corruption in the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo government and other issues on social justice. Progressive, principled and a very decent lady, Risa Hontiveros struck us in FASAP as a natural would be ally in our own struggles for workers’ and womens’ rights. Being a widow, she is alone in bringing up her four (4) children, Francisco, Isabella, Helena and Jacinta. A woman like Risa has a deep and personal grasp of our own issues in FASAP, especially on Women’s Rights. When FASAP was embroiled in a labor dispute against PAL management on the issue of Age and Gender Discrimination in 2010,Risa stood-by us in our struggle. To us, having shared progressive principles,Risa Hontiveros, her AKBAYAN Party List, and FASAP is a match made for each other. As most of you know, we achieved so much in terms of fighting for our workers and women’s rights with Risa Hontiveros as a staunch ally. Please vote for Risa Hontiveros for Senator. A vote for Risa is a vote for progress. A vote for Risa is a vote for a better future for our country. I call on all FASAP members to make this principled and intelligent vote. Thank you very much for your support. Very truly yours, Bob Anduiza President
|
" Imagine: it only took one letter from a lawyer of PAL for the Supreme Court to withdraw their decision on a case that had so many times already been decided upon. I ask you: where will the members of FASAP end up with this kind of system in place?"---PNoy
16 December 2011
TO SAVE THE SUPREME COURT AS AN INSTITUTION CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA SHOULD RESIGN
According to the Supreme Court Administrator and Spokesperson Atty. Midas Marquez, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona did not participate in the controversial recall of the Decision on the FASAP case and that he already “inhibited” from the case as far back as 2008. This is misleading.
The truth is, on October 2, 2011, based on an alleged technicality CJ Corona acted on mere letters of PAL legal counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza and recalled the valid and final September 7, 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court, effectively re-opening the case despite three (3) previous decisions with FINALITY in favour of FASAP.
CJ Corona should immediately remedy this patent miscarriage of justice against the 1,400 illegally retrenched PAL flight attendants and take this opportunity to reinstate the valid September 7, 2011 SC Decision, which said “This case has dragged-on for so long and we are more than duty-bound to finally put an end to the illegality that took place; otherwise, the illegally retrenched employees can rightfully claim that this Court has denied them justice.”. This case has been pending for almost 14 years already.
The FASAP case is probably the most telling controversy which has fast eroded the credibility of CJ Renato Corona. After the sudden recall by the SC of its Decision on FASAP, the clouds of doubt descended fast upon the Supreme Court.
Now he is trying to depict himself as an underdog. The real underdogs and victims here are the ordinary people like the 1,400 illegally retrenched PAL flight attendants and their respective families. Corona is neither ordinary nor an underdog. He is high and mighty and very powerful.
CJ Renato Corona should save the Supreme Court from further ruin by leaving his post. His insistence to drag the entire Philippine Judiciary in his personal battle to hang-on to his position is most unfair to all the other Judges and Justices and the thousands of ordinary, hardworking rank-and- file court employees.
If he truly cares for justice and for the good of our country, he should spare us all from an embarrassing and highly charged impeachment trial by resigning.
December 8, 2011
PRESS STATEMENT
FASAP: SC SHOULD LET WHEELS OF JUSTICE GRIND
Amidst the recent disagreements between the P-Noy Administration and the Supreme Court, we in FASAP feel that President Aquino has all the right to criticize Chief Justice Renato Corona.
President Aquino was voted into Office by an overwhelming majority based on his anti-corruption policy, or its “Matuwid na Daan” concept and has a strong and direct mandate from the Filipino people.
However, recent efforts by the government to pursue the cases against ex-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for electoral fraud and plunder cases have been met with set-backs and stumbling blocks before the Corona Court with its series of decisions favoring GMA.
The Supreme Court has only itself to blame for its zero-credibility. In the first place, CJ Renato Corona was a questionable “midnight appointee” of GMA after he was named Chief Justice one week after the May 2010 presidential elections.
The Corona Court has also issued a series of flip-flopping and controversial decisions. In FASAP’s case, Chief Justice Corona recalled the valid Resolution of the Supreme Court favouring the 1,400 PAL flight attendants who were illegally retrenched by PAL in 1998. The Supreme Court already ruled on the case three times, with finality. But because Atty. Estelito Mendoza (who is incidentally a GMA ally also) wrote letters to the Supreme Court, it recalled its “Final” decision.
We believe that to save the institution and to maintain order and propriety
in our country, Chief Justice Renato Corona should take the high road
by relinquishing his post.
His resignation will pave the way for the wheels of justice to grind and hold those found guilty accountable.
Thank you.
October 17, 2011
PRESS RELEASE
FASAP filed today its Motion For Reconsideration before the Supreme Court en banc asking the high court to set-aside its controversial and unprecedented decision last October 4 to recall the September 7, 2011 final and executory resolution of the FASAP vs. PAL ILLEGAL RETRENCHMENT case, based on mere letters from high profile PAL lawyer Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
Amidst the widespread and snow balling criticisms against the Supreme Court, the FASAP cited legal and Constitutional bases to justify its Motion. FASAP, which is representing the 1,400 flight attendants who were illegally retrenched by PAL, sought to set-aside the highly questionable October 4 recall order and is praying for the reinstatement of the September 7 resolution, which is a valid final and executory judgment.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, FASAP stated that,
“ THE RESOLUTION OF THE SECOND DIVISION IN G.R. NO. 178083 IS A VALID FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT. IT IS THEREFORE LEGALLY IMMUTABLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECALLED.”
FASAP President Bob Anduiza commented that, “ The Supreme Court should not have hastily recalled the Sept.7 resolution based on the mere letters from Atty. Mendoza. We were not even furnished copies of the supposed “letters”. Is that proper and legal? Can you just recall a valid order based on letters?
The Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake here. Sadly, because of their questionable recall, 1,400 lives are affected. We can never fathom the suffering and profound pain of the illegally retrenched PAL flight attendants. Last September 7, they rejoiced when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor after 13 years of fighting and waiting, only to be snatched by an “incredulous” recall based on the say so of Mendoza.”
FASAP’s Motion maintained that the SC should not have recalled its previous resolution, as it is “immutable”, since it is a valid final and executory judgment.
“In other words, any alleged technical lapse, not being grounded on lack of jurisdiction, violation of due process or existence of fraud or collusion, cannot render the 07 September 2011 Resolution void so as to constitute an exception to the rule on immutability.”FASAP said in its Motion.
Anduiza also said that the October 4 recall violated FASAP’s right to due process as PAL did not even “bother to furnish us with copies of the Mendoza letters.”
FASAP argued further that, “ THE RESOLUTION RECALLING THE 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 RESOLUTION IN G.R. NO. 178083 DOES NOT PROVIDE THE REASON THEREFOR. CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH RECALL IS VOID FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.”
The union cited “Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution provides that “(n)o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
“In the instant case, the Honorable Court en banc recalled the Second Division’s 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083 without providing any reason for such recall. The en banc Resolution dated 04 October 2011 merely reads: “the Court En Banc further resolves to recall the resolution dated September 7, 2011 issued by the Second Division in this case.”
“Against all odds, we are left with no option but to continue with the fight. We know the stacks are up against us, but we believe that the law, decency and the truth will prevail.”Bob Anduiza proclaimed.
October 11, 2011
STATEMENT
The Supreme Court resolution RECALLING its previous Decision regarding the illegal retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants from the Lucio Tan led PAL on a mere letter from high profile lawyer Atty. Estelito Mendoza is a vicious stab at the lives of the victims of this tragic and illegal retrenchment way back in 1998. It is the height of judicial insensitivity and arrogance.
For more than 13 years, FASAP has fought for justice, bearing all kinds of delays and other legal manoeuvres thrown against the flight attendants. For so long, the rights and privileges of 1,400 people have been wrongfully withheld.
The lives of the flight attendants were ruined after they were unjustly and illegally thrown out of their livelihood. Some lost their homes, some of their children had to stop attending school, and personal relationships were also affected as the trauma of losing one’s employment took a toll on their lives. Their pain and suffering is immeasurable. Many have also died while the case was being heard.
It will be recalled that in July 22, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FASAP declaring illegal the retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants. On August 20, 2008, PAL filed a motion for reconsideration. PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza also entered as collaborating counsel for PAL.
On October 2, 2009, the High Court ruled again in favor of the flight attendants and said that the ruling was final and that no other pleadings will be entertained.
However, on January 2, 2011, PAL still refused to respect the SC decision and filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. 2nd Motions for Reconsiderations are considered “prohibited pleadings”. Still, the SC entertained the motion.
But then on September 7, 2011, the Supreme Court resolved to deny PAL’s 2nd Motion for Reconsideration and ruled with finality, in favor of FASAP. In the very words of the SC, “(t)o conclude, the rights and privileges the PAL unlawfully withheld from its employees have been in dispute for a decade and a half. Many of these employees have since then moved on, but the arbitrariness and illegality of PAL’s actions have yet to be rectified. This case has dragged on for so long and we are now more than duty-bound to finally put an end to the illegality that took place; otherwise, the illegally retrenched employees can rightfully claim that this Court has denied them justice.”
However, in a most shocking and baffling move, the Supreme Court recalled the September 7, 2011 Ruling based on a mere letter from PAL lawyer ESTELITO MENDOZA.
How can a mere letter from MENDOZA cause a recall of such a monumental Supreme Court Decision involving the lives of 1,400 people?! What compelling reason justified the Supreme Court recall???
Under Art.8, Section 14 of the Philippine Constitution. “no decision shall be rendered by court without expressing herein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” Yet, the en banc SC resolution recalling its previous decision did not bother to say the reason for the recall even as the same affects the substantive rights and lives of 1400 illegally retrenched workers and their families. On the other hand, the SC Spokesperson merely cited Internal rules of the high court and technicalities, based on “Letters” of Atty. Mendoza.
As if by a mere stroke of a magic wand, the case, which had already been decided THREE TIMES by the Supreme Court, has now been re-opened. This paves the way to a possible reversal of the case.
This is unprecedented and highly anomalous, the “Honorable” justices of the Supreme Court should be held accountable for this naked power play.
October 10, 2011
STATEMENT
SC Recalls Decision on PAL’s Illegal Retrenchment
FASAP SLAMS SUPREME COURT RECALL OF DECISION
AS NAKED POWER PLAY
The recall by the Supreme Court of its decision on PAL's illegal retrenchment case, as reported by the media, is mind-boggling and deeply disturbing. Acting on a mere letter from PAL's lawyer Estelito Mendoza, the high court resolved to RECALL its earlier “FINAL” Decision, and re-opened the case again.
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said, "The Filipino public should stand witness to this travesty of justice. The law is being mocked in this case. It sends a very shocking and shameful message to the world that in our country, workers do not stand a chance against the rich and influential businessmen. Imagine, by a mere letter from Atty. Mendoza, the Supreme Court recalled THREE previous decisions! Where else can the workers seek for Justice! The 1400 PAL flight attendants have suffered and fought for this case for the past 13 YEARS, and the SC has already ruled THRICE in favor of FASAP. This is really very, very dangerous." Anduiza said in disgust.
It will be recalled that in July 22, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of FASAP declaring illegal the retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants. On August 20, 2008, PAL filed a motion for reconsideration. PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza also entered as collaborating counsel for PAL.
On October 2, 2009, the High Court ruled again in favour of the flight attendants and said that the ruling was final and that no other pleadings will be entertained.
However, on January 2, 2011, PAL still refused to respect the SC decision and filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. 2nd Motions for Reconsiderations are considered “prohibited pleadings”. Still, the SC entertained the motion.
But then on September 27, 2011, the Supreme Court resolved to deny PAL’s 2nd Motion for Reconsideration and ruled with finality, in favor of FASAP.
Bob Anduiza asked, “How is it possible that by a mere letter from the PAL lawyers, the Supreme Court en banc, immediately RECALLS a major decision involving 1400 Filipino employees who in the past, were already told by the Supreme Court THREE TIMES that PAL’s retrenchment was illegal and that they are entitled to full back wages and reinstatement?”
“Did the ‘honorable’ men and women in robes take in consideration the welfare of the PAL employees? Or did they weigh in favour of the interest of the big and rich businessmen? We cannot help but describe this as a naked power play, where the victims are again the lowly workers. It is decisions like this that tarnish the image of the Supreme Court and the country.” Anduiza lamented.
30 September 2011
PRESS STATEMENT
Today is a black day for PAL and the Filipino Workers. PAL management has terminated the employment of 2,600 regular employees only to be “re-hired” as new and contractual workers in another service provider starting October 01, 2011.
These PAL employees are the unsung heroes of the flag carrier. For many generations, these PAL workers have toiled and sacrificed to serve the riding public. They are the people who assist you, the riding public, in checking in for a flight. They are the voices your hear when you call PAL.
They are the seeming nameless and faceless workers who carry your baggage and load them in the airplane. They are the ones who make sure that the weight and balance of the airplane is computed well to ensure the correct amount of fuel for the flight.
PALEA members are the people who prepare the food for the flights and load them inside the plane.
They are the genuine smiles that greet you in the many airports in the provinces. They have direct and personal relationships with the passengers from Cebu, Davao, Bacolod, Zamboanga, Iloilo, and other provinces. They are the true, dedicated and model PAL employees who treat the airline as their home and the people as their family.
Throughout PAL’s long history, the members have always been the soul of the airline. Without the PALEA ground employees, PAL would not have made the billions of pesos in profit it made last year. Without them, PAL would have closed down permanently back in 1998.
PALEA members are not trouble makers. They are fighting for their lives and FASAP supports their fight.
PAL says it will “outsource” the services being performed by PAL employees to a third party service provider. What PAL is not saying to the public is that they expect the same PAL employee to do the same work, only this time, as a new and contractual employee.
FASAP believes that this tragic episode in PAL, which will terminate and contractualize 2,600 loyal and hardworking PAL workers, will go down in Philippine History as yet another blow to the plight of the Filipino working man. All in the name of profit.
FASAP and its 1,600 members are deeply and sincerely distressed to witness our brothers and sisters in PALEA to be treated this way. We call on the government and the riding public to hear out and take a second hard look at the situation.
We echo the call of PALEA, for PAL management to sit-down with them in honest to goodness negotiations and resolve the problem amicably for the sake of industrial peace and harmony. The riding public deserves no less.
As the country’s National Flag Carrier, PAL reflects the image of the Philippines in the eyes of the world. We hope the government will help find solutions, which are acceptable and fair to everyone concerned.
May God bless us all.
19 Sept 2011
FASAP WINS RETRENCHMENT CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT!
The Supreme Court of the Philippines rules in favor of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association, declaring PAL’s 1998 retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants as illegal!
The Supreme Court’s 2nd Division said, “WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to deny with finality respondent PAL’s second motion for reconsideration. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Costs against the respondents. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.”
In its ruling, the SC stated that, “Significantly, PAL appeared to have deliberately omitted the above highlighted portions of the Court’s Resolution in its 2nd MR. The omission appears to us to be deliberate as we not only referred to our original finding that PAL failed to observe the proper procedures and requirements of a valid retrenchment; we also reaffirmed these findings. Thus, PAL appears to us to be less than honest in its claim.”
The Supreme Court said that , “ To conclude, the rights and privileges that PAL unlawfully withheld from its employees have been in dispute for a decade and a half. Many of these employees have since then moved on, but the arbitrariness and illegality of PAL’s actions have yet to be rectified. This case has dragged on for so long and we are now more than duty-bound to finally put an end to the illegality that took place; otherwise, the illegally retrenched employees can rightfully claim this Court has denied them justice.”
In reaction to the Supreme Court’s historic Decision, FASAP President Bob Anduiza said, “The victims of PAL’s illegal retrenchment has suffered for so long and they deserve this relief from the Supreme Court! It took this long to fight for justice for the 1,400 flight attendants, finally, this sad episode ends in favour of the oppressed!”
In July 22, 2008, the Supreme Court Ordered the reinstatement with full back wages of 1,400 flight attendants who were illegally retrenched by PAL at the height of the pilots strike. PAL appealed the Decision and filed two Motions for Reconsiderations.
Last week, on September 7, 2011, the Supreme Courts 2nd Division ruled with FINALITY in favour of FASAP.
FASAP WINS AGAIN
We Have Done the Impossible, Because Many
Have Kept the Faith
The April 01, 2011 DOLE Decision is a historic victory for FASAP and a leap forward in the campaign against age and gender discrimination in the Philippine workplace.
This firms up FASAP's claim for CBA benefits for the periods starting July 16 2007 to July 15, 2010.
The DOLE Decision is executory. When PAL implements it, management and the FASAP members can start healing the wounds and focus on serving the passengers, instead of fighting. PAL can choose to accept the ruling and implement it, or prolong the dispute by elevating the case to the Court of Appeals.
PAL needs to unite with its front liners and work together in an atmosphere of unity and cooperation. The sooner this gets done, the better for the Company. When PAL implements the Decision, the operations will be smooth and will have less disruptions.
FASAP's battle has not been easy. It has been an uphill climb and as many doomsayers keep saying, an impossible task. This has not daunted the union. The DOLE decision is yet another concrete and strong proof of FASAP's success and nobody can take this away from all of us.
We have done the impossible, because many have kept the faith. Things can only get better from hereon.
==========================================
“This decision is a milestone achievement for FASAP, which will benefit not just its female members, it will also uplift the image of flight attendants as dignified safety professionals. The struggle to address age and gender discrimination in Philippine Airlines has been a life long battle for FASAP, and this decision helps greatly to correct the injustice against the female flight attendants.” --- FASAP president Bob Anduiza
==========================================
DOLE DECISION MANDATES
AGE AND GENDER EQUALITY FOR
ALL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
Last April 01, 2011, DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz ruled to affirm her previous decision favoring FASAP in its CBA dispute with PAL
Sec. Baldoz said “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 23 December 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED....”
The DOLE Secretary also directed PAL to reinstate the Flight Pursers who were retired during the pendency of this case.
In reaction to the favorable decision, FASAP President said that “This decision is a milestone achievement for FASAP, which will benefit not just its female members, it will also uplift the image of flight attendants as dignified safety professionals. The struggle to address age and gender discrimination in Philippine Airlines has been a life long battle for FASAP, and this decision helps greatly to correct the injustice against the female flight attendants.”
Many women's groups and advocates have been following this case in PAL. “This victory is also a major step forward towards the advancement of women empowerment in the Philippine workplace.” Anduiza added.
It will recalled that last December 23, 2010, the DOLE rendered a decision granting salary increases to FASAP members, increases of rice allowance, raising the compulsory retirement age to 60 years old and improvements on pregnancy and maternity benefits.
In her December 23, 2010 Decision, Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz ruled that,
“Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
|
|
16 Jul 07 – 15 July 08 |
16 Jul 08 – 15 July 09 |
16 Jul 09 – 15 July 10 |
|
DCA |
P 2,000 |
P 1,300 |
P 1,300 |
|
ICA |
2,000 |
1,300 |
1,300 |
|
FP |
2,500 |
1,300 |
1,300 |
==========================================
“ … PAL recovered and made a turn-around of US$42.179M net income by March 31, 2010. These numbers indicate the vastly improving financial condition of the company.
Given this picture, we see no cogent reason to disturb the salary package earlier awarded, which we granted based on the balancing of the capability of PAL...”
==========================================
PAL filed a Motion for reconsideration but the DOLE ruled again in FASAP's favor last April 01, 2011. In granting FASAP its economic benefits, Sec. Baldoz said,
“ PAL did not bother to rebut by way of countervailing evidence FASAP's contention that even at the height of its supposed financial difficulties, PAL managed to offer a Php230M economic package sometime in June 2009.
As the figures show, while PAL suffered a loss of US$297.8M for fiscal year 2008-2009, in less than two years, PAL recovered and made a turn-around of US$42.179M net income by March 31, 2010. These numbers indicate the vastly improving financial condition of the company.
Given this picture, we see no cogent reason to disturb the salary package earlier awarded, which we granted based on the balancing of the capability of PAL as extracted from its 'Consolidated Financial Statements March 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and Independent Auditors Report, and the demand for equity by FASAP.”
The DOLE also supported the various laws, policies and treaties cited by FASAP on age and gender discrimination against flight attendants. Not only are the Philippine laws clear, many UN treaties and policies are stacked in favor of FASAP's position.
Sec. Baldoz said in her Decision,
“ On the issue of retirement, we have amply laid down the basis for the fixing of the retirement at age 60. We said that we find the bracketing discriminatory, considering the absence of any justification or valid distinction by which the variance in age between male and female, or between and among different dates of hiring, was contemplated.
Relating the principle of equality irrespective of gender or sex, international law has prescribed standards through general human rights instruments crafted and adopted by the United Nations commencing with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, followed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all of which the Philippine is a signatory.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is considered definitive legal instrument regarding respect for and observance of the human rights of women explicitly acknowledging the broad-ranging 'discrimination against women' by defining it as: '.any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political economic, social, cultural civil, or any other field.'.”
==========================================
“ On the issue of retirement, we have amply laid down the basis for the fixing of the retirement at age 60. We said that we find the bracketing discriminatory, considering the absence of any justification or valid distinction by which the variance in age between male and female, or between and among different dates of hiring, was contemplated.”
==========================================
The Decision also discussed the International Labor Organization rules on equal opportunity,
“ … pursuant to ILO Convention NO.111- equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof, discrimination includes : '(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, nations extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment and occupation; and (b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupations as may be determined by the member concerned after consultation with representative employees' and workers' organizations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies.”
The Philippine Supreme Court itself has held in the case of International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing that:
“public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils.
In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.
The Constitution also directs the State to promote 'equality of employment opportunities for all. Similarly, the the Labor Code provides that the State shall 'ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed.”
The DOLE specifically pointed out the discrimination of flight attendants belonging to different hiring dates.
“ Hence, in addition to being discriminatory, we also find the 'date-of-hire classification' employed by PAL management as basis for the varying retirement ages to be an invalid classification. There is absolutely no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by those hire before 22 November 1996 (to retire at 55 for female and 60 for male), after 22 November 1996 (to retire at 45 for both genders) and after 22 November 2000 (to retire 40 for both genders) as would warrant the difference in their retirement age.
The foregoing ratiocination constrain this Office to frown upon the compulsory retirement provision in the old CBA absent any rhyme or reason to support the distinction between male and female cabin attendants, as well as those who were hired before 22 November 1996, those hired thereafter, and those hired after 22 November 2000.
==========================================
“Hence, in addition to being discriminatory, we also find the 'date-of-hire classification' employed by PAL management as basis for the varying retirement ages to be an invalid classification.”
==========================================
The most disturbing possibility of industry-wide tendencies is that it can allow employers to discriminate against their employees so long as such discrimination is pervasive in the industry.”
In addition to the main CBA dispute, the DOLE also ruled on PAL's move to still retire the senior flight attendants who turned 55 years old despite the DOLE ruling and in violation of its Assumption Order.
Last January 14, 2011, FASAP filed an Urgent Motion for Status Quo Order seeking to stop PAL from retiring its senior members. The union accused PAL of worsening the already tense labor situation.
The DOLE also ruled in favor of FASAP, and has Ordered the reinstatement of the senior flight attendants. It said,
“The Supreme Court had the occasion to describe what constitutes an act of exacerbation. It said that any act committed during the pendency of the dispute that tends to give rise to further contentious issues or increase the tensions between the parties should be considered an act of exacerbation. To our mind, the serving of notice of retirement to some FASAP members, when the age for such retirement was still the very issue needing resolution before this Office, would be premature and would only tend to escalate the tension between the parties.
Furthermore, the retirement of the nine (9) FASAP members is a patent disregard of the very clear intent and pronouncement of the 23 December 2010 Decision, subject of the Motions at hand.”
The Order's dispositive portion reads that,
“ WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 23 December 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of monthly rice allowance for the first year of the CBA effective 16 July 2007 shall be reduced from Php1,800 to Php1,500.
PAL is directed to immediately reinstate the nine (09) Flight Pursers who were retired during the pendency of this case, namely Yvette Grant, Vina Sanchez, Cora Mislang, Irma Bituin, Cristina Mendoza, Evangeline Bocobo, Mooning Noel, Maria Afable and Basilisa Inocando, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to their full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits of their monetary equivalent computed from the time they were retired up to the time of their actual reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.”
==========================================
“Furthermore, the retirement of the nine (9) FASAP members is a patent disregard of the very clear intent and pronouncement of the 23 December 2010 Decision, subject of the Motions at hand.”
==========================================
This victory is historic and well-deserved. We fought hard for this and Secretary Baldoz's ruling will benefit not just FASAP members, but also the many other Filipino workers who continue to be discriminated against because of their gender and age.
Thank you very much to all who kept the faith.
==========================================
“The most disturbing possibility of industry-wide tendencies is that it can allow employers to discriminate against their employees so long as such discrimination is pervasive in the industry.”
=====================================
BADGE OF HONOR
FASAP AWARDED THE BAYI CITATION - Exemplary Women in Politics and Governance
Last March 31, 2011, the centenary of the global women's movement, The Bayi Citation awarded FASAP with a SPECIAL CITATION “For their perseverance to fight women's discrimination in the workplace and to secure the rights and welfare of the women workers of Philippine Airlines.”
“The Bayi Citation was confered by the Institute of Politics and Governance (IPG) and the Barangay Bayan Governance Consortium (BBGC) to 30 exemplary women in politics and governance in 2005, 2007, and 2009. The 2005 Bayi Citation was carried out by the IPG and BBGC in partnership with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung-Philippines. In 2007, One World Action, a United Kingdom based government organization, came in as a partner.”
This year's Bayi Citation Awardees are Prof. Leonor “Liling” Briones, Mayor Cecilia Claire Reyes, Ms. Julie Lluch, Dr. Edith Yu Magos-Regalado, Ms. Teresa “Tessie” Banaynal-Fernandez, Ms. Cecilia “Che-che” Lazaro, Rep. Maria Isabelle “Beng” Climaco, Ms. Heidi Mendoza, Ms. Bai Era Colmo-Espana, Kgd. Maria Ruiz Buanghug.
In its message of acceptance, FASAP,through its president Bob Anduiza, said,
“For decades, FASAP has been pushing for equality among PAL's flight attendants. But through the years, PAL management has used the retirement issue as bargaining leverage against FASAP during CBA negotiations.
However, the flight attendants of FASAP have had enough. On September 9, 2010, our union filed a Notice of Strike against PAL to press for Age and Gender equality in the CBA.
The FASAP ranks summoned all its strength and courage to defend its rights and dignity of the flight attendants in the national flag carrier.
In a historic decision, the DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz upheld the law and the State's policy on equal opportunity. She ruled in favor of FASAP and raised the retirement age of all flight attendants to 60 years old.
This is a triumph not just for the flight attendants. The Baldoz ruling ensures all Filipino workers of equal opportunity, especially for women. For the first time in Philippine history, PAL's female flight attendants can work until 60 years old!
We are humbled and honored by the Special Citation from the Bayi. We accept it and will consider this as our badge of honor, as we continue our fight for equality and women empowerment in the country's flag carrier.
Thank you very much and more power to the BAYI Citation.”
PRESS RELEASE
DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz today ruled to affirm her previous decision favoring FASAP in its CBA dispute with PAL.
Sec. Baldoz said “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 23 December 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED....”
The DOLE Secretary also directed PAL to reinstate the Flight Pursers who were retired during the pendency of this case.
In reaction to the favorable decision, FASAP President said that “This decision is a milestone achievement for FASAP, which will benefit not just its female members, it will also uplift the image of flight attendants as dignified safety professionals. The struggle to address age and gender discrimination in Philippine Airlines has been a life long battle for FASAP, and this decision helps greatly to correct the injustice against the female flight attendants.”
Many women's groups and advocates have been following this case in PAL. “This victory is also a major step forward towards the advancement of women empowerment in the Philippine workplace.” Anduiza added.
It will recalled that last December 23, 2010, the DOLE rendered a decision granting salary increases to FASAP members, increases of rice allowance, raising the compulsory retirement age to 60 years old and improvements on pregnancy and maternity benefits.
The PAL-FASAP CBA dispute covers the period starting from July 2007 to July 2010. The negotiations reached a deadlock and FASAP filed a Notice of Strike last October 2010. The strike was averted after the DOLE Assumed Jurisdiction of the case. And on December 23, 2010, Sec. Baldoz ruled to raise the retirement age of all flight attendants to 60 years old.
PAL filed a Motion for reconsideration but the DOLE ruled again in FASAP's favor.
“FASAP is thankful to the P-Noy Administration and especially Sec. Baldoz for upholding the rights of our flight attendants. PAL can now proudly claim to be an equal opportunity company, a fitting policy for Asia's first airline.
We hope that PAL management will accept this decision and finally put to rest the dispute with FASAP.
The competition in the airline industry will heighten, and it would be best for PAL to unite with its front liners, mend the bruises and work together to reclaim its rightful place as the number one Airline in the country.” Bob Anduiza said.
March 10, 2011
PRESS RELEASE
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Issues Position Paper Citing PAL for Discrimination against Flight Attendants
“recognizes and affirms women's rights as human rights.” --CHR
In a 10-page position paper, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR) issued its position regarding the Philippine Airlines' Policy on Compulsory Retirement and Pregnancy Leave.
The CHR stated:
“1. DECLARING the retirement, pregnancy and maternity policies embodied in the PAL-FASAP Collective Bargaining Agreement as discriminatory practices and violative of fundamental guarantees against such practices embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Philippine Magna Carta of Women; and
2. COMMENDING and fully supporting the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in striking down the discriminatory provision of the PAL-FASAP CBA.”
Those who approved of the ruling are CHR Chairperson Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Com. Ma. Victoria V. Cardona, Com. Norberto Dela Cruz and Com. Jose Manuel S. Mamauag. Com. Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing was on-leave.
The CHR position paper said that if the provisions contained in the CBA run contrary to law, public morals, or public policy, such provisions may well be voided.
Human rights law is law
It said the,“human rights law is law. It is a set of obligations upon the State arising from three sources: treaties, customary norms and general principles of law.”
“As the government instrumentality tasked with the implementation of labor and social legislation, the Department of Labor and Employment ought not to allow the CBA to be used as a safe harbor for discrimination against women and in the workplace.”
CHR is Gender Ombud
The CHR, pursuant to its mandate to “Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with International treaty obligations on human rights” and its mandate as the Gender Ombud under the Magna Carta of Women, issued this position paper on the Philippine Airlines' (PAL) policies on compulsory retirement and pregnancy leave.
Last year, FASAP complained to the CHR the discriminatory policies of PAL embodied in the “ November 22, 1996 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) executed by the FASAP and PAL Section 144, Article XXIX sets the compulsory retirement age of cabin attendants at fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males for those hired before the signing of the Agreement, and at forty-five (45) and forty (40) for all cabin attendants hired after its signing and after 22 November 2000, respectively.”
FASAPalso raised PAL's “no-motherhood” policy, wherein flight attendants are placed on prolonged leaves-without-pay and benefits are suspended during their pregnancy and maternity leaves.
In its 10-page position paper, the CHR pointed-out the various laws, international treaties, covenants and human rights policies on discrimination.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 7, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
The CHR also cited Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that each“ State Party shall respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also mandate the States parties, which include the Philippines, to “undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
CEDAW and MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN
The Philippines has been a state party to CEDAW since 1981. CEDAW stands for the Convention on Elimination of all sorts of Discrimination Against Women.
Article 1 of CEDAW defines discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing of nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality with men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
The Philippine recently enacted Republic Act 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women, Section 2 of which provides that the State shall “ensure the substantive equality of women and men. It shall pursue equal opportunities and access as well as ensure equal results and outcomes for women and men.”
It also“ recognizes and affirms women's rights as human rights.”
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said, “The CHR position serves as a strong reminder to PAL management to correct its discriminatory policies against women. As what the CHR said 'human rights law is law!'”
March 07, 2011
PRESS STATEMENT IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL WOMENS' DAY
PAL, as the nation's flag carrier, should take the lead in respecting the rights of women workers
As the nation joins the celebration of International Womens' Day on March 08, 2011, we are obliged to call on the Philippine Government, particularly the Department of Labor and Employment to enforce its ruling on the PAL-FASAP labor dispute.
It will be recalled that FASAP filed a Notice of Strike last September 9, 2010 in protest of PAL's discriminatory policies on retirement age and its “no-motherhood” rule where flight attendants are placed on prolonged leaves without pay during pregnancy.
PAL's old compulsory retirement age limits for flight attendants are as young as 40, 45 and 55 years old, while the other PAL employees are allowed to work until 65 years old. The pilots, whether male or female, can also work until 60 years old.
The DOLE prevented FASAP from staging its strike and assumed jurisdiction of the case last October 6, 2010.
Last December 23, 2010, DOLE Sec. Rosalinda Baldoz upheld the flight attendants' constitutional right to equal opportunity by raising the retirement age to 60 years old, for both women and men.
However, PAL management is using its vast financial resources to overturn Sec. Baldoz's historic ruling by appealing the case and professing to prolong the dispute and take it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The struggle of flight attendants against Age and Gender discrimination has been a life-long battle for FASAP. The issue of sexism and discrimination has been contentious through the years.
Fortunately, the government has already passed the Magna Carta of Women and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
This law and the steadfast position of the DOLE to ensure equal work opportunities for men and women helped FASAP's case against PAL.
However, PAL is not respecting the DOLE order and, worse, continues to retire flight attendants below 60 years old. This, despite a Status Quo Order issued by the DOLE last January 28, 2011.
PAL, as the nation's flag carrier, should take the lead in respecting the rights of women workers.
The implementation of the DOLE's Order should be a very fitting and shining example that in the Philippines, the rights of Women are respected.
Bob Anduiza
President
FASAP PRESS RELEASE
January 30, 2011
FASAP Succeeds in Saving Senior PAL flight attendants from Forced Retirement
Acting on FASAP's Urgent Motion, the Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order suspending PAL's move to retire senior flight attendants who are 55 years old.
In an Official correspondence dated 28 January 2011, DoLE Undersecretary Hans Leo J. Cacdac by Authority of the Secretary of Labor ordered PAL to stop implementing its retirement policies, "pending the final resolution of all motions relative to the case."
The DoLE Order stated that, "You are reminded that, pursuant to the standing Assumption of Jurisdiction Order issued by the Honorable Secretary on 6 October 2010, both PAL and FASAP are enjoined from continuing acts that may exacerbate the situation or give rise to further contentious issues or increase the tension between them."
It will be recalled that last January 13, 2011, PAL management served notices of retirement to 8 senior flight attendants who are 55 years old effective January 16, 2011, which was only 3 days away. On January 14, 2011, FASAP filed an Urgent Motion for Status Quo Order before the Office of the DoLE Secretary.
"We are glad that the Office of the DoLE Secretary heeded FASAP's urgent call to stop PAL from worsening the labor tension between PAL and FASAP." said FASAP president Bob Anduiza.
"PAL's move to suddenly retire our members and the manner by which they carried it out, giving them only 3 days before being thrown out of their jobs was really very provocative and cruel." Anduiza added.
"DoLE's swift action on our Urgent Motion is a much needed move by the government and should serve as a reminder to PAL that it is not above the law."He said.
"We sincerely hope PAL management will re-think its combative stance and respect DoLE's decision. PAL and FASAP should start mending its bruised relationship and work together for the good of the country's flag carrier." FASAP said in its press statement.
FASAP STATEMENT
A Call to support Dole Secretary Baldoz's historic ruling
for age and gender equality in PAL
FASAP's struggle against gender discrimination in the National flag carrier has been a long and difficult fight.
In a macho society such as ours, coupled with the power and influence of big businessmen, campaigning against sexism of flight attendants is like preaching about God to atheists.
“ Ever since the inception of the profession in the 1930s, flight attendants were stereotyped as sexy, exuberant, glamorous and feminine individuals. Sadly, this stereotyping of women is a form of sexism; marketing flight attendants as sex objects and highlighting their supposed allure to traveling businessmen rather than their capability to ensure flight safety and comfort.” – (Fasap primer on sexism and gender discrimination against PAL flight attendants)
Flight attendants, as Conrado de Quiros wrote in an article, are not “GROs”. We are safety professionals. Our primary role in the aircraft is to ensure the safety and comfort of passengers. In case of emergencies, the flight attendants could spell the difference between the life and death of the passengers.
For decades, FASAP has been pushing for equality among PAL's flight attendants. But through the the years, PAL management has used the retirement issue as bargaining leverage against FASAP.
However, the flight attendants of FASAP have had enough. On September 9, 2010, our union filed a Notice of Strike against PAL to press for Age and Gender equality in the CBA.
The FASAP ranks summoned all its strength and courage to defend its rights and dignity of the flight attendants in the national flag carrier.
And in a historic decision, the DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz upheld the law and the State's policy on equal opportunity. She ruled in favor of FASAP and raised the retirement age of all flight attendants to 60 years old.
FASAP is eternally grateful to Secretary Baldoz for standing up to PAL and ruled for the benefit of the workers.
This is a triumph not just for the flight attendants. The Baldoz ruling ensures all Filipino workers of equal opportunity, especially for women. For the first time in Philippine history, PAL's female flight attendants can work until 60 years old!
But the Lucio Tan–led PAL management is still opposing Secretary Baldoz's ruling. In fact, last January 13, PAL still retired (08) eight female flight attendants in utter disrespect to the DOLE ruling and in violation of its Assumption Order to maintain the status quo while the PAL-FASAP case is being resolved.
We humbly call on the Department of Labor, the Philippine Commission on Women, the Commission on Human Rights, the Aquino administration and the general public, through the vigilance of the Philippine media, to help us in this historic campaign for age and gender equality in our beloved national flag carrier, Philippine Airlines!
Thank you very much.
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Quezon City
STATEMENT of Chairperson Loretta Ann P. Rosales on the PAL-FASAP Labor Dispute on Age and Gender Discrimination
PCW, Manila, January 21, 2010
On behalf of the Commission on Human Rights, in particular Commissioner Maria Victoria Cardona, our focal commissioner on women's human rights, I express my steadfast solidarity with the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) in their quest to transform Philippine Airlines into an equal opportunity employer, and to call for greater judicial sensitivity to human rights standards and principles.
This stance is inspired by the position the Commission on Human Rights has taken in regard to the retirement, pregnancy and maternity policies being implemented by PAL on its flight attendants, copies of which are to be transmitted to PAL, FASAP and concerned agencies of government.
At the onset, the Commission has noted that the general framework on gender equality in the Philippines evinces a strong aversion to both direct and indirect forms of discrimination. Moreover, it is guided by an intersectional perspective that views discrimination experienced by women in light of other realities such as marital status, pregnancy, race, disability, HIV status, sexual orientation etc. Finally, in response tot he historical trends placing women at a disadvantage, especially in the workplace, special measures have been integrated in the legal framework to level the playing field between employed women and their male counterparts.
Applying this framework to look at PAL's retirement policy, the Commission has made the following conclusions:
The Commission is conscious of the fact that an overwhelming percentage of PAL's flight attendants are women. As stated by PAL itself in its position paper submitted to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on 16 October 2010, eight (8) female flight attendants have been due to retire last year, compared to one male flight attendant. Despite the ruling of the Secretary of Labor and Employment invalidating such retirement policy for being discriminatory against women, Judge Oscar Pimentel of the Regional Trial Court of Makati lifted the writ of injunction on its implementation. Consequently, the flight attendants concerned have been compulsorily retired by management.
Left unchecked, such judicial indiscretion allows the lopsided effect of such retirement policy on women to continue. The discriminatory character of CBA's ostensible gender-neutral retirement policy (45,40) may be attributed to a conscious preference for younger flight attendants on the belief that they are more physically attractive to passengers than older flight attendants. This is an added dimension to the gender-based indirectly discriminatory policy we have referred to earlier. As such, the Commission is alarmed that even at this time, the level of public discourse on employment in service-oriented industries such as the airline industry in which PAL is a dominant player has not been able to transcended the embedded restrictions of a patriarchal society obsessed with virility.
All things considered, the situation of PAL's flight attendants relative to the rest of its workforce defies logic. The Commission could only surmise that the premature mandatory retirement policies being implemented under the past CBAs are a subtle ploy to take advantage of the greater supply of younger applicants for cabin attendant position thereby rendering flight attendants more expendable than classified as high-risk potential borrowers by bands and other lending institutions.
Applying an intersectional or interlocking approach - which recognizes the fact that subordination, exclusion or marginalization may manifest in the lives of some people in multiple ways' - the Commission understands that women, who comprise two-thirds of FASAP's membership, are twice-prejudiced in this context. Along with male flight attendants, they have to contend with a form of age-based discrimination that panders to fossilized sexisms in the Philippine society, and suffer at the same time the inequitable effects of a discriminatory retirement policy.
For these reasons, the Commission on Human Rights has declared the retirement policy as well as the pregnancy and maternity policies embodied in the PAL-FASAP Collective Bargaining Agreement as discriminatory practices violative of fundamental guarantees embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Philippine Magna Carta of Women.
Accordingly, I call on the judicial authorities to take a more serious look into the human rights implications of the current litigation in line with the Commission's conclusions. At the same time, PAL should desist from implementing the said resolution pending the final resolution of the dispute by the Department of Labor and Employment. I remain confident that the Philippine Government would fully live up to its obligations under international human rights law, and to its commitment to foster a more equal Philippine society.
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES
Chairperson
Fly the DOLE Plane Well:
GWP Reminds Baldoz to Uphold DOLE’s Mandate to Protect the Rights of Workers
In light of the PAL management seeking a reversal of the DOLE decision last
December 23, 2010, Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Emmi De Jesus called on
Secretary Baldoz to stand firm in upholding DOLE’s mandate to protect the
rights of workers.
“We know fully well that FASAP is David to Lucio Tan’s Goliath in this
fight for workers’ rights and welfare. The PAL management can muster
gargantuan resources to put up a long-stretching legal fight with the sole
objective of furthering Tan’s profiteering gains at the expense of the
rights and welfare of its workers. That DOLE ruling in favor of the FASAP
workers last December 23 is a glimmer of hope to workers that they can gain
concrete rewards out of their continued unity in struggle,” said De Jesus.*
“It is only proper that DOLE recognizes the right of flight attendants to
their security of tenure well unto the age of retirement, which is 60 years
old, as opposed to PAL’s desire to peg their retirement age at 45 years old.
GWP asserts its position that flight attendants are skilled safety personnel
who are expected to perform better as they gain more experience with age. By
forcing a policy of earlier retirement, PAL is exposing its opportunist
tendency of using the flight attendants as eye candy for their passengers,
more than as safety personnel. At this age where the Philippine government
has upheld its commitment to CEDAW by signing into law the Magna Carta of
Women, using male and female flight attendants as objects is a regressive
management policy,” explained Rep. De Jesus.*
“Wherever women workers are up in arms to fight for their rights, GWP
stands by them. We therefore see it as our duty to remind the DOLE Secretary
to stand firm and uphold workers’ rights and welfare,” De Jesus ended. ###*
Representative EMMI DE JESUS
Gabriela Women's Party
"Babae, Bata, OFWs at Bayan.... Tuloy ang Laban!"
FASAP PRESS STATEMENT
January 24, 2011
FASAP supports appointment of Ronald Llamas
as Chief Political Adviser
We in FASAP support President Noynoy Aquino's appointment of Ronald Llamas as his chief political adviser.
We view Mr. Llamas' appointment as a refreshing move by Pres. Aquino to choose a political adviser who comes from the progressive sector of society.
Llamas' background in the progressive movement is a step towards the right direction. We believe he will be an adviser who is in touch and truly cares about the plight of the masses.
The Philippines today is in crisis, of having abject poverty, criminality, corruption and a struggling economy.
President Aquino's task of leading our country towards stability, peace and growth is extremely difficult and Ronald Llamas' role as political adviser will surely help the government keep its bearing in line with the needs of the people.
Thank you.
Bob Anduiza
President – FASAP
This Just in
2330H 15 Jan 2011
In today's (Jan 15) meeting, the Office of the DOLE Secretary told PAL to submit its comment to FASAP's Urgent Motion (filed) Jan 14 for a Status Quo Order. Sec. Baldoz will immediately rule on the issue.
15 January 2011
FASAP filed yesterday (Jan 14 2011) an URGENT MOTION to DOLE Sec. Baldoz to STOP PAL from retiring members at 55 years old.
DOLE called for an URGENT meeting TODAY (JAN 15) regarding FASAP’s motion.
FASAP said PAL’s move VIOLATES the Assumption Order of the DOLE to maintain the status quo. It also goes against the ruling of DOLE raising the retirement age for ALL flight attendants to 60 years old.
PAL’s move worsens the labor dispute and if not stopped, FASAP will be forced to escalate its actions to defend its members. FASAP is determined to fight this case all the way!
FASAP Condemns PAL's move to defy DOLE ruling
FASAP strongly condemns the Lucio Tan-led PAL management's move to retire its female flight attendants at 55 years old despite the Order of the Department of Labor to raise the retirement age of all PAL flight attendants to 60 years old.
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said that, “This is an affront not only to FASAP but also in utter disregard towards Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz's recent ruling.”
Anduiza further explained “PAL's cruelty worsens the dispute between PAL and FASAP and is another display of PAL's disrespect towards female workers”
In a cold and swift action, PAL management served notices of separation to 8 female flight attendants informing them of their compulsory retirement effective January 16, 2011 or just TWO DAYS away.
It came as a shock and devastating blow to the affected flight attendants, who were caught unaware of Pal’s intentions, considering the recent DOLE ruling. Last December 23, 2010, DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz issued an Order to raise the retirement age of all PAL flight attendants to 60 years old.
It will be recalled that the DOLE secretary assumed jurisdiction of the PAL-FASAP labor dispute last October after FASAP filed a notice of strike to press for equality in Pal’s retirement policies. The discriminatory retirement age policy is the major issue of the PAL-FASAP labor dispute.
The assumption order prevented the strike but mandated the status quo. PAL's move to still retire flight attendants at 55 years old defies the said order.
“This blatant move of PAL to defy the Dole’s ruling will certainly exacerbate the labor dispute in PAL. We urge the DOLE Secretary Baldoz to immediately stop PAL Management from retiring the flight attendants, which is contrary to the DOLE ruling” Bob Anduiza aired.
He also issued an appeal saying, “We call on the media, the P-Noy government and the riding public to join us in our struggle to stop the human rights violation, the age and gender discrimination in our National flag carrier!”
PRESS RELEASE
The Lucio Tan-led PAL missed the golden opportunity for reconciliation with its flight attendants. Last week, FASAP expressed its desire to reconcile with PAL management in a letter to its president Mr. Jaime J. Bautista dated January 05, 2011.
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said, “The recent decision of Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Rosalinda P. Baldoz, resolving the PAL-FASAP CBA dispute is a golden opportunity for both parties to work together and face the tough competition in the Airline industry.
We urge PAL to join hands with its flight attendants. We need one another to support the Company's operations and beat PAL's competitors.
We sincerely believe it is an opportune time for us to consider confidence building measures, which will take us away from the atmosphere of conflict towards making the PAL workplace a happy, peaceful environment.”
FASAP called on PAL's management to “accept Sec. Baldoz's ruling and start healing the bruises and wounds from this labor dispute.”
Reacting to news of PAL's decision to file a Motion for Reconsideration of DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz's ruling on the PAL-FASAP CBA dispute, Bob Anduiza said that it “is a clear sign that instead of promoting peace, management opts to continue fighting with its flight attendants.”
“The Baldoz ruling was very reasonable and fair.” Anduiza added.
On the issue of Compulsory Retirement Age/Gender Discrimination, Secretary Baldoz ruled that PAL's retirement structure, “ to be discriminatory which may not only be in the context of gender but also as in terms of equal work opportunity as guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Labor Code and its implementing Rules.”
She further stressed “The different retirement ages for flight attendants performing the same services constitute a clear discrimination of their right to equal work opportunity.”
It is in this light that setting the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years-both for male and female cabin crew personnel- is fair and reasonable. This is to correct the gender discrimination arising from the distinction of the retirement age for male and female for those hired before 22 November 1996, and the violation of the principle of equality of work opportunities enshrined in Art. 3 of the Labor Code.”
As for PAL's financial capacity to pay for salary increases, Secretary Baldoz stressed in her decision that, “we remain confident that PAL is not completely financially handicapped that it cannot absorb reasonable economic package for cabin crew services that perform an essential, core function of the business.”
The DOLE Secretary cited PAL's own Financial Statements for the first quarter of FY 2010-2011 (April, May and June 2010). The records show that its “equity had doubled from Php 1,695,532,000 (as of March 31, 2010) to Php 3,321,653,000.”
The DOLE ruling likewise said that, “the totality of indicators demonstrates that PAL still has the means to keep its business afloat, and has to ensure viability of core operations performed by cabin crew services.”
In a press statement, Bob Anduiza said, “It is really pathetic that PAL is once again hugging the news not to promote travel and tourism, but because of labor disputes. The Airline industry is very competitive but instead of focusing on running the business well, of selling more tickets and attracting more passengers, our management is concentrating on fighting its own front-liners, the flight attendants.”
“The Philippine Commission on Women, the Commission on Human Rights and now the Department of Labor have all spoken against PAL's discriminatory policies”
“PAL is being arrogant and foolish, but FASAP will not be discouraged. We will fight for our rights and dignity until its rightful and just conclusion.”
“We humbly invite the media, the P-Noy administration and the riding public to join and support us in our struggle for equality against the rich and powerful Philippine Airlines.” the FASAP president said.
PRESS RELEASE
DOLE RESOLVES PAL-FASAP DISPUTE:
FASAP WINS LABOR DISPUTE AGAINST PAL
FASAP and its 1600 members won its labor dispute against PAL today.
The flight attendants of PAL will indeed have a very Merry Christmas after Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Rosalinda D. Baldoz ruled in its favor to correct the discriminatory compulsory retirement age from 55, 45 and 40 years old to 60 years old, for both male and female flight attendants.
In her Order dated December 24, 2010, Secretary Baldoz said, “The different retirement ages for flight attendants performing the same services constitute a clear discrimination of their right to equal work opportunity.”
The DOLE Order further declared, “It is in this light that setting the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years – both for male and female cabin crew personnel – is fair and reasonable.”
The retirement age of flight attendants is the most contentious issue between PAL and FASAP. The FASAP president Bob Anduiza rallied its flight attendants and led them to fight the discrimination issue of the CBA dispute this year after efforts to forge an amicable contract ended in a deadlock on the issue of age and gender discrimination.
“As union leaders, we owe it to our members and to other female workers in the country to stand up against discrimination in the Philippine workplace. If we cannot have equality in the PAL workplace, then it would be doubly difficult for other Filipino workers to assert their rights.”
After learning of the DOLE decision, Anduiza was thankful and said, “ We are elated with the decision of Secretary Baldoz, upholding equality for the PAL flight attendants. She deserves praise and respect for her display of fairness and resolve despite the reputed power and influence of PAL.” Anduiza added.
In the said Order, Sec. Baldoz argued, “The set up under the old CBA is that female attendants are forced to retire at age 55, while their male counterparts may serve until age 60, for cabin attendants hired before 22 November 1996. Hereon, all cabin attendants hired thereafter, regardless of gender, shall be forced to retire at age 45; while, those hired after 22 November 2000 shall retire at the much early age of 40. Indeed, this structure appears to be discriminatory which may not only be in the context of gender but also as in terms of equal work opportunity as guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.”
FASAP was also able to support its position on the economic aspect of the dispute, citing PAL’s most recent financial statements showing the Company’s recent financial recovery and profitability. PAL’s offer of 105 Million pesos was increased by the DOLE to around 200 million, after it ruled to grant reasonable wage increases, as follows:
“Under the circumstances, we find the following wage increases and augmentation in rice allowance fair and reasonable and, therefore, awards the same to FASAP:
Wage increases
16 Jul 07 – 15 July 08 16 Jul 08 – 15 July 09 16 Jul 09 – 15 July 10
DCA
P 2,000 P 1,300 P 1,300
ICA
P 2,000 P 1,300 P 1,300
FP
P 2,500 P 1,300 P 1,300
FASAP also cited the disparity of the rice subsidy compared to other PAL employees. In this regard, the DOLE increased it to “Rice allowance. – Fixed at Php1,800 per member.”
A jubilant Bob Anduiza said, “This is a historic victory not just for FASAP and the flight attendants, this campaign and the decision of Sec. Baldoz sets a clear and strong message to employers in the country to respect the rights of all Filipino workers, regardless of age and gender. We take this opportunity to thank the Aquino Administration, the watchful glare of the media, our friends in civil society and of course Secretary Baldoz for helping FASAP defend the rights of its flight attendant members."
"We extend our hand to PAL management in reconcialition and take this golden opportunity to work together and face the tough competition in the airline industry. We call on PAL’s management, to accept this ruling and start healing the bruises and wounds from this labor dispute" Bob Anduiza appealed.
In a message to all FASAP members, Anduiza said, "This is a triumph not just for PAL flight attendants. The DOLE ruling ensures Filipinos workers of equal opportunity, especially for women. For the first time in Philippine history, PAL's female flight attendants can work until 60 years old!"
Press Release
FASAP Urges DOLE Sec. Baldoz to End Discrimination in PAL
Amidst the strike threat of PAL's ground union this coming Holiday Season, the PAL flight attendants union, FASAP renewed its call for the Department of Labor and Employment to end the discrimination against its 1,600 strong members.
In a letter addressed to Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz dated December 09, 2010, FASAP president Bob Anduiza said“Everyday, every hour and every minute that passes without addressing the discrimination in PAL, violates the rights of the flight attendants, most especially its women members.”
Anduiza reiterated the adverse effects of PAL's retirement policy for flight attendants, saying,
“If for PAL, retiring the flight attendants at 40, 45, and 55 years is but a business policy, to maintain young and fresh-looking women as front-line flight attendants, for our members, this policy has a more personal, real and profoundly painful effect.
Hundreds of female flight attendants have already suffered, after being retired at 55 years old, while their male counterparts continue to work until 60 years old. Many of them, are no longer able to find work.
Everyday, majority of our members agonize and are worried about their future, simply because PAL wants younger flight attendants. We cannot begin to fully describe the deep adverse effects this has on our members.
They fret that once they reach 40 years old, all their plans and ambitions for their family will be lost because of PAL's retirement policy. How will they secure their children’s future? How will they build their homes? Where will they go after retiring at 55, 45 and 40 years old?”. Bob Anduiza added.
The PAL-FASAP CBA dispute case is pending before the Office of the DOLE Secretary after FASAP filed a Notice of Strike last September 09, 2010 over charges of Age and Gender Discrimination in PAL.
Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz prevented the flight attendants from staging a strike after she assumed jurisdiction of the labor dispute last October 6, 2010.
The case has been submitted for the DOLE's resolution.
“Our members who supported the union's decision to go for a strike, are getting restless. They eagerly await the long overdue resolution of the CBA dispute.
FASAP's issues are not unreasonable. We only ask for what we believe we truly deserve.
We are pinning all our hopes on your wisdom and best sense of fairness. As the Secretary of DOLE, and being a woman, we are hopeful that you will understand and sympathize with our plight.
Once again, in behalf of our members, please resolve this case soonest.” Anduiza stressed.
FASAP stands by PALEA
FASAP supports PALEA's historic fight to defend Job Security.
In a statement to the media last November 2, 2010 after PALEA filed another Notice of Strike, FASAP expressed its Solidarity with is “brothers and sisters in PALEA who have worked very hard and sacrificed immensely to serve PAL and the general riding public”
The Country's largest and strongest labor federations and cause oriented groups have united to protest PAL's mass “contractualization” of about 2,700 PALEA members.
FASAP stands by PALEA in this fight.
In relation to this, the Congressional House Committee on Labor and Employment held its initial hearing last November 10, 2010 to investigate the labor disputes in PAL, including the spin-off of 2,700 employees and the FASAP issues on age and gender discrimination.
PALEA officers led by its president Gerry Rivera were present and many other labor groups. PAL management also attended in full force.
In its opening statement, FASAP said that, “ If this committee intends to enact legislation in relation to the labor issues in PAL, it is our humble suggestion to put more teeth to existing labor laws to compel the big and influential businessmen to follow the rule of law.
The State, we believe, should tilt the balance in favor of the Filipino workers, who are powerless against moneyed employers.
PAL always says that its workers should not go on strike because the airline is imbued with public interest.
But when pilots are forced to stay in PAL against their will, if flight attendants are being retired at 40, 45 and 55 years old, when 2,700 loyal and dedicated PAL ground employees are being “contractualized”, then surely, the state should step in to protect the workers.”
November 02, 2010
PRESS STATEMENT
FASAP supports PALEA fight
FASAP is alarmed by the recent DOLE decision upholding PAL's termination of almost 3,000 employees under its outsourcing program.
FASAP is one with PALEA in its struggle to protect the job security of all PAL employees.
Our brothers and sisters in PALEA are loyal and dedicated PAL ground workers, who have worked very hard and sacrificed immensely to serve PAL and the general riding public.
Through the years, they are the ones who have toiled to keep PAL's 24-hour operations concerning important functions such as In-flight Catering, ground-handling and Airport servicing.
Without their sacrifice, competence and dedication, PAL would have closed-down a long time ago. Back in the year 1998 they even agreed to suspend their CBA for 10 years to save PAL from bankruptcy. Now, more than 10 years after, with PAL now profitable, the workers are being dismissed.
We deeply lament that PAL management decided to push through with the drastic spin-off measure, unmindful of how it will affect the lives of 3,000 workers and their families. Surely there are less painful and more humane ways to ensure the viability of PAL?
A more caring Company would think twice before terminating thousands of loyal employees.
Once again, PAL is in the forefront of another major labor controversy. FASAP is one with PALEA in its struggle to continue defending the rights of the PAL workers.
The flag carrier should not be run merely as a business enterprise. It is imbued with National Interest. The mass dismissal of 3,000 Filipino workers should be the concern of the country too.
FASAP submits position papers before DOLE
FASAP submitted last October 18, 2010, its position papers before the Office of the DOLE Secretary, in compliance with Sec. Rosalinda Baldoz's Order assuming jurisdiction of the PAL-FASAP labor dispute.
The labor dispute is far from over. PAL is expected to submit its position papers and both parties are given another 5 days from receipt of the position papers to submit their replies, after which the case is submitted for decision. Depending on how the DOLE Secretary will handle the case, we expect a decision before Christmas.
It is our constitutional right as Filipino workers to go on strike, for the purpose of airing our grievances and collective bargaining.
FASAP waged a highly effective Strike Campaign
FASAP prepared and wanted to stage a work stoppage and strike against PAL Management to press for a new CBA, which has expired since 2007. The union, led by its president, Bob Anduiza, its officers and shop stewards carefully planned the strike campaign, including the public relations drive through the media and alternative internet facilities.
The lessons to be learned in a labor dispute, of casting one's affirmative strike vote and participating in a work stoppage and manning the picket lines would have a deep and long lasting impact on the flight attendants. Labor disputes have a profound way of teaching the members lessons on being brave and strong and united.
Lessons that will solidify FASAP's foundations.
Nonetheless, FASAP is very proud and glad that the union was able to mount a very successful Strike Campaign, which captured the national psyche and consciousness. FASAP has achieved its highest level of pressure, short of an actual work stoppage to press for its legitimate and reasonable demands.
Banking on its firm belief that it is standing on solid moral and legal grounds, FASAP mounted a strike campaign against PAL management that moved the entire nation to take notice.
FASAP 's issues on age and gender discrimination against PAL flight attendants was clearly articulated by the union officers and the case was widely supported by leading media and political personalities.
Prof. Solita Monsodfirst wrote about FASAP's plight in her columns in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Business World sometime in March this year. Monsod accused PAL management saying, “Gender discrimination is alive and very well, it seems, right in our midst - or rather, right in the midst of Philippine Airlines.” . Prof. Monsod also discussed FASAP's issues in her editorial segment on QTV.
As things started to heat up in PAL, on August 3, 2010, Senator Pia S. Cayetano issued a statement to the public saying “PAL should respect and follow our labor laws and ensure equal work opportunities for its employees regardless of gender. Being our flag carrier, the management's treatment of its staff also reflects on our image as Filipinos worldwide.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer's columnist Conrado De Quiros also wrote about FASAP's plight in his column last September 15, 2010 stressing that PAL flight attendants are Safety Professionals, “Not GRO's”.
The other influential and respected groups supports FASAP, namely AKBAYAN party list representative Walden Bello, and former Rep. Risa Hontiveros, GABRIELA party list reps. Emmy De Jesus and Luz Ilagan,BAYAN party list reps. Teddy Casiño and Neri Javier, Partido Manggagawa officers Judy-ann Miranda and Renato Magtubo, including the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino and Defend Job Philippines.
FASAP is very encouraged and proud of the flight attendant members' support and active participation in the strike campaign.
Be proud to be FASAP members. Our fight is now being watched not only by the media, but more importantly, FASAP's struggle for respect and dignity is being monitored by the Philippine Labor movement, civil society and the general public.
It is a litmus test on the labor situation in our national flag carrier.
However, at this point, we cannot put our guards down. This dispute is not yet over.
While awaiting for the decision of the DOLE Secretary, we should keep up the pressure. We cannot allow PAL Management to simply believe that it is “business as usual”, as if nothing is happening, and as if there is no dispute.
So long as age and gender discrimination exists in PAL, the fight continues.
Keep the faith!
Acting upon PAL management's manifestation at the NCMB during the conciliation conference last 05 October 2010, the Honerable Secretary Rosalinda D. Baldoz, issued an Order, which "Assumes Jurisdiction over the labor dispute" between the FASAP and PAL.
"Contrary to the pronouncements belittling FASAP's capability to mount a strike and cripple PAL's operations, the PAL management negotiating panel buckled and asked for the DOLE's intervention to prevent FASAP's strike. "FASAP said in a press statement.
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said that "PAL is now taking refuge and sought protection from the Department of Labor. PAL failed to address the issues and would like the government to resolve the problem for them."
With the DOLE's intervention, FASAP's battle shifts from a strike into a political and legal dispute.
"The fight is far from over." Anduiza declared.
The union president said that "as the DOLE prevents FASAP from exercising its lawful right to go on strike, then we urge the Honorable Secretary to immediately rule on the dispute and address the discrimination against female flight attendants."
The PAL collective bargaining contract with its flight attendants has expired three (3) years ago, since 2007.
The labor dispute will now be handled by the DOLE Secretary who ordered to "expedite the resolution of this dispute, the parties are directed to simultaneously submit their position papers and evidences to this Office within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of this Order and an additional non-extendible period of five (5) days for the parties to submit their replies from receipt of the position paper, after which the case is submitted for decision."
Bob Anduiza thanked the media for its vigilance and fair reporting on the issues surrounding the PAL-FASAP labor dispute. He also aired an appeal to the media and the riding publig "to join us as we await how the Government will resolve the PAL dispute, particularly the age and gender discrimination of female flight attendants."
"The Lucio Tan-led PAL management failed to address the discrimination against the Flight Attendants and has passed on its responsibility to the DOLE Secretary. FASAP will respect the authority of Secretary Baldoz to assume jurisdiction of the dispute." the official FASAP statement said.
In the end, Bob Anduiza said that "The dispute was assumed by the Department of Labor because of national interest. We hope that the government will also place a high priority towards the interest of PAL's hardworking and dedicated flight attendants. After all, the welfare of the workers is also of national interest."
FASAP president Bob Anduize lamented that "Despite the efforts poured in by the labor officials at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, it is a pity that the Lucio Tan-led PAL management wasted its golden opportunity to correct its discriminatory policies during the conciliation hearings at the Department of Labor and Employment."
"Instead of taking the righteous path," Anduiza said "PAL opted to insist on its hardline positions and pass the ball and its obligations to the discretion of the DOL Secretary by asking the DOLe to assume jurisdiction of the dispute."
FASAP reiterated that this dispute is not about money. "It is about discrimination" Bob Anduiza stressed.
At press time, FASAP has not been officially informed of any order coming from the DOLE, to supposedly assume jurisdiction of the labor dispute.
Bob Anduiza explained that "In the event however that the DOLE will prevent FASAP from exercising its lawful right to go on strike, the union will be obligated to respect thsi decision."
If the decision to resolve the dispute is passed-on to the good Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz's jurisdiction, then "FASAP hopes that she will resolve the dispute immediately especially the gender and discrimination issues in retirement age, pregnancy and maternity policies." he said.
It has been three (3) long years since the contract of the flight attendants expired in 2007.
This dispute has captured the attention of the entire country, PAL being the national flag carrier.
FASAP aired its appeal to the media and the Filpino riding public in a statement "to join us and await how this new government will resolve the labor dispute."
Despite the power and influence of the Lucio Tan-led PAL Management "we in FASAP sincerely hope that the DOLE will be fair and address the discrimination against female flight attendants whose only desire is to be respected and treated with dignity as Filipino workers." the FASAP statement added.
FASAP's fate will now be up to the Aquino government, should the Department of Labor and Employment assume jurisdiction of the dispute.
October 4, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) is deeply perturbed by the recent video spreading in the internet showing dancing flight attendants while performing the safety demonstration of the flight.
While it may look like a harmless publicity stunt to attract passengers at first glance, in the long run the stereotyping of flight attendants as entertainers will surely have a negative and sexist impact in the minds of the public, at the expense of the unwitting female-dancer-flight attendants.
In fact, the dancing flight attendants video has elicited a lot of sexist comments in the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
This gender insensitive packaging is a throwback to the unenlightened past during the 50s and 60s when “stewardesses” were made to wear hot pants and mini-skirts to appeal to the dominantly male business travelers. To make them dance in front of passengers takes this mind-set to new lows.
This kind of practice has been abandoned by other airlines worldwide, it being discriminatory and unacceptable to modern times.
Flight attendants are safety professionals and to require them to dance in front of passengers is demeaning and undignified.
The said video does not help in FASAP's fight against sexism and discrimination in PAL. Flight attendants are not entertainers, they are safety professionals.
We sincerely hope the airline involved will reconsider this dancing flight attendants gimmick, for the the sake of gender sensitivity and professionalism.
October 4, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
FASAP president Bob Anduiza reiterated the union's position saying, “The PAL-FASAP labor dispute is not about money. It is about discrimination.”
Commenting on PAL's recent press statements Anduiza stressed that, “The ball is now in PAL's hands. Tomorrow’s last ditch efforts for conciliation at the Department of Labor is PAL's chance to come clean and address the discrimination against its female flight attendants.”
Bob Anduiza reminded PAL that it, “should not wait for a strike or pass the buck to the DOLE Secretary to correct its anti-labor and gender biased policies.”
He said that “The entire public will watch and await PAL's next moves. Will it finally face-up to its responsibility to its employees? Will PAL management have the moral courage to abandon its habitual string of anti-worker practices?”
The Philippine Commission on Women already denounced PAL anti-women policies. The CHR chair, Etta Rosales, also expressed her mis-givings over PAL's “obvious violations” of women's human rights.
The union president pointed out that “No amount of media spinning by PAL and attempts by its spokesperson Ms. Cielo Villaluna to muddle and divert the issues will take us away from the unfair and unreasonable policies of PAL in retiring female flight attendants at 40 years old.”
Anduiza advised the PAL spokesperson saying, “Being a woman herself, Ms. Villaluna should support FASAP's fight to recognize the pregnancy and maternity rights of female flight attendants, not to mention its unreasonable retirement policies.”
“As the country's flag carrier, PAL should set the example on equality and fairness. As things stand today, PAL is anti-worker and anti-female.” He said.
“We hope PAL management will take the opportunity tomorrow to correct this image of the national flag carrier.” Anduiza added.
“Flight attendants have much to gain by standing tall and claiming their rights, most of all, their dignity as women,”: Gabriela Representative Emerenciana A. de Jesus
October 1,2010
PRESS RELEASE
PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA
The labor group Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA), the ground crew union at the national flag carrier, both expressed support for the planned strike of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).
Judy Ann Miranda, secretary general of PM, declared that “FASAP’s brothers and sisters in the labor movements stand as one body and speak with one voice in solidarity with the struggle of the flight attendants. We will mobilize our members, especially women workers, to support their fight.”
Meanwhile Gerry Rivera, PALEA president, stated that “PALEA members will respect any picketline that will be setup by FASAP. We will be with them in the picketlines.”
Yesterday FASAP announced the collapse of mediation talks with the Philippine Airlines (PAL) management in the face of the company’s hardline position on the contentious issue of retirement age.
The flight attendants union is asking that the retirement age be raised from 40 to 60 years in order to remove the discrimination suffered by the predominantly female flight crew. FASAP declared that it will go on strike anytime by end of October or early November, the start of the peak season.
PALEA also has a pending notice of strike but the dispute over the planned retrenchment of some 3,000 ground personnel has been assumed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. In comments that PALEA submitted to Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz last September 14, it called on her to declare the mass layoff as illegal and to find PAL guilty of unfair labor practice.
“The demand of the flight attendants for higher retirement age is a call for gender equality and an issue of job security. They are too young to retire at age 40 but then too old to find a decent job. These are issues of women workers in general. That is why we support the FASAP fight. Women factory workers will link up arms with them in the event of a strike,” insisted Miranda.
Rivera also argued that fight of the PAL ground personnel against contractualization is a struggle for job security. “One common thread that runs through the grievances of PAL employees—whether ground crew, flight crew and even pilots. That is the demand for job security. We all want regular jobs with decent wages, sufficient benefits, good working conditions and the protection of a union that serves as the workers voice in the workplace. Unfortunately secure and protected jobs contradicts Lucio Tan’s new business model of a union-free and non-regular workforce,” he explained.
September 29,2010
PRESS RELEASE
FASAP said it will proceed with its strike after coming out from yesterday's conciliation meetings with the Lucio Tan-led PAL management at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board / Department of Labor and Employment. The talks are deadlocked.
FASAP president Bob Anduiza said “PAL is playing games and is insisting on its unreasonable retirement age limit. They are not serious in resolving the dispute. PAL is just playing deaf and blind to the concerns of the flight attendants.”
According to FASAP, during the DOLE Conciliation Meetings, FASAP readily reduced its issues and limited the concerns to only three (3) items, touching mainly on the age and gender discrimination issues.
In a statement, FASAP said, “PAL is adding more conditions to muddle the issue and intends to make more money out of the dispute. Its proposals to move the retirement age from 40 to 45 on condition on drastic work-rule changes to mix the domestic and international operations will result to retrenchment and mega-profits for PAL. PAL wants to paint itself as “reasonable” but the real motive is to exploit the flight attendants.”
When asked when the strike will be held, Anduiza said “that it can happen between the end of October and the first week of November after the mandated cooling-off period and the holding of the strike vote.”
“ PAL misses the point. This is not about making money. This dispute is about DISCRIMINATION. The Philippine Commission on Women has already pronounced that PAL's policy towards its female flight attendants is discriminatory. The Commission on Human Rights chair, Ms. Etta Rosales has also pointed-out that PAL's retirement, pregnancy and maternity provisions for flight attendants are sexist and discriminatory, in violation of their human rights.” Anduiza stressed.
According to FASAP, PAL is also refusing to correct the minimum wage levels on the flight attendants' basic salaries. During yesterday's NCMB meetings, a DOLE representative presented the correct minimum wage levels from the year 2000 up to the present.
“It clearly showed that the PAL flight attendants' entry level pay of P8,605 is way, way below the present P12, 288 minimum wage.” Bob Anduiza pointed-out.
Bob Anduiza lamented that “we believe that PAL can well afford to pay and settle the labor dispute based on the hundreds of millions PAL has saving due to the under-manning of crew per flight. The crew are already working more and are being paid less. The problem is PAL does not want to prioritize taking care of the flight attendants.”
FASAP finds no more need to meet with PAL and will now concentrate on preparing for the strike.
“FASAP will proceed with its strike as planned to protest against PAL's outdated and sexist policies. This is not merely about pay increases, this is mainly about the respect and dignity of female flight attendants. It's about discrimination.” Bob Anduiza added.
September 24, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
Reduction Scheme per flight
FASAP cited documents detailing PAL's plans to reduce Cabin Crew Complement per aircraft type that would result to a whopping “P141,306,729.17” savings a year.
This program will be realized at the expense of the flight attendants who are now working double-time due to the reduced number of flight attendants per aircraft.
The reduction program was unilaterally implemented by PAL Management last July 01, 2010, despite strong objections from FASAP.
FASAP says that this under-manning scheme “shortchanges the riding public who pay so much for PAL's tickets but will now get less service.”
The riding public should know about this because PAL has recently been trying to paint a picture that they are being reasonable in dealing with the FASAP.
P141 MILLION per year is certainly several times bigger than the financial amount PAL is offering to the 1,542 flight attendants to cover for a three (3) year long CBA.
PAL also refuses to correct the minimum wage levels of the flight attendants' basic monthly salaries.
Even before the PAL-FASAP labor dispute erupted recently, FASAP already warned PAL management not to proceed with its plans to reduce the number of flight attendants on PAL's flights.
Last June 21, 2010, FASAP president Bob Anduiza wrote PAL president Jaime J. Bautista objecting to PAL's decision to implement its cabin crew reduction program starting July 01, 2010.
“To insist on implementing the reduction scheme will definitely lead to more troubles, rather than help in solving the many problems of the Company.” He said.
Anduiza emphasized that “to cut on the manpower per flight will be a downgrade rather than an improvement of PAL's inflight service product.”
“The reduction program was planned without honest-to-goodness consultation with the union in accordance with the State policy enshrined in Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the employees shall also participate in policy and decision processes affecting their rights and benefits.” he added.
The FASAP president also complained about the several CBA violations of the reduction plan.
Bob Anduiza explained that PAL's reduction scheme takes away “food on the flight attendants' table, making them work more for less pay. Worse, PAL decided to go ahead with it despite the union's strong objections and warnings.”
What PAL should be explaining to the public are the following nagging questions.
1.Why is PAL insisting on its unreasonable and discriminatory retirement age policies? The Philippine Commission on Women has already proclaimed its support for FASAP's position. The Commission on Human Rights has already pointed-out PAL's “obvious violations” against the flight attendants.
2. It has been 1,167 days since the Contract of the flight attendants expired last July 15, 2007, why has PAL failed or refused to negotiate in good faith?
FASAP's main concern is PAL's age and gender discrimination against its flight attendants. Sadly, PAL insists on its “Jurassic” and outmoded sexist mentality of wanting young and pretty flight attendants.
PAL should correct these discriminatory policies and not take advantage of it to demand more concessions and make more money out of this crisis.
That would be exploitative and smacks of opportunism.
September 23, 2010
PRESS STATEMENT
PAL must adapt to the times and correct the discriminatory retirement policies against its flight attendants
The proposals of PAL to increase the rice allowance of flight attendants to equalize the amounts to what all other PAL employees are receiving are not yet firm offers. It is being made contingent to the other major issues.
PAL still insists on its unreasonable and discriminatory retirement age limits. And despite mounting pressure coming from the public, PAL still refuses to explain why it wants to retire the flight attendants at 40 or 45 years old.
PAL should answer this nagging question and explain to the public why it insists on the age and gender discrimination policies against its flight attendants. In the Philippines, it is only PAL that imposes an unreasonable retirement age limit. All other airlines follow the Labor Code.
Cathay Pacific's retirement age has increased from 45 to 55 years old. Thai Airways, according to sources at the DOLE, the retirement age is 60 years old. In most developed countries in the U.S. and Europe, the retirement age of flight attendants range from 60-70 years old because these countries frown upon any form of discrimination in the workplace.
As Asia's first airline and the Philippine's flag carrier, PAL should adapt to the times and correct the discriminatory age limits for its flight attendants.
The next hearing at the DOLE is on September 28, 2010. The department of labor officials are trying their best to resolve the issues, but PAL is playing hard-ball, especially on the retirement age issue of flight attendants.
September 22, 2010
PRESS STATEMENT
The big question the entire country is asking is why PAL is insisting on retiring flight attendants as early as 40 years old? PAL should answer this question instead of evading it or worse, muddling the issues.
The Philippine Commission on Women has already denounced PAL's blatant acts of discrimination against its flight attendants. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights chairperson Etta Rosales has already aired her views about the obvious violations of PAL on age and gender discrimination.
But instead of answering the issues at hand, PAL is muddling the picture by saying that FASAP is “forum shopping” by going to the CHR.
FASAP is not forum shopping. It is fighting for its human rights. The proceedings before the DOLE are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature. It is a mere notice of FASAP's intention to go on strike. Likewise, the letter to the CHR is not an initiation of a judicial or quasi-judicial action that would render FASAP liable for forum shopping.
PAL is once again evading the issues. It should answer why they are insisting on its unreasonable retirement policy. Again, that is the question.
September 15, 2010
Public Sympathy for FASAP mounts
All our pleas to PAL Management for equality and just compensation for the past three (03) years, are falling on deaf ears. PAL insists on its unreasonable and discriminatory policies towards its hardworking flight attendants.
On the 5th day since FASAP filed its Notice of Strike last September 9, 2010, the Department of Labor and Employment called on PAL and FASAP to Marathon Conciliation proceedings.
But contrary to the pronouncements of the PAL spokesperson to the media, appealing to FASAP to be reasonable and resolve the issues on the table, PAL's management panel headed by Jaime J. Bautista , PAL Human Resources officers and several lawyers came prepared to play hard-ball.
PAL has not moved one inch. Not one day over 40 years old and not one peso over its last Php 80M lump sum offer to settle the past three year CBA period. So much for being reasonable.
The Department of Labor officials who are trying their very best to mediate the dispute must have been very disappointed with PAL management. The next meeting was set for Friday, September 17, 2010 and this will be crucial.
If PAL chooses to stick to its hard line position, then the strike process shall continue.
“Stewardesses are not GROs”
Fortunately for FASAP, many significant personalities in society are supporting the union's cause. The latest addition of whom, is Philippine Daily Inquirer's CONRADO DE QUIROS.
He wrote a powerful article in his column today, September 15, 2010 entitled “Stewardesses are not GROs”, outlining the age and gender issues of FASAP.
Conrado is the most read and respected columnist in the Philippines today. That he is convinced and supportive of FASAP's cause, speaks a world of difference about the correctness and nobility of our fight.
The public opinion has snowballed in favor of FASAP. We are hopeful that the Philippine government, led by President Noynoy Aquino and the Labor Department thru Sec. Rosalinda Baldoz will help us in this dispute.
PAL's closed-mindedness and unyielding stance will only worsen the situation. Management is willing to prolong this dispute, continue scaring away the riding public and face a total work stoppage, all because the flight attendants are asking for equality, respect and just compensation.
This is a principled Fight. Stand up and be counted, 100% Yes to the Strike
FASAP will fight this towards its rightful resolution. This campaign is for a principled and good cause. We all owe it not just for ourselves, but also for our younger members and for the future would-be flight attendants.
This battle will benefit not only FASAP members. When we succeed, equality in the workplace will be become the standard for all Filipino women workers.
FASAP's cause is for the good of all Filipino working mothers, sisters and daughters.
If businessmen cannot respect women in the Philippine flag carrier, then it has no business carrying the flag on its wings. After all, the Flag carrier is imbued with national interest and reflects the image of the country in the eyes of the world.
Stand proud FASAP members. Join us and actively participate in this Strike campaign. Say YES to the strike!
Your FASAP officers will continue to meet with you to explain the issues and address your concerns. The union will line up more activities to drum-up public support for our cause.
We urge the members, especially the women flight attendants, to stand-up and be counted.
Do not pass-up on this historic campaign to make a difference.
Thank you and keep the faith!
Stewardesses are not GROs
By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:39:00 09/14/2010
THE FIRST time I saw it was maybe 15 years ago, at an American Airlines flight. The fellow was a steward, uniformed like the others, trim like the others, capable like the others. With one exception. His hair was gray, his skin was blotched, and his face bore wrinkles. I figured he must be in his late 60s or early 70s.
He wasn’t just polite. He was pleasant, engaging the passengers in banter, for those who wanted to banter. He had a smile for everyone. After a while the novelty of his appearance (for me at least—it didn’t seem to strike the other passengers as so) wore off and he faded into the woodwork, or the cabin, just another member of the crew.
Soon after that, the sight became so common in various airlines you didn’t notice it anymore. But the first time made you ask: Why on earth (or in the skies) not? Why should stewardesses look like the Girl from Ipanema? Flight attendants are not there to serve patrons, they are there to serve passengers. They are not there to entertain customers, particularly in their times of dire want, they are there to help commuters, particularly in their times of dire need.
That is the question Fasap (the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) is asking PAL (Philippine Airlines). That is the answer Fasap is giving PAL.
For which it has filed a notice of strike.
I’ve known Fasap for about a decade and a half now and known it to be one of the most reasonable unions in the world. That is the reason for its success. It does not rush headlong into strikes. It does so only after exhausting other means. Other unions would do well to learn from it. Reasonableness is its middle name.
The working conditions of its female crew suck. That is the core of its cause. That is the reason it has served a notice to strike. It has nothing to do with more pay, more allowances, more benefits. It has everything to do with basic, minimum, elemental, justice. Two-thirds of Fasap’s 1,564 members are women.
Two things in particular Fasap wants to change.
The first is for PAL to scrap its de facto policy of criminalizing pregnancy for flight attendants. There is no other way to put it. You are a PAL stewardess and you get pregnant, you get to file a leave of absence without pay. The leave amounts to close to a year, given the two months for normal delivery and three months for caesarean you are required to take afterward. That period is taken away from your number of years of service. If you get pregnant three times in the 20 years that you work for PAL as a flight attendant, you will register only 17 years served.
That applies only to flight attendants. It’s different for the ground crew. They may work till they are about to deliver, have their 60-day leave paid for by the Social Security System, and come back to work shortly afterward. None of it is taken away from their record.
What makes the policy exceedingly laughable—the kind that makes you cry—is that male flight attendants who take a paternity leave do not have their leave taken out of their years of service. The policy is clear: You are innocent if you get your wife (or mistress) pregnant, but guilty if you yourself get pregnant.
Fasap in fact is simply asking for the period of pregnancy not to be discounted from the flight attendant’s years of service. The rest—what pay or benefits she should get in the course of her nearly-one-year leave—remains subject to negotiation. You can’t get more minimum than that. Other unions would criticize Fasap for being too tame. PAL is accusing it of being too spoiled.
The second, which bears directly on the first, is for PAL to stop parading its flight attendants as eye candy. There is no other way to put it. Since the mid-1990s, PAL has set the retirement age for flight attendants at 40. Too early to get SSS benefits and too late to start again elsewhere. The retirement age for the ground crew ranges from 60 to 65.
PAL says it is merely thinking about the flight attendants’ welfare—they shouldn’t be flying past that age. That is refuted by several things. One is that other airlines now routinely have flight attendants who are senior citizens. There have been no reported cases of them tottering and dying from a heart attack while serving drinks. Two is that the retirement age for PAL’s pilots is 60 for both men and women. Why should the risks be higher for flight attendants than for pilots? And three is that the line administrators, the officers who fly to rate the flight attendants’ performance, retire at 65.
Elsewhere, the point is to be Fit. But PAL’s point is that fit means young. Fit means not being pregnant. Fit means fit to ogle, fantasize on, flirt with. That is the only explanation for the patent discrimination. That might have been acceptable once with airlines, during Cro-Magnon times, but that is no longer so today. For good reason: It is an exploitative view of flight attendants, and the world will have nothing to do with it. Flight attendants undergo training, undergo skills-building, undergo ordeals with exceptionally rough flights and even more exceptionally rough passengers. They are not in flights to pretend, they are in flights to attend. That is why they are called flight attendants.
What Fasap wants is merely the same retirement terms as the ground crew and the pilots. It does even better, which is to propose that retirement be based on years of service—counting pregnancies—and not age. Other unions would criticize Fasap for being too restrained. PAL is accusing it of being too out of its mind.
Well, truth has a way of coming out, these days more than others. Quite simply, the flight attendants’ notice of strike serves notice:
PAL is not Pegasus, and flight attendants are not GROs.
Dear friends in the media,
This is FASAP's response to the article of Mr. Neal H. Cruz entitled “How much do PAL cabin attendants get?”, which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer today, September 13, 2010.
With due respect, Mr. Cruz's opinion, is one-sided and favors the Lucio Tan-led PAL management.
The PAL flight attendants' issue is not only about the overdue pay increases, it is mainly about age and gender discrimination.
We regret that Neal Cruz is depicting the flight attendants as greedy, comparing their earnings to the controversial MWSS bonuses. This is quite unfair, because the MWSS officials receive millions of pesos while more than 500 flight attendants receive below minimum wage levels on their basic salaries. That is not only unfair, it is illegal.
Mr. Cruz says, “FASAP will still not be happy because it is asking for pay increases and more perks.”.
Speaking of money, let us not forget that the owner of PAL is the second richest person in the country. Mr. Lucio Tan also owns PNB, ETON enterprises, Air Philippines, Tanduay, Asia Brewery and some other companies. Between the flight attendants and the PAL owners, it is clear who is more concerned with money.
It is also evident which group can afford expensive lawyers & publicists to defend its business practices.
It is not really about money, it is about equality and just compensation.
For the past THREE (3) YEARS, or since 2007, PAL granted pay increases to all other employee groups, including Management officials, EXCEPT for the flight attendants.
The PAL flight attendants' issues are about discrimination.
a.) In the past 3-YEARS, among other PAL employees, it only the flight attendants who were not granted pay increases.
b) The retirement age of all PAL ground employees, including PAL's management , is 65 years old. The male and female pilots retire at 60 years old. It is only the flight attendants who are being made to retire at an unreasonable age of 40 years old.
c.) Among all other PAL employees, it is only the flight attendants who are placed on leave without pay when they get pregnant. Worse, the entire period is deducted from the flight attendants years of service.
d.) Among all other PAL employees, it is only the flight attendants' Maternity Leave wherein the period is again deducted from their years of service.
In short, PAL's policy on pregnancy and maternity is discriminatory and punitive. It is also not true that PAL's policy on pregnant flight attendants is for the “safety of mother and child.” The truth is, this stems from the past sexist policy of prohibiting PAL flight attendants from getting old, getting married and getting pregnant.
e.) In the entire of PAL, all other employees' rice allowance is P1,800 – but for flight attendants, it is only P1,200.
f.) All other PAL employees have designated meal breaks, except the flight attendants, especially those assigned on domestic and regional short flights. This is a violation of Labor Standards.
g.) Even PAL's Code of Discipline, which applies to all other employees, there are a different set of stricter policies for flight attendants.
Our work as flight attendants is difficult. But we do love our work and are proud to be flying the country's colors. But for people, or writers like Mr. Cruz to insinuate that we are not working hard enough, is certainly frustrating, if not, pitiful.
Ask PAL and they can confirm that the flight attendants have been flying under-manned for the couple of years. Their scheduled days-off and much needed vacation leaves are also being recalled.
PAL's flight attendants are in fact well-known as the airline's saving grace. Its passenger care is genuine and truly Filipino.
Flight attendants are safety professionals. Their primary role is to ensure the safety of PAL's passengers and also to provide good service.
In this day and age of political correctness, it is disturbing that we still have media personalities who would dare say that an airline Company's image should be based on the age and gender of its flight attendants.
PAL Flight attendants, especially the females, are not there to be lusted upon by prurient dirty old men.
Lastly, we are ashamed for the country after Mr. Cruz unabashedly said that “In comparison, Northwest Airlines of the United States has grandmothers as flight attendants”. Its labor union or even the States itself, will not take this kindly. They do not take discrimination lightly.
Thank you once again for publishing and airing FASAP's issues to the public.
Very truly yours,
Bob Anduiza
FASAP President
September 9, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
The labor union, FASAP, which represents about 1,600 PAL flight attendants, officially filed today its Notice of Strike before the Department of Labor and Employment.
Its president Bob Anduiza announced in a press conference that, "We have exhausted the negotiating process, and after countless mediaton hearings, PAL remains unmoved and refuses to negotiate in good faith. All our pleas fell on deaf ears."
Anduiza enumerated the issues and reasons why FASAP has decided to go on with the strike.
"1. PAL management is in bad faith. Despite numerous promises and formal commitments during the Preventive Mediation hearings at the Department of Labor and Employment to address the retirement age and economic issues in the CBA, PAL has failed and refused to do so.
2. PAL should adopt to the times and abandon its outdated sexist policies against its flight attendants.
PAL is guilty of age and gender discrimination. IN PAL, the other employees are allowed to work until 65 years old. The pilots' compulsory retirement age for both male and female is 60 years old.
But for flight attendants, the compulsory retirement age is as young as 40 years old. Many say that 'Life begins at 40. In PAL, it ends at 40 years old.'
3. NO-Motherhood policy - PAL's Pregnancy and Maternity policies for flight attendants is punitive and discriminatory.
PAL flight attendants who get pregnant are placed on pregnancy leave without pay, until she gives birth.
The pregnancy leave without pay which normally lasts almost a year, is deducted from the flight attendant's Years of Service.
After giving birth, the flight attendant is placed on the legally mandated Maternity leave for 60 days of normal delivery and 78 days of caesarian delivery. However, PAL also deducts this period from the flight attendant's Years of Service.
4. The flight attendants are being discriminated against, and it is the only employee group in PAL which were not granted pay increases in the past three (3) years.
For three years now, FASAP has been bending over-backwards and has given PAL more than enough time. The CBA expired since July 2007 and for the past years it is only FASAP members who have not been granted any pay increase in PAL.
For the years 2007 and 2008, PAL gave pay increases to management officers, the pilots and other ground personnel, except the flight attendants."
Bob Anduiza has been working in PAL for the past 27 years, since 1983. As FASAP president he has led FASAP in many labor disputes and crises since the 1990s.
He adds that "this has been a pattern of PAL Management. It plays hard-ball negotiations, stalls and delays pay increases and would always put-off talks on improving the flight attendant's retirement age."
Anduiza thanked the media for its role in informing the public on what's been happening in PAL. He said that "the public had the right to know about PAL's discriminatory business practice."
"PAL is our country's flag carrier and it should not be allowed to discriminate against age and gender.
As the Philippine's premier flag carrier, it should be an equal opportunity airline. It is no place for age and gender discrimination because it will reflect badly on the country's image in the eyes of the world." Bob Anduiza stressed.
|
|
|
Dear friends in the Media, This is in response to the article entitled “Union Okd employment terms twice in past- PAL” written by Daxim L. Lucas, which appeared on page A6 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), Wednesday, August 25, 2010. Since the side of FASAP was not taken, please allow us to also air our side with the hope of being published or aired, in the interest of fair play and the truth. Basically, in an interview with the PDI, PAL president Jaime J. Bautista, tries to justify its discriminatory and unreasonable retirement policy by simply saying that the union approved it under the CBA in the past. FASAP views this as a bankrupt argument. Collective Bargaining Agreements, as any decent Company knows, expire every five years, with economic re-negotiations every three years. Thus, all issues are open and subject to negotiations. Since the year 2000, FASAP has been proposing to raise the retirement age of its members, equally among male and female flight attendants to 60 years old. PAL however would always insist on the 40, 45, and 55 years old retirement ages. PAL would employ delaying tactics, which causes the CBA negotiations to drag-on until the union becomes desperate and settles for its much needed pay increases. PAL Management would then promise the union to take-up the retirement issues, in the next round of CBA negotiations. This is again the situation with the CBA expired for more than three years already. At the hearings before the Dept. of Labor and Employment, management kept on promising to give proposals for the retirement age and economic aspects of the CBA but always came empty handed. It is PAL management that insists on the unreasonable retirement age. It is not true that the reason for this is to “ensure that only the fittest flight attendants serve as air crew.” , as what Mr. Bautista said. PAL flight attendants undergo rigid training and refresher courses regularly. And as long as they pass these courses, they are certified to be fit and capable to perform their service and safety functions. What PAL is not saying is they want younger and pretty flight attendants because of the outmoded stereotyping of treating them as sex objects. It is plain sexism and age discrimination. It's the “beer house” mentality of lusting for young and pretty girls as cocktail waitresses. Other PAL employees, including PAL pilots whether male or female are allowed to work until 65 years old as long as they are healthy enough to work. Then why does PAL insist on retiring its flight attendants at 40 or 45 years old? As the country's flag carrier, it should set the example and be an “equal opportunity airline”. Again, PAL president Jaime Bautista is not being truthful when he claims to the media that there are no flight attendants who are affected by the controversial age cap yet. He fails to mention that female flight attendants have been retiring at 55 years old and ,recently, one female flight attendant was made to retire at 45 years old. Mr. Bautista cannot play innocent and ignorant about this, because FASAP kept on mentioning this fact during the several Preventive Mediation hearings before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board at the Department of Labor and Employment. It appears that PAL has a selective memory. It will be recalled that management also initially denied that it transferred A320 pilots to its sister company, Air Philippines. However, PAL's denials turned out to be wrong after the media pursued the truth. On PAL's “no-motherhood policy”. Mr. Bautista tries to explain that “In PAL's case, we only ask them to go on leave after the first trimester. This is also for the [mother and the] baby, so as not to endanger their health by exposing them to thin air environments [during flight].” Contrary to PAL's supposed concerns for the health of the mother and baby, the more critical phase of a pregnancy is the first trimester. Any medical doctor will attest to this. Ironically, this is the period when PAL management requires pregnant flight attendants to take flight assignments. Obviously Mr. Bautista is once again running out of excuses to justify its discriminatory practice. He conveniently fails to mention that the entire pregnancy leave period is not only without any pay, the period is likewise deducted from the pregnant flight attendants' YEARS OF SERVICE. According to the PDI article, Mr. Bautista further claims, “In addition, management pays for their hospitalization”. This is farthest from the truth. PAL employees enjoy medical benefits EXCEPT for pregnancy related cases. Additionally, PAL also failed to explain why the 60-day Maternity Leave period is also being deducted from the years of service of the flight attendants. But for all the other female PAL employees who give birth, their Maternity Leaves are counted in the years of service. The unkindest cut of PAL's claims was when Mr. Bautista said that “The basic salary represents the compensation they are receiving for being idle.” First, it does not answer the legal question whether flight attendants' basic salaries are below minimum wage level. Again for the record, junior flight attendants receive below minimum wage levels on their basic salary and the union has been contesting this with management. Secondly, to even insinuate that the flight attendants are not working enough is unfair and unjustified. PAL flight attendants are one of the most productive in the entire airline industry. They are cross-qualified in all the aircraft of PAL and many flight attendants fly the maximum flying hours allowed by the CAAP. PAL's flight attendants are not idle at all. They constantly work under-manned, they are over-worked and underpaid. PAL even reduced the number of flight attendants per aircraft to further add to the already heavy work-load of the crew. All FASAP members want is to enjoy the just fruits of their labor. We want to be treated as dignified Filipino workers and as respected Filipino working Women. PAL's covenant to the country as its flag carrier is not just to make profit for themselves. PAL reflects the image of the Philippines. It is responsible to the riding public to ensure a safe and unhampered airline transport service. To continually maltreat its pilots, ground employees and flight attendants is not the way to run a National flag carrier. PAL management should sit-down and deal properly with its employees rather than spending their executive time in media press conferences and exclusive interviews. In the meantime, FASAP is now meeting with its legal counsels, preparing for the requirements of filing its Notice of Strike, in the exercise of the flight attendants' Constitutional right to strike. Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to air our side on the issues discussed by PAL with the media. Bob Anduiza President - FASAP July 27, 2010
INTRODUCTION The last thing FASAP wants is to go on strike. This option is only being considered as a last resort. Seldom does any labor organization consider a strike unless the workers are pushed to the wall. However, when the legal CBA process fails due to bad faith bargaining, an escalation of the dispute becomes necessary to force the parties back to the negotiating table and bargain in good faith. For FASAP, the strike option is now being considered because PAL management has ignored, neglected and practically abandoned the flight attendants. The union has bent over-backwards and has been exercising patience and understanding for a long time. FASAP has been trying to negotiate in good faith but PAL management is unyielding. The PAL-FASAP CBA is already three years delayed and management has not even offered any economic proposals. The main issue of the pending CBA is the patent discrimination in the retirement provisions. PAL management is unfairly using this issue as leverage against FASAP. It seeks to force the union to give-in to un-conscionable work-rule changes, which will mean more and difficult working conditions. Worse, PAL is not even offering any pay increase. In the years 2007 and 2008, PAL granted pay increases to the other employee groups and management officials. But for the past 3 years FASAP has not received any pay increase. On top of this, the Cabin crew Management has been implementing all sorts of policies to add to the flight attendants’ already difficult situation. The flight attendants are over-worked, flying undermanned, vacation leaves recalled and days-off are being used for operations. Many are getting sick and there is massive demoralization. Just recently, management announced the implementation of the cabin crew complement revision. It has unilaterally cut the number of flight attendants per flight, without valid consultation and despite the union’s objections over CBA violations. Presently, the PAL-FASAP labor dispute is being taken up in Preventive Mediation Proceedings before the Department of Labor and Employment. Despite numerous commitments to submit its economic proposals, PAL has failed or refused to do so. At this point, the declaration of a CBA deadlock looms and the dispute will escalate. PRIMER 1. What is strike? A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of the employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. 2. What is picketing? “Picketing” or “peaceful picketing” is the right of workers to peacefully march to and fro before and establishment involved in a labor dispute generally accompanied by the carrying and display of signs, placards and banners intended to inform the public about the dispute. 3. What is an industrial or labor dispute? An industrial or labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions or employment or the association or representation or persons in negotiating, fixing maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. 4. Does FASAP have the right to go on strike? YES, The 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION states that, “Sec. 18 Article II. – The state affirms labor as a prime social economic force. It shall protect the right of workers and promote their welfare. Sec. 3 Article XIII- The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and living wage. They shall participate in policy and decision-making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.” 5. What is the Policy of the State regarding Labor unions, such as FASAP and collective bargaining? The LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES emphasizes that, “ Art. 211 Declaration of Policy A. It is the policy of the State: a. To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as mode of settling labor or industrial disputes; b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and developments; c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement; d. To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union members and as employees; e. To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial dispute; f. To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and g. To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processing affecting their rights, duties and welfare. B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulation the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreement freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code.” 6. Does PAL Management have the right to discourage FASAP members from exercising their rights, as union members? NO. It is a violation of the law to discourage unionism in the workplace. Art. 248. of the Labor Code lists the following acts as Unfair Labor Practices of Employers: a. To interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; d. To initiate, dominate assist or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization; 7. Is it the duty of PAL to negotiate with FASAP in good faith? YES. PAL is duty-bound to negotiate with FASAP for a collective bargaining agreement. It is considered as unfair labor practice to violate this obligation. Art. 248. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code; i. To violate a collective bargaining agreement. 8. Are FASAP members allowed to go on strike and stage picket rallies? YES, FASAP and its members can legally go on strike and also stage picket rallies. This is in accordance with the following: Art. 263. Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts a. It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining. b. Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organization to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. 9. What would be the legal basis for FASAP to file a notice of strike? FASAP may file a notice of strike in case of a bargaining deadlock. Art. 263. Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts c. In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. e. During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Department to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice the labor union may declare a strike. f. A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by a secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. 10. What are the procedural but mandatory requisites of a lawful strike or lockout? First requisite: Valid and factual ground a. Valid grounds: there are only two (2), namely: (1) CBA Deadlock; and (2) Unfair labor practice (ULP). b. No other grounds are allowed except the two mentioned above. Second requisite: Notice of strike or notice of lockout (2) In case of CBA Deadlock: 30 days from intended date thereof. Third requisite: A notice must be served to the NCMB-DOLE at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the taking of the strike / lockout vote by secret balloting, informing said office of the decision to conduct a strike vote/lockout vote, and the date, place, and time thereof. Fourth requisite: Strike vote or lockout vote a. Majority approval of strike or lockout is required. Fifth requisite: Strike vote report or lockout vote report a. When to submit strike or lockout vote report – at least 7 days prior to strike or lockout, as the case may be. Sixth requisite: Cooling-off period a. General rule: (1) In case of CBA Deadlock –30 days Seventh requisite: 7-day waiting period or strike ban a. Cooling-off period and waiting period, distinguished. Waiting period is counted from the time of submission of strike vote report to NCMB; Cooling-off period is counted from the filing of the Notice of Strike/Lockout with NCMB. b. Purpose of the 7-day waiting period: To ensure that the strike vote was indeed taken and that the majority of the members approved of it. 11. What is the power of the DOLE Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute or certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration? The DOLE Secretary may assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute, or certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, if, in his opinion, it may cause or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. (NOTE: The President may also exercise the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute) CONCLUSION FASAP has for three years bent over-backwards and has given PAL more than enough time. The CBA expired since July 2007 and for three years now it is the only the FASAP members who have not been granted any pay increase. Twice, for the years 2007 and 2008, PAL gave pay increases to management officers, the pilots and other ground personnel, except the flight attendants. FASAP has taken pains as it patiently accommodated management’s several requests for understanding. Despite numerous promises to submit its economic proposals during the Preventive Mediation hearings, PAL has failed or refused to do so. Constitutional right to go on strike As Filipino workers, it is our Constitutional right to go on strike. The law guarantees us the right to go on strike and force PAL management to respect the legal CBA process and bring them back to the negotiating table. At this point, FASAP has more than enough legal basis and documentation to file a Notice of Strike. EXCERPTS FROM THE JULY 22, 2010 MESSAGE OF FASAP PRESIDENT ROBERTO ANDUIZA “Vital decision to stage a legal strike As your president, I have reflected on this for a long time. Your officers, board members and shop stewards are united with me in this fight for respect and dignity. After thorough deliberations with our officers and panel of legal counsels, we arrived at this vital decision to stage a legal strike. Please trust that it is a well thought-off and calculated decision. Our strategies and courses of actions are grounded on the law and moral ascendancy. We will present our plans to the general membership for consultation prior to its implementation. I will lead FASAP in this momentous battle. We’ve succeeded in the past. I believe, with all my heart, that we will once again prevail. I ask for your support. We need to unite and participate in the fight. As in the past, FASAP’s solidarity is key. FASAP will continue to publish memos and official updates, including announcements on the union’s activities. Please attend the upcoming meetings and the forums. We all have to do our part, however big or small. We all have a duty to stand our ground and fight for our rights. Keep the faith. Maraming salamat po. Mabuhay ang FASAP!” Be vigilant. Be informed. Attend the FASAP meetings and Forums.
|
