Photo from Pexels | Kelly
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
In the concurring opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier in the case of Halagueña v. PAL, G.R. No. 243259, January 10, 2023, she stated that age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary in the normal operation of a particular business where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age. BFOQ are employment qualifications that employers are allowed to consider while making decisions about hiring and retention of employees.
To justify BFOQ, the employer must prove that: (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.
In the case of Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008, an international flight steward was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.
The Supreme Court held that the standards violated were not mere orders of the employer, they were the “prescribed weights” that a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep his or her position in the company. In other words, they were standards that establish continuing qualifications for an employee’s position. The failure to maintain these standards does not fall under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, whose express terms require the element of willfulness in order to be a ground for dismissal. The failure to meet the employer’s qualifying standards is in fact a ground that falls squarely under other causes analogous to the foregoing.
These qualifying standards are norms that apply prior to and after an employee is hired. They apply prior to employment because these are the standards a job applicant must initially meet in order to be hired. They apply after hiring because an employee must continue to meet these standards while on the job in order to keep his job. Under this perspective, a violation is not one of the faults for which an employee can be dismissed pursuant to paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 282; the employee can be dismissed simply because he no longer qualifies for his job irrespective of whether or not the failure to qualify was willful or intentional.
Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
Verily, there is no merit to the argument that BFOQ cannot be applied if it has no supporting statute. A common carrier, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers it transports. It is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.
The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight crew who are on board the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employees.
In Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004, the Supreme Court held the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
Related Articles:
- Insights from Halagueña v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 243259, 10 January 2023) on gender discrimination
- SC decides: Marriage not a ground for employee termination
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.