Unfair labor practice case vs PAL junked

BusinessWorld
June 6, 2011

THE COURT of Appeals has dismissed an unfair labor practice claim lodged by the Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines (FASAP) against Philippine Airlines (PAL) regarding the latter’s use of line administrators as flight attendants in 1996.
The appellate court’s 10th Division said in a May 26 ruling that PAL’s transfer of line administrators as flight attendants did not constitute unfair labor practice or contractualization since one of line administrators’ duties is to serve as flight attendants.

The case stemmed from a December 1996 deal between FASAP and PAL for the temporary assignment of line administrators as flight attendants to avert the manpower shortage and losses that PAL has been experiencing at that time.

However, FASAP filed a complaint at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in September 1997 after PAL continued to deploy the administrators as flight attendants despite the expiration of their agreement.

In September 1998, the NLRC rendered a decision favoring FASAP and finding PAL guilty of acts of unfair labor practice. PAL was also ordered to stop the practice.

However, on appeal by PAL, the NLRC reversed its decision and dismissed FASAP’s claims for loss of productivity pay, per diem, bar sales commission, duty time incentive, tech-stops pay, reserve pay, and damages.

In its decision, the NLRC said that the move of PAL to recruit its own line administrators to become flight attendants cannot be considered contractualization as they are also employees of PAL, and it is well within their job description to work as flight attendants. “There is no reason for us not to adopt the above ruling,” the appellate court’s decision read, citing the NLRC decision.

Furthermore, the court said that FASAP failed to prove that PAL’s move to use line administrators as flight attendants had interfered with their right to self-organization, which would then become unfair labor practice.

“The court finds that the respondents cannot be made responsible for [unfair labor practice]...,” the decision stated. -- Nathaniel R. Melican