|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
As they say, you win some, you lose some.
The Supreme Court upheld a suit filed by some
2,000 former employees and cabin crew of Philippine Airlines Inc.
(PAL) who were retrenched 10 years ago when the airline downsized.
The decision came a day after the same court
ruled in favor of Lucio Tan, who owns the airline. On Monday, the
Court said the government owed the Tan-owned Fortune Tobacco Corp. a
P1-billion tax refund.
On Tuesday, the 32-page decision written by
Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago of the Supreme Court’s
Third Division said PAL is guilty of “illegal dismissal.” The
judgment reversed an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals, which
upheld the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission in
favor of PAL.
The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association
of the Philippines filed the petition.
The case started on June 15, 1998, when PAL
retrenched 5,000 of its employees, including more than 1,400
cabin-crew personnel.
In its decision, the High Tribunal ordered the
flag carrier “to reinstate the cabin-crew personnel who were
covered by the retrenchment and demotion scheme of June 15, 1998
made effective on July 15, 1998, without loss of seniority rights
and other privileges, and to pay them full back wages, inclusive of
allowances and other monetary benefits computed from the time of
their separation up to the time of their actual reinstatement,
provided that with respect to those who had received their
respective separation pay, the amounts of payments shall be deducted
from their back wages.”
For those who could no longer be reinstated, the
Court ordered PAL to pay back wages plus severance equivalent to a
month’s salary for every year of service.
Tough period
The airline retrenched the workers allegedly to
cut costs and mitigate huge financial losses brought about by the
Asian financial crisis in 1997. For that period, PAL reported
P90-billion worth of liabilities and assets of only P85 billion.
In implementing Plan 14, PAL’s fleet would be
reduced from 54 to 14, thus requiring fewer cabin-crew personnel.
PAL said the retrenchment was wholly premised on
the fleet reduction and on the strike staged by its pilots, as this
also translated into fewer flights.
The airline also claimed that the scheme
resulted in savings of about P24 million per month, which greatly
helped PAL cope financially.
The airline then enforced its rights under the
collective bargaining agreement in retrenching cabin-crew personnel.
That is, the retrenchment was based on the individual employee’s
efficiency rating and seniority. PAL determined the cabin-crew
personnel efficiency ratings through an evaluation of employees’
overall performance in 1997.
The Supreme Court also ordered PAL to pay
attorney’s fees equivalent to 10 percent of the total monetary
award.
Concurring with the majority ruling were
Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita Chico-Nazario,
Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro.
The airline may file a motion for
reconsideration within 15 days of the ruling, but there were no
immediate reports whether PAL will do so.
|
