PAL seeks amicable solution to labor woes

MANILA, Philippines - The country’s flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) yesterday expressed hope that it could resolve its labor problems and arrive at a consensus in its scheduled talks with the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) and PAL Employees Association (Palea) this week. 

“We are coming to the table with the best intention of fruitfully resolving the issues with the flight attendants and stewards as well as Palea,” PAL president and chief operating officer Jaime Bautista declared.

PAL management and Fasap officials are scheduled to meet at the Department of Labor and Employment’s National Conciliation and Mediation Board in Manila on their collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Bautista said PAL is eager to find common ground with the flight attendants and stewards. He said PAL recognizes the aspirations of its workers for competitive remuneration and benefits.

“We’re open to a dialogue. It’s just give-and-take. I hope we will all come to the negotiating table with open minds and hearts as we discuss issues,” Bautista said.

“I know the families of our employees are anxious too and want to see the issues resolved amicably and as promptly as possible. We share their concern,” he added.

Bautista also said he’s still hoping that the 26 pilots who suddenly left without notice would meet the Aug. 9 deadline to go back to work.

“PAL, the government and the entire nation are waiting for their return so they can render service not only to PAL but the general public,” Bautista said.

He said PAL has yet to decide the exact course of action the airline management will take should the pilots refuse to return.

Bautista appealed to PAL employees to understand the company’s situation. He said PAL has been transparent in disclosing its financial condition.

“We are all aware that most airlines in the world, including PAL, have been affected and continue to be affected by the global recession and slowdown in travel,” he said.

Bautista said PAL is trying to survive amidst the harsh environment in the travel industry worldwide, aggravated by the continued rise in jet fuel prices, downgrade of the Philippines’ aviation safety rating to Category 2 status by the US Federal Aviation Administration, the European blacklist of RP carriers and cut-throat competition.

“We hope our fellow PAL workers will understand that we are dealing with the worst crisis that hit the global airline industry, crippling even the giant airlines of developed economies,” Bautista pointed out.

Bautista made the statement even after the Court of Appeals (CA) turned down the damage suit sought by PAL against a pilot who had resigned after undergoing training for its Airbus A320.

The ruling came amid the brewing labor dispute between PAL and some of its pilots who had resigned.

In an 11-page decision released Friday, the CA’s seventh division denied the petition of PAL seeking to reverse the June 19, 2008 ruling of the Makati Regional Trial Court dismissing the complaint for civil damages against Capt. Antonio Halagueña.

PAL accused Halagueña of breach of contract and sought reimbursement and damages amounting to at least P1.2 million from the pilot for his alleged failure to comply with the terms and conditions in the training agreement with the airline company.

The CA upheld the Makati RTC ruling in dismissing PAL’s suit against Halagueña.

The appellate court noted that PAL filed the damage suit before the Makati RTC on May 9, 2005, or almost two years after Halagueña’s wife paid PAL P401,480 representing her husband’s full monetary obligations under the training agreement.

The CA said PAL had already waived its right to collect the supposed balance when it received the payment from Halagueña’s wife.

“All things considered, we find and so rule that the wealth of evidence in this case sustains the conclusion of the (Makati) RTC that Halagueña is no longer liable to PAL. Hence, there is no reason to depart from the said findings,” the CA said.

PAL hired Halagueña as pilot trainee on March 11, 2002 and offered him the training program that it provides for all its pilots who wish to operate its newer aircraft.

Halagueña accepted the offer and underwent training until May 19, 2002, resulting in his qualifying to pilot the Airbus A320.

However, the training agreement containing the terms and conditions of the training program was signed by Halagueña only on March 22, 2003.

Over a year after completing the training, Halagueña failed to report for his flight and reserve pilot assignments and instead resigned on Oct. 31, 2003.

On Nov. 24, 2003, PAL received from Halagueña through the latter’s wife, Patricia, payment totaling P401,480, representing the monetary obligations under the training agreement.

PAL claimed Halagueña committed a breach of their agreement.

Despite his resignation, PAL still issued on Jan. 15, 2004 a resolution terminating the pilot’s employment effective Oct. 30, 2003, claiming he abandoned his duties.

Subsequently, PAL demanded the pilot pay the balance amount of P252,951 representing the expenses for his training plus 14 percent interest pert annum.    

It also demanded reimbursement from Halagueña of the expenses it incurred to train another pilot amounting to P1.05 million.

Because of Halagueña’s failure to heed its demands, PAL filed a damage suit before the Makati RTC praying that judgment be rendered ordering him to reimburse the airline and to pay for damages.

The Makati RTC also ordered PAL to stop implementing a controversial labor policy setting a younger mandatory retirement age for its female flight attendants.

Sen. Pia Cayetano hailed the decision that, she said, would put an end to “PAL’s gender-based

mandatory retirement age policy that clearly discriminates against its women cabin crew.”

Cayetano said it was clear that PAL committed “gender discrimination” in implementing a younger retirement age for flight attendants.

Cayetano said the ruling would also force PAL management to scrap other reported discriminatory and unfair labor policies that has been the subject of grievance by its employees.

These include a separate retirement policy requiring both male and female flight attendants hired from 1996 to 2000 to retire at 40 years old, and those hired from 2000 and beyond to retire at age 45.

“The court decision is a victory not only for the flight attendants but for all women in general,” she said. With Edu Punay and Christina Mendez