Flight attendants, stewards lose labor case against PAL

The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) against Philippine Airlines Inc.

In a 10-page decision, the appellate court through Associate Justice Danton Bueser of the CA’s 10th Division dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Fasap seeking to set aside NLRC’s decision issued on Feb. 25, 2009.

The NLRC nullified the resolution issued by a labor arbiter which declared PAL guilty of acts of unfair labor practice and enjoined the airline from utilizing line administrators to act as flight pursers.

The appellate court held the petitioners failed to show prima facie proof to prove that PAL was guilty of unfair labor practice.

“After a careful review of the facts, the court finds that the respondents cannot be made responsible for ULP (unfair labor practice). The petitioner, as the alleging party, has the burden of proving the ULP with substantial evidence as the same is punishable with both civil and/or criminal sanctions,” the CA noted.

“Here, there was no clear and substantial evidence confirming that the management decision to deploy line administrators to act as flight pursers interferes or restrains petitioner’s right to self-organize,” it added.

Associate Justices Hakim Abdulwahid and Ricardo Rosario concurred.

Fasap filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against PAL and the line administrators utilized as flight pursers on Sept. 29, 1997.

It claimed on Dec. 19, 1996, it entered into an agreement with the respondents for the temporary utilization of domestic cabin crew, contractual crew and administrative personnel for international operations of PAL.

However, after the expiration of the agreement, Fasap said respondents still continued to deploy administrative personnel, particularly line administrators, to act as flight pursers.

An airline or flight purser usually oversees the flight attendants to ensure airplane passengers are safe and comfortable.

Thus, Fasap insisted there was violation not only of the December 1996 joint deal but also of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

On the other hand, PAL claimed it utilized the services of its line administrators to act as flight pursers to address manpower shortage and at the same time arrest trend toward more serious losses.

Fasap insisted that the NLRC erred when it declared that PAL’s act was dictated by financial exigency, despite the failure of PAL to present evidence to support its claim.

The appellate court, however, noted Fasap negotiated and consulted with PAL which led to the execution of the agreement between them in December 1996.

The CA said under such circumstance, “it is safe to conclude that Fasap was aware of PAL’s purpose and objective as it was stated in the agreement.”

“There is no showing therefore that respondents, in implementing the decision to utilize line administrators as flight pursers, were motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice. No ULP was thus committed,” the CA ruled. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune