I. Title of the CaseStipulation Against MarriageClaudine de Castro Zialcita vs. Philippine Airlines ( PAL )
II. View PointClaudine de Castro Zialcita complained against Philippine Airlines ( PAL ) for disregarding her from her occupation by ground of her catching matrimony. Upon disregarding her the respondent of Philippine Airlines ( PAL ) invoked their policy which states that flight attender appliers must be individual and will be automatically separated from employment in the event that they later get married. The complainant argued that the policy is a favoritism against married adult females. she mentioned about her colleagues that are married excessively and are non dismissed from their occupation by ground that they lied about their relationship position because of fright of losing their occupation. She besides mentioned that the policy of PAL is illegal and unreasonable because of favoritism against adult females by holding a matrimony prohibition for adult females but non work forces. III. Time Context
Philippine Airlines ( PAL ) began life with a baronial mission: to function as a spouse in nation-building. With this in head. PAL took to the skies on 15 March 1941. utilizing a Beech Model 18 aircraft amid the ghost of a planetary war. It became Asia’s first air hose. Philippine Airlines ( PAL ) has been the dominant air bearer in the Philippines since its creative activity in 1941. Operating both internationally and within the 7. 100 islands that make up the state. PAL has been something of a wonder and dirt among the world’s major air hoses. Case No. RO4-3-3398-76 dated February 20. 1977 stated that complainant Claudine de Castro Zialcita. an international flight air hostess of PAL. was discharged last September 1975 from the service on history of her matrimony. In dividing Zialcita. PAL invoked its policy which stated that flight attenders must be individual. and shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they later get married. They claimed that this policy was in conformity with Article 132 of the Labor Code. On the other manus. Zialcita questioned her expiration on history of her matrimony. raising Article 136 of the same jurisprudence. IV. Statement of the Problem
MajorThe dicriminatory and unconstitutional policy of non accepting flight attender appliers by ground of being married and firing flight attenders by ground of acquiring married. What are the consequence to this sort of policy non merely to flight attenders but besides other occupations that has favoritism on other ways. Minor
The dismissed of an International flight air hostess from her occupation by ground of her catching matrimony. To cognize what are the replies from the plaintiff questioned sing her expiration from the company in respects to the jurisprudence. V. Aims
The purpose of this survey is to cognize whether the expiration of the services of plaintiff on history of matrimony is legal. To analyse futher if the company’s policies has the right attitude towards their employees. Other nonsubjective in this instance is to cognize the relationship or connexions between the plaintiff. the company involved. and the jurisprudence under this state of affairs. We will be able to cognize the significance of the jurisprudence itself ( Article 132 and 136 ) and the impact to each parties. And eventually. we will be able to cognize which party has the right logical thinking that is rational under the jurisprudence. VI. SWOT Analysis
Strengths| Weaknesses| Opportunities| Threats|Repute of the company through supplying policies for accomplishing the goals| Employer –employee relationship because of the conditions that was organized by the company| New recreation of work which offers appliers without limitations| Other companies with better policies that has positive impact to employees| Management is committed to employee development and training| Less chance for employees because of favoritism or stipulate for acquiring married| Knowledge about rights of employee thats under the law| Changing in goverment policies or law| Creating policies for strong client base| Policy and process demands to be updated | There are occupation sharing chances with other organizations| The demand for employees in the field exceeds the supply of possible workers|
VII. Alternative Courses of Action Major1 ) To set up criterions that will guarantee the safety and wellness of adult females employees and in appropriate instances shall by ordinance require employers to find appropriate minimal criterions for expiration in particular businesss. such as those of flight attenders. 2 ) To see the labour jurisprudence. The mutual exclusiveness of the company’s policy or ordinance with the codal proviso of jurisprudence. 3 ) To hold an equal intervention to everyone. Without demands and restrictions for greater chance. Minor
1 ) To reinstate the discharged air hostess.2 ) To alter the company’s policy. Filipino Airline’s policy for engaging merely single air hostess. 3 ) Prohibited judicial admissions in employment contract
VIII. RecommendationMajorAlthough Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to set up criterions that will guarantee the safety and wellness of adult females employees and in appropriate instances shall by ordinance require employers determine appropriate minimal criterions for expiration in particular businesss. such as those of flight attenders. it is logical to assume that. in the absence of said criterions or ordinances whick are yet to be established. the policy of PAL against matrimony is obviously illegal. Article 136 is non intended to use merely to adult females employed in ordinary businesss. or it should hold flatly expressed so. The sweeping intendment of the jurisprudence. be it on particular or ordinary businesss. is reflected in the whole text and supported by Article 135 that speaks of non-discrimination on the employment of adult females. Minor
Filipino Airline’s policy of engaging merely single air hostess is non merely illegal but likely unprofitable because the ‘sexual security’ of matrimony makes some adult females more efficient and beautiful. Claudine De Castro Zialcita should be reinstate as air hostess because PAL statements that a married flight air hostess hazards going pregnant and disconcerting flight agendas was non a valid ground. Harmonizing to Article 136. Labor Code. It shall be improper for an employer to necessitate as a status of employment or continuance of employment that a adult female employee shall non acquire married. or to qualify expressly or tacitly that upon acquiring married a adult female employee shall be deemed resigned or separated. IX. Plan of Action
1 ) Ensure that the policy and ordinances are enforced by jurisprudence. One of the chief properties of effectual ordinance is the power to implement conformity with sector policy. Torahs and regulative determinations. including dispute declaration determinations. This is an efficient mechanism for covering with ailments of non-compliance with regulations and ordinances. 2 ) Working in an environment which is free from favoritism. Organization/Company is committed to the publicity of equal chances for all staff. and its policy on equal chances reflects this. Treating all persons reasonably – without prejudice or bias and free from pigeonholing. This applies to all enlisting. publicity and calling development determinations. 3 ) Company’s ain policy should guarantee that policy guidelines become portion of our normal on the job patterns. It should advance a positive equal chances environment and applies on a timely mode.
* Bora Raton News – June 1. 1976* hypertext transfer protocol: //www. scribd. com/doc/47321843/PART-2-CASE-DIGEST* hypertext transfer protocol: //himpapawid. com/airlines/baldoz-resolves-fasap-pal-case/html * Labor Law Review 2011Case No. RO4-3-3398-76* Philippine Airlines. Inc.