Case Analysis
GOD BLESS & GOOD LUCK.
CASE PROBLEM. ( PAL)
Stipulation Against Marriage
Claudine de Castro Zialcita, complainant vs PAL, RESPONDENT
Facts: Complainant, an International flight stewardess of respondent company was dismissed from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. In dismissing her, respondent invoked its policy which provides:
“D FLIGHT ATTENDANTS. Flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married.”
Issue: The only issue in this case over which the Sec. of labor has assumed direct jurisdiction under PD 823 is whether management may legally terminate the services of an employee for getting married.
However, respondent company has invoked non-legal grounds to uphold the validity of its policy or regulation prohibiting flight attendants to get married. For instance, the special occupation of flight attendants demand, respondent claims, a special sec of labor standards especially with respect to safety, health and aesthetics.
The respondent company also raised arguments that its flight attendant will get pregnant upon getting married and the marriage will make its flight attendants inefficient or less efficient.
Argument: If married flight attendants become inefficient either in terms of work performance or aesthetic sense, they can be dismissed. Even flight attendants inefficiency is a valid ground for termination.
PAL argued the policy at issue has been enforced for many years and so far no competent authority has declared it illegal or unjust. PAL has openly adopted and enforced this policy or regulation in good faith over the years, believing it legally justifiable because of the special circumstances under which flight attendants operate.
Resolve the case following the steps in analyzing business cases
example
CASE PROBLEM. ( PAL)
Stipulation Against Marriage
Claudine de Castro Zialcita, complainant vs PAL, RESPONDENT
Facts: Complainant, an International flight stewardess of respondent company was dismissed from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. In dismissing her, respondent invoked its policy which provides:
“D FLIGHT ATTENDANTS. Flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married.”
Issue: The only issue in this case over which the Sec. of labor has assumed direct jurisdiction under PD 823 is whether management may legally terminate the services of an employee for getting married.
However, respondent company has invoked non-legal grounds to uphold the validity of its policy or regulation prohibiting flight attendants to get married. For instance, the special occupation of flight attendants demand, respondent claims, a special sec of labor standards especially with respect to safety, health and aesthetics.
The respondent company also raised arguments that its flight attendant will get pregnant upon getting married and the marriage will make its flight attendants inefficient or less efficient.
Argument: If married flight attendants become inefficient either in terms of work performance or aesthetic sense, they can be dismissed. Even flight attendants inefficiency is a valid ground for termination.
PAL argued the policy at issue has been enforced for many years and so far no competent authority has declared it illegal or unjust. PAL has openly adopted and enforced this policy or regulation in good faith over the years, believing it legally justifiable because of the special circumstances under which flight attendants operate.
Resolve the case following the steps in analyzing business cases
example