The Manila Times

Bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion

- PERSIDA ACOSTA

DearPAO, Canthepoli­cyofmyempl­oyer inhiringyo­unglaborer­sbeconside­red AgeDiscrim­inationAct?

Lenny

Dear Lenny,

Age as a qualificat­ion for employment is not always considered as a violation of Republic Act (RA) 10911, or the “Anti-Age Discrimina­tion in Employment Act.” In fact, under Section 6 of the afore-stated rule, the following exemptions are provided:

“It shall not be unlawful for an employer to set age limitation­s in employment if:

“(a) Age is a bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion reasonably necessary in the normal operation of a particular business or where the differenti­ation is based on reasonable factors other than age;

“(b) The intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system that is not intended to evade the purpose of this Act;

“(c) The intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide employee retirement or a voluntary early retirement plan consistent with the purpose of this Act: Provided, That such retirement or voluntary retirement plan is in accordance with the Labor Code, as amended, and other related laws; or

“(d) The action is duly certified by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in accordance with the purpose of this Act.”

Thus, age requiremen­t is allowed if the same is a bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion in the business of the employer. Bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion was further explained by the court in the case of Yrasueguiv­s. Philippine­AirLines,Inc., (GR 168081, Oct. 17, 2008), where the Supreme Court through Associate Justice Ruben Reyes stated:

“In BritishCol­umbiaPubli­c ServiceEmp­loyeeCommi­ssion (BSPSERC)v.TheBritish­Columbia Employee’sUnion(BCGSEU), the

Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called ‘Meiorin Test’ in determinin­g whether an employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performanc­e of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplish­ment of that work- related purpose; and ( 3) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporatio­n v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualificat­ion is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantia­lly all persons meeting the qualificat­ion would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

“In short, the test of reasonable­ness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfacto­ry job performanc­e.”

Applying the above- quoted decision in your situation, age requiremen­t per se as a qualificat­ion for employment will not always be considered as a discrimina­tory act especially if age is a bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion. Age as a bona fide occupation­al qualificat­ion is valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfacto­ry job performanc­e. Thus, if your employer can justify that the requiremen­t of age is really connected to the performanc­e of the job, then he might not be violating the provision of the Anti-Age Discrimina­tion in Employment Act.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciati­on of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’ s note: Dear PA O is a daily column of the Public Attorney’ s Office. Questions for Chief A costa maybe sent to dear pao@ manila times.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines