Can female attendants be forced to retire earlier than men?

PQR airlines entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with FGH workers union. A clause in the CBA states that women flight attendants compulsorily retire at age 55. Men, on the other hand, retire at 60.

The declared reason: Airlines need cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules.

Is this a valid stipulation?

No, it is not. This is discriminatory against women. This inference is manifestly mistaken and its conclusion grounded on speculation, surmises, or conjectures.

It is violative of Sec. 14, Art. II and Sec. 14, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution; of Art. 133 of the Labor Code; of Art. 11(1) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); of Republic Act No. 9710; on of settled case law such as Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio (2015).

There is no factual basis for such a conclusion. Indeed, one need only look at women police officers, women soldiers, women security guards, to confirm that women are no less capable of performing jobs related to the safety and security of other people. This view stereotypes against women as the “weaker sex” in concluding, in the face of a dearth of evidence, that women flight attendants may be made to retire earlier than men because they lose their competence to perform their jobs at a much earlier age.

Halagueña et al. v. Philippine Airlines. G.R. No. 243259, January 10, 2023