Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
qualification
OUR LAWS respect and recognize the right of management
in exercising its prerogative. Generally, the employer
is free to regulate all facets of its business operation
including every aspects relating to employment such
as hiring, formulating work processes and
regulations, laying-off, discipline and dismissal of
workers. However, this does not mean that
management prerogative is absolute; it is still
subject to the limitations imposed by law or by
collective bargaining agreements (CBA), employment
contract, company policy or practice, and general
principles of fair play and justice.
That being said, one of the more contentious issues in the area of
hiring and retention of employment is whether the employer can
impose job qualifications based on physical appearance or civil/marital
status of a person. At first glance, the answer seems to be in the
negative. However, the Supreme Court, in some cases and under
certain circumstances, upheld the right of management to impose such
qualifications.
The BFOQ was likewise applied in the case of Star Paper Corp. v.
Rolando D. Simbol, et. al. (G.R. No. 164774, April 12 , 2006), wherein
the Supreme Court ruled against Star Paper for prohibiting an
employee to marry his/her co-employee and also for forcing either one
of them to resign from their post in case the couple violates the policy.
The court stated that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must
prove two factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably
related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that
there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons
meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the
duties of the job. Star Paper in this case failed to show how the
marriage between its employees could be detrimental to its business
operations aside from its bare allegations that the policy is premised
on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less
efficient. The court stated that it cannot uphold the questioned rule
without valid justification; otherwise, the company can create policies
based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the
expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure. Thus, a
requirement for a man or woman employee to remain unmarried can
only be considered as a BFOQ, if the requirements of the job would
justify it, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the
desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that
nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance (PT&T v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 118978, May 23 , 1997).