Aer Lingus noticed that they were helping a crew member when handling his threat to the captain t


The Labor Court has found that Aer Lingus had caused the cabin crew's attention as it had dealt with allegations made by a captain from Aer Lingus.

In this case, the vice-chancellor of the Labor Court, Tom Geraghty, has starred Aer Lingus in a number of ways he deals with the hutter's complaint about controversial comments with the air captain to t the woman that he was threatening physical violence against her husband.

Aer Lingus refused to attend the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing on a whistleblower's complaint and as a result the worker transferred to Labor Court.

Mr Geraghty said that it was unusual for the trusted employer to refuse to use the status of the CSC service respondent to help resolve this dispute without good reason without doing so.

Mr Geraghty said the court was happy to accept that Aer Lingus accepted that it would be better to be able to assist members in this respect.

In the case of the case, the captain refused to accept the accused comments and instead he made a short note to the crew.

The discussions that the skipper put forward were made in October 2017 when the man and the children were trying to use staff travel benefits for the pre-scheduled Aer Lingus journey. The cabinet crew made a complaint to the air three weeks later.

In response, the airline sent a letter to Ceaban's members where she had been told that she could be responsible for searching up to and submitting a breach ’.

The air company asked the airline to say it bilingually to a member of the crew that said the letter was issued as a result of a “clerical check”.

The air was inspected by the airline and did not end until May 2018. The auditor found ‘in balance 'she was of the opinion that the captain did not make the comments as claimed.

In his findings, Mr Geraghty found that the court is referring to the affliction without causing a cause of the crew crew, describing the situation in which the letter was omitted. mind '.

Mr Geraghty also found that the delay in handling the larger complaint on the part of a crew member's crew had complained that she was making a complaint to make.

Mr Geraghty said that the court welcomes the commitments given by Aer Lingus that “their processes for handling complaints are proceeding as can be done but necessary updating.

He said:

An accountable employer such as the Respondent must be in a position to take early decisions to simple complaints. The Respondent did not do this and, by doing so, caused more unwarranted emergencies.

In terms of the findings of the inquiry within the opinion that the inspector was of the opinion that the captain had taken the action, Mr Geraghty stated that a substantial evidence or third party indicated that such a finding would not be forthcoming. The belief is that it is within an organization playing its part in confirming the belief that this should not be a factor.

Mr Geraghty stated that the court was not in a position to maintain the crew of the crew.

Source link