A sacked senior Aer Lingus flight attendant has opted not to testify or call any witnesses on his unfair dismissal claim – with his legal team saying the case had already been proven by the airline’s own evidence.
Alan O’Neill was sacked for gross misconduct over an incident aboard a delayed April 2024 flight from Marseilles to Dublin, in which he was alleged to have refused to let a passenger use the bathroom for up to 45 minutes.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) this week, a senior manager who conducted Mr O’Neill’s disciplinary hearing denied that staff in the airline’s human resources department had made her decision for her.
Another senior manager said she spelt Mr O’Neill’s name “Ax OxNeill” in an email about the process out of concern for the worker’s privacy in the event of a data breach – and denied it was to avoid it being disclosed to him under GDPR.
READ MORE
The passenger – a man in his thirties – was reduced to tears by the time he had a chance to use the bathroom, when the aircraft was halfway back to Dublin, according to the testimony of another flight attendant.
The airline’s barrister, Tom Mallon, appearing instructed by Arthur Cox, said the tribunal had to dismiss the case if Mr O’Neill wouldn’t testify.
“The only evidence before you [is] that this gentleman who was clearly in a distressed condition – reduced to tears, that is undisputed – ought to have been let go to the bathroom and it was incumbent on Mr O’Neill to let him,” Mr Mallon said.
“Mr O’Neill is not only sheltering, he’s running away from having that put to him in cross-examination,” Mr Mallon said.
Lawyers representing Mr O’Neill through his trade union, Fórsa, have strongly challenged the airline’s handling of the investigation and disciplinary process which led to the complainant’s sacking.
PrepayPower are hiking their prices - will other energy suppliers soon follow suit?
Mr O’Neill, the ranking member of cabin crew, served the passenger with a formal warning under the airline’s disruptive passenger procedures after he got out of his seat to try to use the bathroom again while the “fasten seat belt” light was still lit, the tribunal heard.
This led to the man receiving a flight ban which was only rescinded after another customer complained about Mr O’Neill – sparking a company investigation into the events of the flight, the tribunal heard.
The last witness in the case was Marie Walsh, Aer Lingus manager for customer and on-board service, who decided to deny Mr O’Neill’s internal appeal against the dismissal.
In her outcome letter, she had stated that Mr O’Neill had submitted a report which was “not actually accurate” on the events of the flight, and said this was part of the reason his appeal was not upheld, the tribunal heard.
“That is the truth,” Ms Walsh said when told counsel for the respondent, Jason Murray, appearing instructed by Daniel Spring & Co Solicitors for Mr O’Neill’s trade union, Fórsa.
She said that if the passenger had been as disruptive as Mr O’Neill made out in his report, the man would have been restrained or met by gardaí upon landing.
Mr Murray said a “fundamental flaw” was that the allegation Mr O’Neill had filed an inaccurate report was never put to his client.
Ms Walsh said Mr O’Neill had given in a report stating there was a “disruptive passenger”, but that wasn’t what the investigation established “actually happened on this flight”.
“The customer was completely mishandled. Mr O’Neill completely overused his authority as a number one,” Ms Walsh said.
Ms Walsh was also asked about her use of “Ax OxNeill” in an email to human resources ahead of her appeal hearing.
Mr Murray put it to her the altered spelling wording acted to “protect Aer Lingus” from a data subject access request for documents bearing Mr O’Neill’s name.
“I don’t agree with that,” Ms Walsh said. “When I was asked for it, I provided it,” she added later.
Earlier, Mr Murray said that the disciplinary officer in the case, Mary McHugh, a senior Aer Lingus manager overseeing cabin crew operations, had been sent a draft report by a human resources which contained a pre-written finding of gross misconduct and a decision to dismiss.
It was a document “provided by HR to you, which tells you what your outcome is,” counsel said.
Ms McHugh denied this. “That was my decision, nobody else’s,” Ms McHugh said.
Mr Murray said it was up to the airline to prove the dismissal was fair and that he was “not calling evidence”, confirming Mr O’Neill would not testify.
Adjudication officer Michael MacNamee said he intended to give his decision in writing in around eight weeks, and closed the hearing.
