Aer Lingus chief executive Mr Michael Foley has secured an interim High Court order restraining Aer Lingus from taking any further steps in a disciplinary process against him. The process was initiated following allegations of sexual harassment.
Mr Justice Finnegan yesterday granted the order, returnable to Monday, to Ms Mary Irvine SC, for Mr Foley.
Last Friday, Mr Foley was advised in a letter from the company not to come into the office after a sub-committee of the airline's board upheld two sexual harassment claims made against him.
In his proceedings, which come before the court again on Monday, Mr Foley is seeking a declaration that the disciplinary process proposed by Aer Lingus to consider the allegations against him constitute or will constitute a breach of contract and a breach of his rights to natural and constitutional justice.
He will also seek an injunction restraining Aer Lingus from taking any further steps in the disciplinary process except in accordance with Aer Lingus's disciplinary procedure and the principles of natural justice.
He is seeking further injunctions restraining Aer Lingus from taking any further steps to consider any issue concerning him through the means of a special sub-committee established by a board resolution on April 26th last, other than on the basis of the special sub-committee hearing and determining the allegations of sexual harassment made against him.
He wants an appeal procedure where his constitutional and legal rights will be vindicated and, in particular, where he may have an appeal via a full rehearing to a body or person independent of Aer Lingus.
In an affidavit, Mr Foley said a complaint was made on February 20th 2001 by Ms Joan Loughnane, a SIPTU worker director of Aer Lingus, that he had sexually harassed her some four months earlier. He emphatically denied as untrue that allegation.
He said Ms Loughnane complained in a letter to Aer Lingus chairman Mr Bernie Cahill. He said investigations into allegations of sexual harassment were normally carried out by two independent objective investigators from a panel named in a policy document entitled "Respect and Dignity in the Workplace" which set out Aer Lingus's policy on sexual harassment, bullying and racism.
Mr Foley said Mr Cahill had determined the complaint should not be processed in the usual manner but instead referred it on February 22nd last to a sub-committee chosen by him, comprising Ms Rose Hynes and Dr John Keane.
Mr Foley said he only attended before the committee on March 22nd last, although the procedure had required the investigation be carried out as speedily as possible.
He believed Mr Cahill had on March 23rd received a letter from solicitors for another employee, Ms Anne Lawlor, in which further allegations were made against him. Mr Cahill had also directed this complaint to be referred to the investigation committee. In a letter of March 26th, he denied as untrue the allegations by Ms Lawlor. Mr Foley complained that, despite it being a requirement of the process that all parties maintain confidentiality, there had been constant stories in the media about the matter in which his good name was vilified. He was prejudged in Aer Lingus, as a result, with catastrophic effect.
On April 25th, he gave evidence to the committee and was aggressively questioned on the issue of confidentiality. This was outside the remit of the committee and an inappropriate area for it to examine. The committee later sought to extend its terms of reference into a possible breach of confidentiality.
He said the agenda became one of trying to prove a breach of confidentiality by him.
After further events, the issue of confidentiality was now to be investigated in a different manner, he said. He later refused to bind himself to an undertaking of confidentiality in circumstances where it was certain leaks would be made to the media of material damaging to him. The report of the investigation into the claims was furnished on May 17th, three months after the date of the first complaint and four weeks after his name was exposed in the media, Mr Foley complained. He feared there was collusion between the committee and Mr Cahill in ensuring, contrary to the committee's procedures, that the chairman had the report before it was sent to him. He said the committee concluded the accounts by both complainants were correct in all material respects and that his conduct towards each amounted to sexual harassment. He was concerned about an Irish Times report of April 18th headlined he "may feel need to step aside" and, on April 19th, Mr Cahill suggested to him he should stand aside while the investigation was continuing. He had decided he could not accede to that request.
Mr Foley said there was no corroboration of either of the complaints against him and very considerable discrepancies in the evidence given. He said the only support offered by Ms Loughnane for her complaint was that of her fellow SIPTU worker/director, Mr William Clarke, who had said he met Ms Loughnane after the alleged offence and that she was visibly shaken. He said there were considerable reasons to doubt the evidence of Mr Clarke.
Both Ms Loughnane and Mr Clarke were representatives of SIPTU and he had been intimately involved in the conclusion of successful negotiations with IMPACT regarding cabin crew who had moved from SIPTU to IMPACT. He said Mr Clarke was very angry at his personal involvement in interfacing with the opposing union and Mr Clarke was also an open opponent of a programme of radical change at Aer Lingus.
He was very disturbed the committee avoided evidence by Ms Lawlor who, he said, had said she made the complaint because the chairman pressurised her into bringing a complaint. Mr Foley said he was entitled to at least one, and possibly two, appeals against any decision to impose disciplinary measures against him and was entitled to have those appeals heard and determined before any sanction was brought into operation.
