Month: April 2020

€9,500 Awarded to Woman Fired by her Ex-Husband

The Workplace Relations Commission was directed a publican, retailer and post office operator to pay his ex-wife €9,500 for her unfair dismissal from the family business.

The woman was relieved of her position in the family business during June 2019 after an investigation into her ‘top-up’ withdrawals of €1,000 at a time from the business to the couple’s personal joint account.

The woman – who was also a director of the business – took a legal action for unfair dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission as a result of this.

Ms McElduff told the hearing that the manner of her termination from her position had fallen “far short of the requirements of any fair disciplinary procedure” and added that she was not forewarned that she may be dismissed.

The hearing was told that an independent investigator discovered that, from February 5, 2018, and February 14, 2019, €25,160 was transferred online to the joint personal bank account of the husband and wife in 19 separate transactions.

In addition to this, from August 31, 2017, and November 30, 2018, a total of €30,250 in 29 separate transactions was also lodged into the joint personal bank account of the husband and wife as cash lodgements. The husband said he exercised no control over the joint account.

She was informed, in a letter of dismissal that this was “totally unacceptable”. The complainant told the hearing that she had been advised by an accountant in the company’s accountancy practice that she could top up her wages by withdrawals of €1,000. She added that she was certain that she had transferred the money in a transparent manner.

The married couple split up during September 2017 and the woman has issued judicial separation proceedings.

Presifing WRC adjudication officer Anne McElduff ruled the woman’s claim was well founded.

 

 

Compensation Claim Filed Against Aer Lingus in Relation to Passenger Treatment

In the United States an Aer Lingus passenger has filed a legal action after she was allegedly injured in an incident where flight attendants removed her from aeroplane toilet just before take off.

The women in question, American citizen Mary Oshana is claiming that she was forcibly taken to her seat while her pants were still below her knees, exposing her buttocks and genitalia to other passengers. In addition to this she is claiming that she sustained an injury to her hip was injured during the incident.

Ms Oshana, from Skokie, Illinois, submitted her legal action seeking compensation in relation to the Aer Lingus flight crew who behaved “unreasonably, carelessly, and negligently”.

The complaint, which was submitted in District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, stated that the incident occurred shortly before a flight from Chicago to Dublin took off on April 26, 2018. It said that the flight taxied from the departure gate at O’Hare International Airport. However, it came to a halt and remained stopped on the tarmac for around 30 minutes before it taxied on towards the runway for take-off. It was during this time that Ms Oshana decided to leave her seat to go to the toilet.

She claims that about 20 seconds after entering the toilet she became aware that one or more persons were banging on the door, informing her she needed to return to her seat. However, by this stage she was seated on the toilet with her pants down. She informed these people that she would do as they requested “in just a minute”.

The filing states that two Aer Lingus flight attendants “broke through the lavatory door, grabbed the plaintiff under her arms, dragged her to her seat while her pants were below her knees, and threw her with great force into the arm rest and seat. In the process of being thrown with great force into the arm rest and seat, the plaintiff, Mary Oshana, suffered pain and bruising in her hip, thighs and buttocks.

Her lawyers claim the incident falls within the terms of the Montreal Convention, a treaty covering damages for victims of incidents on airlines. Aer Lingus did no comment on the claims.this.”

The court has scheduled a status hearing in early June.