The High Court has refused interim orders sought by former Aer Lingus cabin crew member Lorcan Delaney in his employment dispute with the airline. The court decided only his interlocutory application, which sought orders including salary payments pending trial and restrictions on implementing his dismissal. It did not determine the underlying action.
Delaney’s airport identification card expired on 10 December 2019 and was not renewed. The daa withheld renewal while a prosecution for alleged possession of drugs was pending. Aer Lingus placed him on unpaid leave because he could not fly without a current card, then dismissed him in February 2020, offering salary in lieu of notice. He received that payment, the court said.
Delaney argued that his contract did not require him to maintain a daa card and that his suspension and dismissal breached his contractual rights and fair procedures. Aer Lingus maintained that the card was necessary for him to perform cabin crew duties and that the dismissal arose from his inability to obtain one, not from the alleged offence. Justice Allen said the contractual argument that a valid card was not required was “not, in my view, even arguable” on the material before him. He also found Delaney had not shown a strong case likely to succeed that he was dismissed for misconduct.
The judge noted that Delaney’s prosecution had since been heard in Trim District Court. Judge Brennan accepted that Delaney had possessed a small quantity of drugs for personal use and had not previously or subsequently come to Garda attention, then dismissed the complaint. The High Court said there was no evidence that the daa had reviewed Delaney’s card application after the prosecution ended; at the motion hearing, he still had no card.
Delaney had secured alternative employment by July 2020. The judge said the evidence did not establish what difference there would be between his earnings and the pay he might have received from Aer Lingus during pandemic-related reductions to staff hours and pay. He was also not persuaded that refusing the interim orders would expose Delaney to a real risk of injustice.
The application was refused. Justice Allen said he would hear counsel remotely on the appropriate costs order; this judgment did not decide costs.