Tom O’Riordan, a former pilot for Aer Lingus, is set to initiate a claim for whistleblower penalisation and alleged employment rights violations against the airline. O’Riordan alleges he was exposed to “toxic fumes” during a flight from London to Dublin three years ago, resulting in his alleged brain damage. An Aer Lingus barrister, however, has denied these claims, accusing O’Riordan of “defamation” and assuring the Workplace Relations Commission that neither crew nor passengers were put at risk.
O’Riordan, representing himself, has filed complaints under several Acts, including the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the Payment of Wages Act 1994, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. He alleged at a preliminary hearing that his brain damage and chronic fatigue syndrome resulted from “toxic fumes” exposure during the London-Dublin flight.
The former pilot asserts that he made numerous protected disclosures related to “fume exposure and falsified reports” to various authorities, including Aer Lingus management, the Health and Safety Authority, the Transport Minister, the Air Accident Investigation Unit and the Oireachtas. He claims that his dismissal last month, as well as the reduction of his sick pay from 100% to 75% in January 2024, and the termination of his sick pay in April this year, constitute whistleblower penalisation.
Tom Mallon, representing Aer Lingus and instructed by Ailbhe Moloney of Arthur Cox Solicitors, said while they acknowledge the pilot made certain reports, it needs to be proven if those reports qualify as protected disclosures.
Mr Mallon vehemently contested the notion that Captain O’Riordan, or indeed anyone else, posed a risk, particularly to passengers. He maintained that there was a lack of evidence to support such allegations and that his client would contest this wholeheartedly. He affirmed that any issues that had surfaced had been appropriately addressed and resolved.
Mr Mallon expressed his client’s deep dissatisfaction with Mr O’Riordan’s derogatory comments towards Aer Lingus and its senior staff members, arguing that this behaviour led to Mr O’Riordan’s dismissal. He argued that his client utterly denies any misconduct or dangerous exposure of cabin crew or passengers. Mr Mallon emphasised that his client is prepared to confront the allegations presented in the safety report confiscatingly and resolutely.
Case arbitrator, Aideen Collard, clarified the details of the case, confirming that Mr O’Riordan had been instructed by Aer Lingus to cease online activities that reflected his grievances. Mr O’Riordan admitted to staging a protest at the main offices of Aer Lingus on the 26th of February 2024, including a hunger strike, while adorned in his uniform and bearing picketing signs.
Regarding the salary dispute, Mr Mallon argued that the pilot received remuneration per contractual agreement. Mr O’Riordan, on the other hand, argued inequality in the treatment compared to his peers in the same role, maintaining he was owed his full salary while on sick leave. He confirmed his intention to call upon a specific co-worker to support his claim.
Ms Collard decided that the preliminary hearing at the WRC would take place over five consecutive days immediately after the Christmas interruption. She also guided the media against sharing the names of any witnesses involved in the case, except for the plaintiff. She prospectively planned to refer to them by their role if she were to be the one determining the case, and she anticipated that the press would adhere to this.