Pilot sexual harassment of Cabin Crew.
From the Newcastle Journal (hostess was local):
And at the hearing in Southampton yesterday, Miss Quinn’s claims for sexual harassment and victimisation were dismissed. The tribunal panel ruled that the claim for sexual harassment had been submitted beyond a three-month deadline. It dismissed the claim for victimisation, stating that there was no evidence that she was sacked because she had made a complaint against Mr Murray.
At the hearing Peter Saville, representing Capt Murray and his employer Gama Aviation, said that if the text was sent by accident then it could not amount to sexual harassment. He said: “It does not matter what effect Capt Murray meant the text to have, but it does matter whether he meant Miss Quinn to get it at all. If a text message is sent entirely in error then it can’t be sexual harassment.”
At the hearing Peter Saville, representing Capt Murray and his employer Gama Aviation, said that if the text was sent by accident then it could not amount to sexual harassment. He said: “It does not matter what effect Capt Murray meant the text to have, but it does matter whether he meant Miss Quinn to get it at all. If a text message is sent entirely in error then it can’t be sexual harassment.”
Ooooh, matron!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh...different story I think boss...
BBC NEWS | England | London | Claim against air firm dismissed
Still a good result?
BBC NEWS | England | London | Claim against air firm dismissed
Still a good result?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us not forget, the law is an ass. Just because the case's were thrown out does not mean vindication in my view.
1st case: Someone didn't show much intel as far as I am concerned. If you iintend to ndulge in that sort of behaviour, with your own crew, you are a retard at best. Within your own company is highly risky. My advise is, go find someone from another company to hit on.
2 case: Owners. I think the minimum age for application, some companies are stipulating, is far too young. I could say a lot more.
1st case: Someone didn't show much intel as far as I am concerned. If you iintend to ndulge in that sort of behaviour, with your own crew, you are a retard at best. Within your own company is highly risky. My advise is, go find someone from another company to hit on.
2 case: Owners. I think the minimum age for application, some companies are stipulating, is far too young. I could say a lot more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
X
Still smacks of the company's PR department to me and I saw the post as a whole new thread (now merged by the look of it). Make that lazy PR
On (the new) topic though is anyone in this industry daft enough to argue that owners/passengers don't predominantly want younger, attractive FA's? I'm not for one minute saying that's fair but we all know it happens.
Still smacks of the company's PR department to me and I saw the post as a whole new thread (now merged by the look of it). Make that lazy PR
On (the new) topic though is anyone in this industry daft enough to argue that owners/passengers don't predominantly want younger, attractive FA's? I'm not for one minute saying that's fair but we all know it happens.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Duck, as X933 states, it was a different case which I was referring to. Having followed the case in the papers, I simply made a comment that I thought the result was justified, And no, I am not working for Gama so have no requirement to advertise for them. Hope thats ok..
