|
I understand that this case was thrown out of court at the tribunal hearing yesterday and Captain Ed Murray was vindicated.
|
Common sense prevails :D
|
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.” |
Actually not a bad result all round.
He can claim vindication on the basis the case was dismissed while she can claim that she lost on a technicality (time barred) and all concerned can get on with their lives. |
Did I miss what happened in the case of the male steward who was trying to take a case against RD and Tag/Greyscape/Absolute Taste?
|
A scenario involving a male steward and some catering? Sounds fruity.
:E Ooooh, matron!! |
The case was dropped after the complainant apologised and withdrew his complaint I believe.
|
Tribunal dismisses Flight Attendants Case
Just read that the case against Gama Aviation has been dismissed, thank goodness for common sense.:D
|
We get it, ok? You're a GAMA fan/employee.
Advertising rates can be had by clicking the link at the top of the page. Duck |
Uh...different story I think boss...
BBC NEWS | England | London | Claim against air firm dismissed Still a good result? |
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. |
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. |
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..;)
|
They'll like you now though eh? ;)
|
Flintstone - I only said it was a different story, not that it was completely unbiassed :E
|
Glad to hear case was dismissed - bravo :ok:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.