Aer Lingus is expected in the High Court today to oppose an injunction that blocked disciplinary proceedings against its chief executive, Mr Michael Foley.
The State-owned airline is expected to make a robust defence of the process which led to Mr Foley's effective suspension after he was found guilty of sexually harassing two female staff.
Mr Foley has denied the complaints - by SIPTU worker-director, Ms Joan Loughnane, and head office employee, Ms Anne Lawlor - and questioned the role of the Aer Lingus chairman, Mr Bernie Cahill, in the process.
He also alleged breaches of confidentiality in the process and complained of leaks to the media. "This had the effect of causing personnel within Aer Lingus and external to it to prejudge me and was catastrophic for me."
Mr Foley secured an interim injunction in an ex parte hearing last Thursday that restrained the company from taking any further disciplinary action until such time as the injunction was lifted.
Mr Foley feared his dismissal by a board subcommittee on grounds of gross misconduct was imminent. That subcommittee was empowered - with the board's full authority - to take such action as deemed necessary in the light of a report by a separate subcommittee. The report upheld the complaints made by Ms Loughnane and Ms Lawlor.
It had invited Mr Foley to appear before it before the close of business on Friday. The subcommittee's intention was to make a disciplinary finding this week.
However, Mr Foley went to the High Court on Thursday to halt the process. In an affidavit read to Mr Justice Finnegan he alleged the complaints were "not processed in the usual manner".
His solicitors had advised Mr Foley that it would not be safe for him to appear before the subcommittee.
"I have a contractual entitlement to an appeal," Mr Foley's affidavit said. "The board does not acknowledge that right and appears to envisage that I may not be entitled to take the matter any further once the special subcommittee has reached its decision."
Ms Loughnane's complaint was made in February, but related to an alleged incident in November. Ms Lawlor's complaint was made in March.
Mr Foley said Ms Lawlor was "adamant" in evidence that her complaint would not have been made were it not for a conversation with Mr Cahill.
