An Aer Lingus cabin crew manager who said female flight attendants were being "sexualised" by uniform rules requiring them to wear heels and nylons has lost her discrimination claim.
Elizabeth Barry's legal team argued that the airline’s Louise Kennedy-designed uniform, launched in 2020, "still perpetuates the 'trolley dolly’ image of its female cabin crew" – adding there was a "strong association between high heels and female sexuality".
The Workplace Relations Commission was told that although flat shoes were worn on board aircraft, female flight attendants "must wear high heels when in uniform" outside the plane unless they carried a medical exemption letter.
Ms Barry had lodged two statutory claims against the airline, one under the Payment of Wages Act 1977 over a 50% pay cut during the Covid-19 pandemic and a second under the Employment Equality Act 1998, alleging discrimination on the grounds of gender over the uniform rules.
Both were denied by the airline at hearing and were rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission in a decision published today.
"In being compelled to wear a uniform that is far less practical and comfortable and that portrays an outdated and sexualised image of women, the Complainant is degraded in her professional duties," said Leonora Frawley BL, appearing for the complainant instructed by Maryse Jennings of KOD Lyons
Ms Frawley said that the design of the women’s jacket meant that if female cabin crew wore the uniform cardigan underneath, the sleeves of the latter would protrude in a "cumbersome and unsightly" fashion from the short sleeves of the jacket.
"That means that in colder weather, female cabin crew do not have appropriate clothing to wear," she said.
She added that the airline issued "quite flimsy" flats to women working on board the aircraft after they had taken off their heels.
"Male cabin crew wear flat, lace-up shoes which are fit for purpose," she said.
Ms Frawley added that women cabin crew had to wear either nylon tights or shorter nylon pop socks to go with the flats and heels.
Men had the option to wear socks in other materials, such as cotton, which she said could be more hygienic and warmer, it was submitted.
Ms Frawley said the design of the blouse also exposed skin just above the left breast through three petal-shaped holes.
"It is humiliating and demeaning for Aer Lingus to enforce an appearance code that reinforces sexist and sexual stereotypes of lack of seriousness and ineffectuality in a workplace that is equally physically demanding of men and women," Ms Frawley said.
"Aer Lingus still perpetuates the "trolly dolly" image of its female cabin crew with the current uniform and accessories," she added.
Tom Mallon BL, appearing for the airline instructed by Hannah O'Farrell of Arthur Cox, told the tribunal that the complainant had not raised concerns about the uniform internally, either through her trade union or the airline’s grievance policy.
He said the new uniform had been designed by Louise Kennedy, who he described as a "well known and globally established Irish fashion designer".
"Aer Lingus sought a stronger link between the male and female uniform, as a result of which the female range now includes a trouser and dress option," Mr Mallon told the tribunal.
He said there had been research going back to 2018 involving "extensive focus groups" with cabin crew of all grades and ground staff.
Ms Kennedy also "did her own research by talking to Aer Lingus staff" at work "as she was determined to address areas of concern around comfort and quality, particularly for items such as overcoats and shoes".
He said there had been four-week wearer trials with volunteers on long-haul and short-haul routes before the new garments were presented to Ms Barry’s trade union, Forsa.
He also argued that Ms Barry’s equality claim form had been submitted too late, arriving to the airline on 28 October 2020, some eight months after the new uniforms were issued to staff the previous February.
Mr Mallon said an equality case "could not be based on what are no more than design features in a uniform".
"Noting in particular the extensive consultation with staff, the fact that an individual might dislike an element of the design does not render it discriminatory," he said.
In his decision, adjudicating officer Jim Dolan noted that Ms Barry accepted that cabin crew and customer-facing staff ought to wear a uniform – and that the female uniform should be "different to the male uniform".
"It was then put to the complainant that this was a matter of her not liking the style of the uniform and that this does not amount to discrimination," he wrote.
"Having considered all aspects of this complaint I find that the Complainant has not been discriminated against and therefore the complaint is not well-founded," he wrote.
He said Ms Barry had objected to her salary being reduced during the pandemic and alleged it had been an unlawful deduction.
Mr Dolan said he was not in a position to disagree with the airline’s position that the "collapse in air travel" during the crisis "must lead to a reasonable interpretation that the contract of employment can either be temporarily suspended or reduced, and rejected the pay claim."
