Landmark ruling favours Ryanair in pilots dispute

A LANDMARK Supreme Court ruling — which found the Labour Court had acted incorrectly in a row between Ryanair and its pilots — could have major implications for how industrial disputes at companies which do not recognise trade unions are resolved.

The budget airline scored a rare, if potentially short-term, legal victory yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled in its favour that the Labour Court had not adopted correct procedures in how it ruled on a dispute between Ryanair and its pilots.

The five-judge court overturned an earlier High Court ruling that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to investigate a row over the terms of a pilot retraining scheme.

Ryanair pilots — who are members the Irish Airline Pilots’ Association, which is represented by the trade union, IMPACT — brought the action in protest at the company’s efforts to make them repay the €15,000 cost of training on new Boeing aircraft, if the airline was forced to recognise trade unions at some future stage. Ryanair argued that the matter did not constitute a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 2004, which was enacted to deal with industrial relations problems in non-unionised companies. The airline claimed that IMPACT’s actions to have the dispute investigated by the Labour Court was an attempt “to impose trade union recognition via the back door”.

However, IMPACT said that Ryanair did not engage in genuine collective bargaining in an attempt to resolve disputes at the airline.

The airline had counterclaimed that it had been unable to try and solve the dispute internally as the pilots had withdrawn for its Employer Representative Committee.

In a complex, lengthy judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the Labour Court had incorrectly interpreted sections of the legislation. However, it also ordered that the dispute be returned to the Labour Court for a full rehearing to decide if it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Supreme Court said the Labour Court had not adopted fair procedures because it was unclear if IMPACT was acting solely for eight named pilots or other larger groups of pilots employed by the airline.

The Labour Court was also found to have acted unfairly by seeking unsworn evidence from two Ryanair witnesses but none from the pilot representatives.

However, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan also pointed out that the Labour Court decided against Ryanair to a large extent because of omissions in the airline’s own documentation.

The judge also criticised Ryanair for its “unfortunate reluctance” to engage in real issues. “In that sense, the company was its own worst enemy before the Labour Court,” he remarked.

Mr Justice Geoghegan added: “Continual propaganda in correspondence as to how excellent the company is rather than taking up issues point by point was not helpful to anybody.”

Welcoming the judgement, Ryanair claimed the overwhelming majority of its staff were opposed to an outdated “low pay/union recognition” model.

“This decision ensures that the out-of-date compulsory union recognition model favoured by the Labour Relations Commission cannot be imposed through the back door against the wishes of employees and high-pay multinationals,” said Ryanair’s director of personnel, Eddie Wilson.

However, IMPACT spokesperson, Michael Landers, claimed the ruling only represented “a temporary setback.” He complained that Ryanair’s strategy was designed to frustrate the resolution of disputes by engaging in delay tactics.

Last night, the Labour Court refused to comment on the case.

A spokesperson for Employment Minister Micheál Martin said officials at the department would study the judgement in detail before commenting on the outcome.