Originally Posted by
fox niner
Not necessarily. As I have said before in this thread, with my local knowledge of the dutch legal system, Ryanair is in for a rough ride.
It has been established, in court, that no matter WHAT Ryanair says, the company is obliged to adhere to dutch labor law. What will probably happen next?
Lets assume that the judge will decide that Ryanair has to pay.
Naturally Ryanair can appeal the decision. But there is a legal loophole in place here that will be implemented.It is called “uitvoerbaar bij voorraad”. It guarantees that Ryanair MUST pay up immediately, regardless of their possible decision to appeal.
It is there to protect the weaker party (the employees) against a dirty, lengthy, expensive legal path, that can be chosen by the stronger party, Ryanair.
Your "legal loophole" is just common practice. What you fail to recognize that this is a preliminary judgement. It is no more or less than an initial, short review of the case meant to prevent immediate irrevocable damages to one party. It's nothing more than a single judge, basically saying "RyanAir failed to demonstrate the business need for base closure at this time". The judge wrote:
Ryanair heeft onvoldoende onderbouwd dat bedrijfseconomische redenen werkelijk de aanleiding zijn geweest voor het besluit tot sluiting.
Which translates to: "Ryanair failed to provide evidence to establish that the decision to close the base was made for financial reasons".
And this is the one item that makes or breaks the case. Earlier in the judgment, the judge acknowledged the freedom of the company to organize its business however it wants, as long as it is for financial reasons. The employees are stating that this is for retaliatory reasons, the company says it is not. If the company can establish that it was for financial reasons, that's part of doing business and the company is entitled to layoff all its local employees.
In other words: all that Ryanair has to do is to provide, during the "bodemprocedure", sufficient financial reasons for the closure of the base, and the case is gone. In fact, if they lose, the employees may be liable to refund Ryanair for all or part of the judgement collected with your "uitvoerbaar bij voorraad". Remember that a "kort geding" is a preliminary judgement of the case.
Being quite familiar with the Dutch legal system, my assessment is that Ryanair messed up bigtime by having amateurs handle this case. I'm sure that once they hire experienced local attorneys, they will get this case overturned in their favor. Again, all they have to establish is that the base is closed for financial reasons.
Which doesn't mean I think they aren't donkey butts. But mark my words, this is going to be the legal reality. I will link back to this post in 2-3 years from now.