JAR-OPS1 and EU OPS 1 appear to be silent on the matter of acceptance of environmental conditions before flight. The closest item is 1.346's heading but the text fails to cover the same condition.
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
Under JAR/EU (COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007), 1.090, 1.290, 1.340, & 1.346 do not provide any real support for the pilot, however the operator often abrogates the responsibility of 1.195 to an extent to the pilot, which would give the out for other risks.
Which raises a question... why provide the ash cloud weather if there is no requirement to consider the inherent risks? Reminiscent of the "advised to use caution..." caveat on far too many NOTAM's.
This pilots response is dependent on the manner of his/her termination form VEULLING, the companies FOM terminology in respect to operational control/commencement of operation, and whether it is compliant to Spanish industrial law, and possibly defamation law.
As to the negative comments on airing this matter on a rumour network, hard to follow that logic. Does that writer work for VEULLING or other airline mgt?
I have worked in mgt for a number of airlines, and for NAA's, and I certainly would be disturbed by the actions of a company as described. The company would have some issues with a competent and comprehensive IOSA audit, in relation to implementation of a SMS, and specifically, section 1 of the checklist.
The cost of a single delayed flight is hardly worth the candle of potential adverse publicity following the airlines heavy handed response. The cost of a serious incident after a company pressures a PIC to conduct a questioned operation would be rather extensive in scope.
Passengers have a right to be aware of the level of disregard being accorded to their safety by both pilots and operators alike. Equally, the industry has an obligation to show the passengers it is serious and professional about their safety, notwithstanding that the system existing today is a consequence of the desires of the public for the cheap (nasty?) commodity of air travel.
you get what you pay for.
"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
FDR