The survey also asks whether pilots employed on agency contracts would back a group legal action to test the legality of their employment structures, and to establish better rights as employees.
The “employment relationship” has been legally tested many times in the EU:
“United Kingdom – A classic test for the existence of an employment relationship involves an assessment of the extent to which the person engaging the worker exercises, or has the right to exercise, control over the worker (see Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2QB 497, MacKenna J at p.515; Nethermere (St.Neots) Ltd v. Gardiner [1984] ICR 612, Stephenson LJ, p.623). The changing nature of control in many employment relationships, from ‘how to’ to ‘what to’ (see Viscount Simmonds in Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffiths Ltd [1947] AC 1,12), has blurred the distinction between the extent of control exercised in employment and self employment relationships, and thus diminished the role of the control test in distinguishing between the two. However, it still plays an important role, and in the 1995 Court of Appeal case of Lane v. Shire Roofing ([1995] IRLR 493, Henry LJ indicated (at 495) that the existence of an employment relationship is determined by the answers to the following questions: ‘who lays down what is to be done, the way in which it is to be done, the means by which it is to be done and the time when it is done?” (Page 40) –
Regulating the Employment Relationship in Europe- Link:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_209280.pdf
Difficult to understand why Norwegian’s pilots pay union dues for representation to a service provider agency when the Norwegian airline is their “real employer”. Norwegian's US based LH cabin crew challenged their status and won a legal ruling the airline is their employer. Ryanair pilots can do the same - but will they?