Ryanair loses court challenge to Labour Court enquiry
 

From RTE news :

Game On !!
 

Well Michael its now game on !!


I'm sure the LRC will do a professional job in dealing with the Pilots Claim.


Cliste

Due to continuing legal pressure I will only entertain discussion of the thread topic. If the usual suspects want to turn every thread that involves Ryanair into the, oh so predictable slagfest, then do me a favour and find yourselves another channel for the repeats.

If you are not happy with anything about Ryanair then there are plenty of ongoing threads where you can voice your concerns. Anyone not happy with their customer service, terms & conditions of employment, destination names and distances from major cities etc. etc. then you only have to use the search function. What will not be entertained is 'brave', anonymous posters who make unsubstantiated allegations and damaging postings about things such as safety with no proof except their own opinions about what might happen at some time in the future.

If you are not happy with this situation then feel free to air your concerns to your local media who will no doubt be more than happy to take your anonymous viewpoint and air them for all and sundry. I'm sure they have a much bigger budget and will no doubt attract the legal eagles away from me. :rolleyes:

There is only one airline that tries to gag what is aired here on PPRuNe and I am not prepared to have them repeatedly try and threaten me personally with injunctions and claims for damages because a few posters on here are not prepared to face up to them directly. Therefore, I will not permit any further publication of unfounded or libellous material which is in any way detrimental to the credibility of Ryanair or its safety record.

Of course, substantiated and founded material is acceptable. If you have a theory and you have first hand accountability then feel free to contact us here at PPRuNe where we will not hesitate to publish facts. As for the mob who bay at the door, we already know your point of view. Maybe it's time for some new blood and some substance to the allegations you keep harping on with. If you are not happy with the way Ryanair conducts its business and treats its employees then that is fair game but to start making unfounded assumptions about the safety is another issue.

Now, back to the topic. Ryanir has stated that it will immediately appeal the court decision. According to Ryanair, the "overwhelming majority" of the Dublin pilots had in the last three weeks again provided written confirmation of their support for the five year collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated directly between the pilots and Ryanair in 2000.

They also stated: "We are confident that the Supreme Court will find in our favour, because the 2004 Industrial Relations Act was not designed to apply to high pay multi-national companies in Ireland such as Ryanair, who engage in sophisticated internal collective bargaining which has resulted in better pay for Ryanair’s pilots than equivalent pilots employed by our competitors."

Maybe it's time to renegotiate the deal as it must be almost five years since a deal made five years ago. :hmm:

But you're always prepared to take their advertising bucks.

I just don't get it. One day they're sueing you, next day you're flashing their adverts for crews???????

Please explain!!

Whose f**kin side are you on Danny!

Hypothetically, Danny, just hypothetically now, might there not be a correlation between an organisations tendency to suppress critical comment and the existence of practices worthy of criticism?

On at least two occasions I posted a link to the Accident Investigation web site with details of FR's track record. Both times the post was quickly deleted. It seems advertising money talks. Credibility is at stake here.

As far as the topic is concerned:

If the Irish Labour Court causes Ryanair too many (expensive) problems, it is open to the company to change its domicile. There are now a number of EU countries that would be delighted if Ryanair incorporated there, and whose industrial relations law is potentially less restrictive.

Food for thought?

On the subject of victimisation at Ryanair and how its affects flight safety. FR had an incident in Rome a week or so back. Its under investigation right now and the details will come out in the wash.Its looks like its a very serious incident. The point relevent to this discussion is that the captain was so afraid of Ryanair that he turned up to work days after suffering a huge personal tradegy. The sooner the labour court get investigating the company the better for all of us.
Danny dont see how you can take FR money with one hand and have them sue you with the other. In your post you have just cut right accross the whole point of this website. The very name of the website Professional Pilots RUMOUR Network iimplies that we are free to discuss aviation rumours. If you want to take this line perhaps you should change the website to Professional Pilots substantiated and founded material network? Doesnt really have the same ring to it - does it?

I see my two wee harmless contributions were deleted. Funny that as nothing I said attacked Ryanair in any way. In fact do a search, I never have attacked them, only the bold Mr. LHC who is not Ryanair. There is I believe a difference unless someone has another interpretation of the law I am unaware of....

I think RogerIrrelevant69 has a point. There were, for example, a number of posts that contained nothing other than a request for comments from a particularly well known Ryanair sympathiser - (who assured us all in many past posts that Ryanair would win everything and that the Dublin pilots were badly advised).

I would suggest that someof you grow up and perhaps supply your details if you want to make 'unsubstantiated' allegations about Ryanair safety procedures. If a pilot shows up for work whilst unfit due to personal problems then how is it that that is Ryanairs fault? If you want to make allegations that it is Ryanairs fault then substantiate them. Just claiming that they are without offering substantiative proof is not good enough. Hopefully the labour court will look into practices that may be having an effect on how pilots may be making decisions that would cause those of us who work for different companies to act differently.

As for the fact that Ryanair advertise on here for pilots is irrelevant. PPRuNe does not need their advertising but they are astute enough to know that there are many pilots who read these forums and not everyone has the totally jaded view that some of the regular posters on here have. Ryanair have been advertising on PPRuNe for many years and that has not prevented posts which are negative about some aspects of the company, particularly the management style. If some of you have had posts deleted then it is because you have claimed or alleged something that does not stand up without proof. Feel free to provide your personal details so that I may forward the relevant legal threats for you to deal with personally.

As for the really brave posters who accuse me of taking their advertising revenue whilst being threatened with legal action because someone with as much knowledge of the law as a housbrick has decided that they can make allegations that are possibly libellous, I don't see the connection. Ryanair and its practices are debated in many threads, most of it detrimental to the company. However, there are also pilots who post supporting views of the company. Just because some of you don't like what is going on doesn't give you a right to post anything that is going to get me into legal trouble. If you are too thick to see the difference then perhaps I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

As for the posts requesting LHC to come and make his antagonistic posts being removed, I did that because it doesn't need witless vocabulary to provoke it in the first place. Discuss the topic. In other words, play the ball, not the player. :rolleyes:

Hmm, sounds like someone is experiencing a sense of humour failure or perhaps an understanding of sarcasm. When I started that (deleted) jibe about LHC, I certainly did not want to provoke him onto this thread. Who would? Frankly if I ever have to read one of his tedious, threatening and moronic diatribes again, it will be too soon.

My comments were more a pre-emptive strike intended to shut this oaf up. I know this is highly unlikely as he has (as we Irish say) a neck like a jockeys nuts. No amount of well deserved ridicule stops him coming up with the same old rubbish time and time again. He has become almost like a government minister that you automatically assume is lying as soon as he opens his mouth.

I've no intention of getting into a pissing contest here but I think the phrase "witless vocabulary" may be rather better suited to LHC. But then it's not my site and I don't get to decide who I censor and who I don't.

Danny,sorry, but like a few others hear I think your excuses for deleting a good number of the posts is a bit lame/contrived.Threatening to forward legal challenges to us individually on an "anonymous rumours website"kinda defeats the object of it all,doesn't it?I believe as a typical RYR employee that what I post is pretty balanced&accurate as are most comments here by actual employees.Sure there are one or two who milk it ,and, on the other side we have The Lovely Leo, but overall I think I prefer to post here for the benefit of those on the outside looking(to be?) in, than on REPA,which is generally preaching to the converted.I need these people to pay my wages but I (like so many others) know it could be so much better, and yes maybe even safer, for very little financial cost to RYR.If the "big one"ever happens will you rest easy knowing you gagged us?I think it is in everyones interests that the good&bad is shown here because,as sure as night follows day chaps&chapesses, your company will(one day)try and get away with what these guys currently do.Anything I write here is true, it needs no embelishment to make a good story.As for unsubstantiated rumours of people being "encouraged "to come to work when not 100% fit to fly,ask some of my more computer literate colleagues to cut and paste a copy of the "crewdock "message one receives ON the first day you are off sick (maybe in bed/hospital)and the one you receive if you have too many sick days in a year(not many incidentally)/ Anyone able to do that?Once the details of the"Rome incident" come to light you are going to be deleting a lot of posts or refusing to host the thread.Alternatively you could show some balls and do your brethern a favour by calling Ryanair's bluff and allowing free discussion of what is an important flight safety issue,( if we all respect your very reasonable guidlines),which is it to be?"They don't like it up them Mr Mainwaring"If it isn't libellous Danny please don't allow it to be kept out of the public eye,we are actually trying to make it better,for everyone,really!

Irrespective of which organisation for which an individual may work, if he/she feels so intimidated by management reaction to his/her reporting unfit for duty when not adequately fit to perform that duty, then that is a fault of the management culture, not the individual.

We saw this in the military some years ago when errors and mistakes would often be concealed or played down in order to avoid incurring wrath from on high. On occasion that led to serious flying incidents, if not actual accidents.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Nicely stated, captplaystation.

Sounds to me like RYR are now intimidating Danny.

IALPA have shown that the RYR rush to law does not always work in their favour.

Stand up to them Danny! :( :( :(

Every site that has been the source of criticism of Ryanair has been the subject of legal efforts by Ryanair to intimidate those controlling the site to remove contributions, or to prevent contributors from criticising Ryanair.

For an example of what this does to a site, have a look at this: Ryanair Campaign

I do not agree with what Danny has done, but I think we probably do not know the half of what is going on. I look at the history of PPRuNe and Danny's contribution and I can only conclude that Ryanair have launched some serious legal missives. To that extent Danny has my support and sympathy for his predicament.

Let us be clear about this: Ryanair has, at a minimum, an agressive stance towards anyone it perceives to act in a manner that is not in its interests. That's as mild as it can be stated. Others would look at the same corporate stance an say that verbal agression, insults and intimidation is a corporate style - both within and without the company. Anyone who has talked to a Ryanair employee of long-standing will be aware, as a matter of FACT that, at an absolute minimum, this perception is widely shared. Rightly or wrongly there are Ryanair employees fearful of what will happen to them in various circumstances.

Sufficient contributors to PPRuNe have given enough examples for this to be, if not "proved", established as something that any wise legislator, safety manager, etc. should treat seriously.

On this site, in the "victimisation" thread, was reproduced a Ryanair memo to Dublin pilots which clearly threatened them with serious consequences for not following the company line. Are we are expected to believe that a company that will WRITE some of the things we have seen in the past couple of years in an industrial context rigourously keeps the operational sphere free of such interference? Well, just look at the John Goss case and the role of the Chief Pilot, who was absent and unconcerned about stress until.... well a particular moment. What happened is a matter of public record and I remind everybody that Ryanair were ordered by the High Court to return Captain Goss to flying status against the wishes and expressed "judgment" of his management, and his Chief Pilot.

I noted two letters in Flight recently from the Irish Airline Pilots Association. Clearly these letters were dancing around the same difficulty. What I read them as saying (from memory) is that there is a gap between what the law says and corporate reality. They were, in effect, asking the Irish Aviation Authority to take an interest in this "gap". The IAA seems uninterested in the "gap". Maybe they too are fearful of the Ryanair lawyers? Or is it a case of "hear no evil, see no evil"?

On the other hand, IALPA has now had two serious encounters with Ryanair and has won both and Ryanair, despite their usual verbal gymnastics to the contrary, were the only party to pay legal costs.

The IALPA action, and where it is leading, should be discussed on this thread - as Danny says. However, the real issue for me is that if Ryanair are successful in supressing all comment - which they HAVE been - then a major failing will have taken place. I think that THIS is now the issue for discussion.

No one on here is supressing comment. You can say what you like as long as it doesn't infringe any laws that can get me into trouble. What you need to do is read between the lines and if you're going to post, plan your comments very carefully so that others, who are aware of the problems of commenting about Ryanair management practices can also 'read between the lines'.

If you have any documentation that needs publishing then you can forward it to me as an attachment and it can be hosted on PPRuNe if it has relevance. I already have in my posession documentation from previous disputes and 'town hall' meetings.

It's all very well criticising me for making decisions on exactly how to balance the needs of PPRuNe and the needs of the readers. If it was that easy, I reckon there'd be a lot more competition out there. For the time being, the debate hasn't been stifled, just asking that you put a bit more thought into what you post, in light of the pressures I have to face here from Ryanairs legal representatives. If they're putting pressure on me then you know that what's written here is having the same effect on Ryanairs management team. Think about it.

Fair nuff! thanks for that Danny;I think those of us actually involved in this daily are type-rated and line-checked on walking on eggs,we should be able to stick to what you have reasonably requested.

How about sticking the word allegedly in all the right places.Will this work .

I'm no lawyer BUT I would imagine FR would engage their lawyers to tackle evn any "allegation" against them - and if it appeared on PPrune - guess who would cop for the law suit.....? Like Danny says, respect his freedom and private time (ie don't tie him up engaging in dialogue with FR's wolverines) and keep it clean. There's enough fact to chew on without moving into the realms of fantasy........ Oh and FR bashers not welcome! ;)

There are just too many actions by Ryanair that give rise to concern. To also allow them to suppress free comment is a step too far. It is interesting that IALPA, the pilots' association closest to Ryanair's Head Office, has started to call for a "Whistleblower's Charter". Surely it must be obvious to all that there really is information out there that cannot be used unless the reporter is protected?

At the same time the airline concerned uses the law to ensure that anyone who facilitates free comment is gagged. This is not to say that some posters may be a bit over the top from time to time, but is the important thing not the level and extent of those who clearly feel strongly that there is something wrong with Ryanair? Ryanair and the use of legal threats is a byword in the industry - are we really to believe that an organisation that behaves properly would need to make such extensive use of lawyers?

As for those who have been labelled "Ryanair Bashers" ... is one a "basher" if what one says helps the reader to spot the rotten foundations?

I think that PPRuNe should not allow itself to be silenced or censored.

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about sticking the word allegedly in all the right places.Will this work .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not.

This thread went off topic very quickly.

As with anything to do with Ryanair it seems any reader has to do a lot of reading between the lines. Even the Irish media under-play the significance of the courts findings.

Make no mistake this was a huge victory for IALPA. Well done to all involved and particularly to the Fr guys who are seeing the benefit of standing up for themselves.

A poster mentioned the possiblilty of Ryanair upping sticks and moving to another licensing authority. There is zero chance of that. Think of the comfortable corporate tax climate in Ireland and the head in the sand Authority and you can see it will never happen. Also I'm no accountant but Ryanair's accounts show a liability of €117m in deferred tax which may be perfectly normal but then again may not.

Ryanair accounts

Faire d'income has a good point about media coverage, but it equally has to be said that there is a great sentence in yesterday's Irish Times: That being said, I have to say I am most uneasy about the whiff of censorship here. I believe that the removal of quite innocuous comments is just going too far. Notwithstanding Danny's points, the real issue is that a public transportation company, with a controversial reputation, repeatedly manages to suppress what are, in effect, warnings about its behaviour in a range of different areas.

It is considered obvious by many, including myself, that some contributors here are Ryanair management types, who can normally be spotted at 50 paces. To call one of those - specifically Leo Hairy Camel - forth to give his response to the High Court "pummelling" is reasonable. Such posts should not have been removed from the site. I support Danny, but not this type of decision, which is excessive and unreasonable. It makes me fear for the free expression of opinion on what is, in effect, the LAST public site that has not suppressed by Ryanair.

If you will permit me to coment from an alternative perspective, the people who appear to have failed are the Irish Aviation Authorities.
They have pandered to Ryanair from day one and despite the totally bleeding obvious staring them in the face, they fail to act in any way.

Other national authorities (the UK CAA et al'), who are strong enough to face up to the likes of MOL but can do little about it outwith the UK, the Irish CAA prefer to behave like ostriches, or even worse, (yellow is the term some may choose to use).

Meanwhile, Ryanair will never be short of pilots or cabin crew because those who want get on know they can get paid a reasonable salary for working hard and in return they get a stepping stone for better things.
Remarkably, that's not too different from the majority of other airlines in the same, or other sectors.

niknak.

I'm not sure the UK CAA are quite the snarling tiger you imagine. Indeed, in quite a few EU countries, NL & IT, their local AA's
should have been far more snarling for many years. They all seem to be more of a bureaucracy than a police force. If you compare the furore in the railway industry, there should be a much greater one in the airline world. I wonder why not.
That IMHO is a very big question. The bugs & worms uncovered in Railtrack et al have amazed a great many people. I wonder what the same kind of investigation would reveal in our hallowed world!

Further, I wonder why the UK CAA can not have more infuluence on RYR at its UK bases. STN is their biggest operation, yet it is under a flag of convenience. Is this arrangement so sacrosanct? Someone more knowledgeable will know.
If it is true that a Belgium judge ruled that those based in CRL were subject to Begium law for their emploment contracts, I presume this is true for all the other bases in their respective countries. If so, how come UK crews operate to Irish FTL's day in day out. They are not flying in on an ad-hoc contract for one day; they are based there permenantly. How can the UK CAA have absolutely nowt to do with it? I'm sure the UK pax think the UK CAA has jurisdiction over the operation for which they pay UK pounds for a ticket. Curious. Did the freedom of EU labour law really intend flag of convenience operations for such industries? I wonder if the same relaxation is allowed in the freight lorry business. Based in one country but registered vehicles in another.

True, I have no answers just questions and curisoity where our industry is going.

Forget all this bickering.
What is clear for all to see is that this was a substantial victory for the pilots. And interesting to note that you wont be reading about it on the Ryanair website news pages. Oh no, far too embarresing.

The fact is that there is a change in place, people are no longer so afraid.
This has been borne out by the twenty (or whatever) final offers from RYR to the Dublin pilots to sign here or thats if, final offer.
Well final offer apart from the remaining 19 to follow.

Nobody budged and as usual they made the usual media thing of it that the guys gave in. No they didn't, they performed a tactical move that wrongfooted RYR.

They looked stupid and it is now no longer effective.

Sometimes self respect takes over. Life is too short to be intimated by that sort of behaviour.

Good point WWW - but you forgot to mention that the Share Options, which were taken from the Dublin pilots by way of retaliation, have been given back .... as a result of a fancy Ryanair "own goal" in which they yet again misread the legislation and situation. Tee hee. I wonder will poor old DOB get the blame for this debacle? His fingerprints are all over it.

By the way, the censorship / legal threats deveopment speaks volumes about the airline and its approach to dissent. What's not so good is to find that it might even be working. We must all resist these threats, just as the guys in Dublin have resisted the threats made against them. (And that's a fact Danny!).

Well well, I'm surprised and sorry to hear that you have had legal threats Danny.

I might be flattering myself, but I suspect you were referring to certain posts by me. I agree that I do not have first hand knowledge of bad behaviour in relation to safety or any other matter, I do not believe I have made any allegations.

What I will own up to, on the basis of my professional experience working for a variety of companies, and on the basis of my professional experience as an engineer, manager, CEO and Director of a variety of companies, is asking a hypothetical question which I will repeat, since it cannot possibly be libellous or defamatory.

""If a hypothetical company is allegedly renowned for penny pinching, sharp dealing with both customers and staff and aggressive work practices, is it possible for one particular hypothetical division of said hypothetical company that is responsible for a sizeable chunk of the hypothetical company's total operating costs, to be immune to the application and effects of such practices?"

Please remove this post if necessary to comply with any threats you have received and we will all know that Pprune is now neutered.

Not sure how Pprune can take Ryanair's money at the same time permitting less than positive anonymous postings against Ryanair, or any other airline for that matter. Danny is rightfuly concerned about loose cannons firing way from the safety of the anonymous woods. It would of course help the creibility of this forum if a minimum of two things were to occur - firstly Pprune stops taking advertising money - of course that raises the reasonable question of how it pays its way. Which brings me to point number two - perhaps it is time to require posters to use thier real names, and pay a subscription. It appears to me that this forum has come to a crossroads in several ways.

Law enforcement
 

For many years Danny and the team have provided a platform for exchange for which we are very grateful.

It disappoints me greatly that moderaters are being forced into being censors.

Past cases have shown that legal system is being used to pressurise, bully, dissuade, delay and deter rather than to achieve justice. It would appear that this once again is the case.

The tide is starting to ebb on those who rule inside the whitehouse, this issue will go the distance and it is vital that all the facts blow by blow are aired and receive fair comment from both sides of the fence.

I think that on the basis that an appeal may be likely Danny is quite correct to minimise the discussion on this particular topic.

In fact, he would be quite within his rights to terminate the thread entirely as it may still be sub judice.

The real victim
 

I cannot help but think of the injustice done to Evan Cullen (President of IALPA) in many posts of Leo-H-C.
The personalised nature of these attacks were quite breathtaking.
In addition I believe from EI pilots that Capt Cullen received death threats from public phones in the U.K.
I don't believe he (Cullen) has made a complaint to PPrune but I hope in any discovery case to identify posters Capt Cullen will be given access to all evidence.

enforced censorship of pprune - the sting of a dying wasp.

now even lhc can see how despotic his master is.the school bully does not like to be called a bully.no surprise really,intimidation of those who have no power to fight back,his chosen weapon.good and respect for common decency will prevail.to hell with those who choose to **** on their fellow man for gain.

lets be having you big worded one!maybe waiting for your ass kicking in the lrc.

Nonsense. Sub judice, literally "under justice", means that a case is currently before a court. This case is not. Judgement has issued. Despite some bleating from the White House, an appeal has not yet been lodged.

It is a common fallacy that one may not comment on a case that is sub judice. In fact, the sub judice principle operates only in certain very restricted cases. Mainly criminal, where public comment may prejudice a jury and imperil the accused's right to a fair trial. This does not apply here as Ryanair are not (yet!) charged with a criminal offence. The other common application of the principle is the convention that matters that are sub judice may not usually be raised in parliament. Separation of powers and all that.

These exceptions apart, commentary on sub judice cases is normal and permissible. Particulary when a jury is not involved. With all due respect to PPRuNe, the likelihood of the august justices of the Irish Supreme Court being unduly influenced by material published here seems remote.

For far too long now MOL has set himself as some sort of invincible. A bit sad that somebody needs that sort of indulgence to feel good about himself.

From the invincible guy that he has set himself up to be it is only heading one way. He is loosing and the DUB pilots are winning. Sort of has a conclusive fairytale ring to it, it all started out in Dublin and now it looks like it may be beginning to unravel in Dublin.

Make no mistake about it, this is big.


He is the general out in the field facing a 'Coup De'ta' and he don't like it one bit. He is a bit brassed off with Evan Cullen, but so what. The Dublin guys are squaring up to him and he don't like it.

Danny,

it's ironic that it is actually YOU who has hi-jacked this thread. :D)

Off the thread (equally ironic...it's a deletable comment I'm sure) I have to wade in behind the critisism of you in this case.

You are either acting under legal advice which is decimating the purpose of the website or else you are very ignorant to the happenings in FR. Whichever it is, please look into it and don't ignore the comments of your 'customers'!

Whatever about who did or didn't hijack this thread can we please get back to the discussion point.
That is, that Ryanair have lost a substancial case before the courts.

Lets put this in perspective. MOL is a 1 trick pony, a cost-cutter (and a very good one at that). But the man didn't reinvent the wheel or even invent the big-mac.

He was lucky enough to come across a particular man at a particular time in history when the European aviation market was waiting for low fares. He copied a concept from the US and pushed an open door.

But I do give credit where credit is due, the man is a visionary.
People say you have to admire him, I say 'no' you have to acknowledge him but you don't have to admire him.

I personally acknowledge that if the yard stick is building a massive company out of nothing, the man is to be applauded.
Outside that I don't respect him as a person. All those antics of dressing up and the unfunny antics may have the 'cheap seats' humoured but beneath all of that is a devious man and a public that are unaware or frankly don't care.

As LHC hasn't been on perhaps he is up to his neck in Sh1t.


No no. The nappies I meant.

I don't think that MOL would be sufficient of a "modern man" in the social sphere to do the nappy thing (after all, one has people to do that kind of thing).

There would still be time to do the Leo Hairy two-step if he wished, but somehow I don't think Leo will be seen on this thread, given the fact that there is litigation in the air. Leo has always gone to ground at such times (further demonstrating that he is, as the journalists say, "a source close to management"). This must frustrate him, since Leo likes to strike out, throw a few insults, propagate some propaganda and.... generally behave like the great man himself.

All of this allows us to make the point in peace that Ryanair got royally pasted in the courts last week. The word is that the judge pointed out exactly what the Labour Court had previously pointed out, which is that a mere inspection of the relevant Ryanair documentation was enough to demonstrate that their case did not stand up. They lost everything. This, surely, is a bit of an "own goal" is it not?