Ryanair pilots case at Supreme Court

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Of interest here I believe.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/1109/ryanair.htmlRyanair pilots case at Supreme Court

November 09, 2005 12:11
Ryanair is today applying to the Supreme Court in a bid to prevent the Labour Court from hearing complaints by pilots against the airline.

Last month the company lost a High Court challenge to the Labour Court's jurisdiction to hear the pilots' grievances under new industrial relations legislation.

The Labour Court has now scheduled a formal hearing of the pilots' case for tomorrow. Ryanair is seeking a stay of that Labour Court hearing pending a full appeal of the High Court judgment which it lost on every point.

The company was effectively challenging new industrial relations legislation which the airline claims introduces compulsory union recognition by the back door.

[the grim repa]

or natural human rights by the front door.

[captplaystation]

As they like to say in "that" part of the world, "our day will come". Fingers crossed Grim.

[james64]

"Natural justice", by any standards. Have a look at the thread about Air Mauritius defies IFALPA in this forum. Makes very intersting reading. What is truly grim is that a precendent over there could actually be them used by Mike to do many more things he wish he could do... I am sure the guys down there would appreciate some of the comments from "this" part of the world.

[the grim repa]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1109/ryanair.html

[ecj]

An interim injunction in favour of Ryanair has been granted.

[Wizofoz]

So now for Leo to claim a "Stunning Victory!!"

[worldwidewolly]

They have been granted a right to appeal, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, it's a pain for the guys and they wouldn't wish for this because it delays things.

But, hey, when it gets before the labour court which I truly believe will happen then the truth will out.

The guys have the patience, no doubt.

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi all
the way I hear it from an insider is that the pilots who have now converted onto the 800 have done the following: paid the 15 grand but have recieved a hundred grand worth of share options(as promised), getting their backdated owed payrise and security of tenure at Dublin. Some of the bullying claims have been dropped. So I'm told.
regards
TDD

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

So now for Leo to claim a "Stunning Victory!!"
Quite so, but one hardly applauds the tenor for clearing his throat.

[Wizofoz]

ERRHMMM

High Court judgment which it lost on every point.

[worldwidewolly]

It sounds so good it's got to be repeated.

Ryanair is seeking a stay of that Labour Court hearing pending a full appeal of the High Court judgment which it lost on every point.

[Aloue]

But Leo, to claim a "stunning victory" - well, its hardly that, olde chasp. Whereas the High Court victory for IALPA was stunning .... what was it the papers said about a "pummelling for Ryanair"? .... getting a Court to say "we'll hear what Ryanair have to say" is hardly the end of the world, is it?

Now, can you just remind me of Ryanair's legal costs to date? Excellent use of shareholder's money, as you would say.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Legal costs are, on balance, irrelevant, Aloe old dear. Money well spent, frankly. Far, far more interesting figures can be found here. (http://www.ryanair.com/site/about/invest/docs/2006/q2_2006_doc.pdf)
Meanwhile we're doing what we do best. We're getting on with business. (http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/1111/ryanair.html)
Interesting to note that those much vaunted and highly bogus claims of intimidation are disappearing faster than frost in sunlight. Those pilots who permitted themselves to be misled by IALPA's pudgy little head hobbit are slowly realising they'd been sold a pig-in-a-poke. Cork's new base captain among them.
Elsewhere, it seems that fatherhood beckons.
We will have to move from being aggressive, entrepreneurial and in your face and will have to have a different relationship with those gob****es in the European Commission. That will need someone other than me.
One presumes and hopes that the relationship with the gob****es at IALPA, though, will remain unchanged. You’d think such serial failures and embarrassments would rob them of their pluck, but then there’s so much egg on the face of our balding red warrior, its hard to know where the omelette ends and the mouth begins.

[bentover]

Irish Times: N0ovember 10th, 2005

Ryanair gets court order to restrain Labour Court inquiry

Mary Carolan

An interim order restraining the Labour Court from proceeding today with a formal investigation into a row between Ryanair and a number of its pilots was secured by the airline yesterday afternoon.

The restraining order, granted by the Supreme Court, applies pending the outcome of Ryanair's appeal against a recent High Court finding that there is a trade dispute between Ryanair and the trade union, Impact, which represents the Irish Airline Pilots Association, and that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to investigate the dispute.

The proposed investigation is being conducted under new industrial relations legislation which, Ryanair claims, is being used by pilots to achieve compulsory trade union recognition through "the back door".

Yesterday, Ms Justice Susan Denham, presiding over the three-judge Supreme Court, said that if the Labour Court investigation proceeded today, and the Supreme Court later upheld Ryanair's appeal, the time and expense of the Labour Court and other possible court hearings would have been wasted. The delicate area of the relationship of employer and employee would also have been altered.

The restraining order did no more than allow the prospect of the Ryanair appeal being successful, and the interests of justice required such a restraint, she held.

The judge also agreed to a request from counsel for Impact to treat the hearing of the Ryanair appeal as a priority matter.

The dispute began in summer 2004 when Ryanair began the conversion of its Dublin fleet. This involved retraining for some 90 pilots, who were told they could either pay €15,000 for the training or sign a bond abandoning their entitlement to raise matters with the Labour Court.

In November 2004, the company said it would not negotiate with Impact but would negotiate directly with the pilots, who subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court.

In January last, the Labour Court found that a trade dispute exists under the Industrial Relations Act, 2001, that it was not Ryanair's practice to engage in collective bargaining, and there was no operative internal dispute resolution procedure in place.

Ryanair argued it had traditionally operated non-union recognition and had an employee representative committee where matters were resolved. However, the High Court last month rejected Ryanair's challenge to the Labour Court's findings.

At the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said if the Labour Court investigation proceeded today, Ryanair would be unable to get off "a conveyor belt", which could ultimately lead to Circuit Court enforcement orders against the airline.

This was the first time the relevant legislation was before the courts and it created a situation where decisions of the Labour Court could be affirmed by the constitutional courts.

The legislation was all predicated on the Labour Court having the jurisdiction to investigate a trade dispute, an issue which should be determined by the Supreme Court before the Labour Court proceeded.

Mr Hayden said the legislation was intended to catch employers who did not engage in collective bargaining but Ryanair was not such an employer.

The airline had sent a letter to pilots last July and replies to that showed there was a collective agreement reached between Ryanair and its pilots in 2000. Some 30 pilots had gone through the training process so far.

Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for Impact, said Ryanair was trying to restrain an investigation by a statutory body in a situation where the High Court had found there was jurisdiction for that investigation.

The investigation was only the first stage in a three-stage process and the Ryanair application was premature.

The legislation made clear the legislature believed industrial disputes should be heard quickly, but this matter had been going on for more than a year and the pilots were not much further on.

The situation was "deeply unfair" and a number of senior pilots were served with redundancy notices last August.

The only "choice" given to them was to give up their claims, pay €15,000 or be made redundant.

At the same time, Impact could not process the pilots' claim before the Labour Court because of the Ryanair legal proceedings. Nor could it engage in industrial action, as this was precluded by law when matters had been referred to the Labour Court.

While some senior pilots were able to raise the €15,000 which preserved their right to go to the Labour Court, the same situation might not apply to junior pilots.

"At the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said if the Labour Court investigation proceeded today, Ryanair would be unable to get off "a conveyor belt", which could ultimately lead to Circuit Court enforcement orders against the airline."
Listen to your council Leo.
Like it or not, you\'re already on the conveyor belt.

[Wizofoz]

Meanwhile we're doing what we do best

Like demoting people if they refuse a duty due to fatigue!:hmm: :hmm:

[atse]

Gee Leo, if the claims were so bogus and disappearing so quickly why do Ryanair keep trying to get people to withdraw them, but still introduce every possible impediment to their getting to an independent hearing?

Answer: every time Ryanair gets into an independent hearing in which the facts are presented and examined, it loses.

(Independent hearing = "union recognition by the back door" says Ryanair)

[Farrell]

Quite so, but one hardly applauds the tenor for clearing his throat.

Heheh - Best retort I've seen on here for a long time!

[Arkroyal]

90 X 15,000 = 1,350,000

Nominal cost of retraining the pilots to the 800

Ryanair's court costs over this matter + bad publicity + bad blood= A lot more

[Faire d'income]

Quite so, but one hardly applauds the tenor for clearing his throat.

One does applaud if one doesn't want to hear him sing.