View Full Version : Ryanair loses legal bid to identify website critics

12th Jul 2006, 12:16
13:04 Wednesday July 12th 2006

Ryanair has lost its High Court bid to identify people who posted certain comments the company claims were intimidating on a Ryanair pilots' website.
The action was taken against pilot union IALPA official Neil Johnston.

Ryanair claimed the comments on the website included threats designed to victimise, isolate and intimidate so as to ensure pilots from outside Dublin would not become available to fly a newly introduced fleet of planes from the company's base in the city.
It claimed Mr Johnston had a duty to name the persons identified by the codenames "I hate Ryanair" and "Can't fly won't fly".

Mr Justice Thomas Smyth rejected this, however, and said Mr Johnston's refusal was not an offence, adding that this action was part of an ongoing conflict over union recognition in Ryanair and the company's determination to resist this.

Gigginstown ERC
12th Jul 2006, 13:35
Once again the integrity of the those dwellling inside the White House has been questioned by a High Court Judge.

From RTE:


High Court dismisses Ryanair application

12 July 2006 13:42
The High Court has dismissed an application by Ryanair seeking disclosure of the identities of pilots using a website set up by the Ryanair European Pilots' Association.

Ryanair had contended that some of their pilots had been intimidated by postings by anonymous individuals using code names including 'IHATERYANAIR' and 'CANTFLYWONTFLY'.

However, Mr Justice Tom Smith refused to allow the identities to be revealed.

He said that there was no evidence of bullying by the defendants to the action. He added that the only evidence of bullying was by the airline itself.

If you accept that it will take time to eat an elephant bite by bite, this was a pretty big chunk. Loss of the Labour Court Case will see the Camel on the BBQ.

12th Jul 2006, 14:20
How sweet.

IALPA have not yet lost a court case against Ryanair. Ryanair have now wasted millions of Euro in legal fees. The judges have accused them of what they would accuse others of almost every time.

When oh when, will the Penny drop that talking to the pilots in the first place would have saved all this trouble. Pity.

Next stop the Labout Court!

Gigginstown ERC
12th Jul 2006, 15:01
In relation to the condition that Ryanair insisted each pilot would have to repay the €15,000 conversion course cost if Ryanair was forced to recognise unions Mr Justice Smith remarked that such a stipulation .............

Presented a Hobsons choice
Bearing all the hallmarks of oppression

Maybe the war on terror isn't over yet.

12th Jul 2006, 15:21
No! NO! NO!

You all miss-understood the ruling.

This was a stunning victory for Ryanair....

Right Leo???

12th Jul 2006, 15:29
Ryanair has suffered no actionable wrong.

Yet again, in front of a third party, Ryanair have lost.

Leo, Leo, wherefore art thou Leo?

Well done to the IALPA/BALPA/REPA team. :ok:

Camel Killer
12th Jul 2006, 16:06
Oh, it gets better, this is what the judge said about some familiar friends of ours:

on some of Eddie Wilson's evidence: "baseless and false" :=

and on some of Warwick Brady's: “I find this to be false evidence”:eek:

and on Jack Bagnall: “supercilious attitude” in the witness box :yuk:

and of course David O'Brien: his "professed delicacy of feeling" was found to be "less than sincere":p

12th Jul 2006, 16:29
Ryanair will continue to defend its constitutional right to deal directly with its employees without the interference of trade unions

Does an employer have this right?

12th Jul 2006, 16:33
There is one way to verify the wishes of the employees...and it goes back about a hundred years.

Hold a free, uninterfered with sign-up session. Those who want a union will sign up and those who would rather prefer to deal directly with the company will not and the majority wins. Ahh, democracy.. Beats listening to propaganda and lawyers. But I imagine that is not part of Ryanair's business plan.

12th Jul 2006, 17:10
fmgc: under Irish law - Yes. Draw your own conclusions.

12th Jul 2006, 17:22
What about EU law (for what it's worth!!)?

Camel Killer
12th Jul 2006, 18:39
Simply compare and contrast folks - the High Court judgement says all that needs to be said

Ryanair, today (Wednesday, 12th July 2006) expressed its disappointment with the outcome of the action it had taken against the REPA website, which published a number of threats including criminal activities against Ryanair employees, some of them specifically identified, who did not participate in a trade union campaign in Dublin.
Ryanair took this case in order to protect our employees and to identify the names of just three individuals who had made anonymous postings on the REPA website advocating threats (including the slashing of car tyres) against specific Ryanair employees who had accepted positions here in Dublin, which was contrary to the campaign being waged by the pilot trade union.
Had Ryanair not taken action to identify and prevent the publication of these threats, Ryanair may have been accused of allowing its employees to be bullied or intimidated by these pilot trade union activists. This decision shows the difficulties which employers face when dealing with anonymous trade union websites which are used by their members to publish threats and/or advocate criminal activities against specific individuals or employees who do not wish to participate in their trade union campaigns. This is regrettable.
Ryanair will continue to defend its constitutional right to deal directly with its employees without the interference of trade unions and will continue to fight for the right of the vast majority of our employees who wish to continue to deal directly with the company – to be allowed to do so - without being bullied or intimidated by pilot trade unions or their anonymous websites.

Did anyone ever hear such :mad: in their lives !!!!! Leo will be on later echoing this bull !

From RTE website: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0712/ryanair.html
The High Court has dismissed an application by Ryanair seeking disclosure of the identities of pilots using a website set up by the Ryanair European Pilots' Association.

Ryanair has contended that some of their pilots had been intimidated by postings by anonymous individuals using codenames.

However, Mr Justice Tom Smyth refused to allow the identities to be revealed.

He described the evidence of some Ryanair management witnesses as 'baseless' and 'false'.

In 2004, Ryanair told pilots they would have to pay re-training costs of €15,000 if the airline were forced to negotiate with unions during the following five years.

Shortly afterwards, the REPA set up a website to allow pilots to communicate anonymously, using codenames including 'ihateryanair' and 'cantfly-wontfly'.

Ryanair claimed the website was being used to intimidate pilots not to sign up to the retraining terms and called in the gardaí to investigate.

They went to the High Court to force disclosure of the real identities of pilots using the website.

In dismissing the Ryanair application, Mr Justice Tom Smyth described the original terms for retraining including the €15,000 bond as irrational and unjust, saying these 'most onerous' conditions bore all the hallmarks of oppression.

He pointed out that pilots called by Ryanair to give evidence of intimidation had not given any such evidence. He said the only evidence of intimidation related to the conduct of the airline.

He found there was no conspiracy by the pilots, who had engaged in nothing unlawful, and said Ryanair had suffered no actionable wrong.

The Irish Airline Pilots' Association welcomed the ruling as a vindication, and called on the board of Ryanair to investigate the conduct of management.

13th Jul 2006, 07:05
Well done to the IALPA/BALPA/REPA team. And well done to Justice Smyth for giving FR an absolute bollocking.

Sets an important precedent in Ireland for free speech via internet forums.

Just think if FR had won this action, where the hell would it end?

FR really should consider negotiation as opposed to confrontation in the Four Courts every five minutes.

13th Jul 2006, 07:42
replying to fmgc

it wouild seem that any large company will do what it can to screw it employees into the ground , not just airlines retailers r as bad if not worse asda/walmart being one of the worst offenders

check out the gmb union website or do a google search its surprising what can be dug up/obviously some stuff you have to take with a pinch of salt but as with any large corporation its all about the figures on the bottom of the paper and keeping the sharehjolders happy and the top dogs wallets fat!:{ :{ :{ :{ :mad: :mad: :mad:

13th Jul 2006, 08:28

Will the original thread on this issue be re-instated? It was interesting whilst I only managed to get through about half of it before it was pulled / moved ....


13th Jul 2006, 09:13
Even Leo will be hard pressed to spin his way out of this mess of Ryanairs own making. He might even reassess his opinion that REPA is toothless and irrelevant. Just goes to show Leo, even if you repeat a lie a thousand times, it doesn't necessarily become truth. Those of us within the industry, and particularly within Ryanair, already knew what a bunch of lying and bullying pikeys ran the place, maybe now the general public will realise too.
This is from today's Irish Times:
High Court rejects Ryanair bullying claim
A High Court judge has rejected claims by Ryanair that its pilots or their unions had engaged in bullying, intimidation or isolation of other pilots over conditions imposed by Ryanair relating to training on new aircraft.
The only evidence of bullying was by Ryanair itself, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth stated yesterday. He described as "most onerous and bordering on oppression" a condition requiring pilots to pay Ryanair €15,000 for training on new aircraft in 2004. The €15,000 was payable by pilots if they left the company within five years or if Ryanair was required to engage in collective bargaining within the same period.
In a strongly worded reserved judgment, the judge dismissed a bid by the private airline for orders aimed at identifying pilots who posted messages under codenames, such as "ihateryanair" and "cantfly, wontfly" on a pilots' website. Ryanair had claimed the messages showed evidence of wrongful activity against it and its employees.
The judge also made a finding of false evidence in relation to two members of Ryanair management who had given evidence at the hearing. He held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose of that investigation was to "break the resolve" of pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from gardaí on the matter, he added.
He rejected as "baseless and false" the evidence of Ryanair director of personnel Eddie Wilson in relation to the setting up the investigation. The judge also said there was no conspiracy in relation to the setting up of the website and it was not engaged in anything unlawful. There was "no actionable
wrong", he held, and dismissed Ryanair's application.
The issue of who will pay the ubstantial costs of the hearing will be decided later. Ryanair had sought a number of orders against Neil Johnston, an official with the trade union Impact, the Irish Airline Pilots' Association (Ialpa) and its British counterpart, Balpa.
The airline contended the defendants had a duty to identify persons identified by codenames on the Ryanair European Pilots' Association (Repa) website. It claimed the website was established and controlled by Ialpa and Balpa, which was denied by both associations. Ryanair also sought an order requiring the defendants to disclose all information within their knowledge or procurement relating to threats, intimidation and harassment of Ryanair pilots.
The proceedings arose from concerns by pilots about the conditions set by Ryanair in 2004 relating to flying new 737-800 aircraft. The judge said he was satisfied it was the changes in conditions that gave rise to the industrial unrest in 2004. He said pilots were offered training to convert to flying 737-800 aircraft.
Under the terms, they had to fund the €15,000 cost of training themselves. Payment of this would be deferred if they stayed with the firm for five years. However, it would be due immediately if pilots left the company or if Ryanair was compelled to engage in collective bargaining with the pilots' association or a trade union within five years.
"This was a most onerous condition and bears all the hallmarks of oppression," the judge said.
Mr Justice Smyth said he found Capt John Gale, one of a number of pilots subpoenaed by Ryanair to give evidence and who had denied claims of intimidation by pilots, to be a truthful witness.
The judge said he found that Capt Gale was in no way cold-shouldered by pilots and had received no intimidation. The judge said he was satisfied that whoever put about the rumour that Capt Gale was accusing another senior pilot, Capt John Goss, of disloyalty to Ryanair had done so without any basis whatsoever.
The judge also said he considered the evidence of Warwick Brady (who gave evidence for
Ryanair and who was with management based at Stansted airport in 2004) in relation to an alleged warning to Capt Gale by Capt Goss to be false evidence.
Referring to Capt Andrew Walters, another pilot subpoenaed by Ryanair and who denied being intimidated by any pilot in relation to taking up a post in Dublin, the judge said he was satisfied Capt Walters had had no conversation on the telephone with Capt Goss, as alleged by Ryanair.
He found Capt Walters to be truthful and reliable, and noted that the pilot had told the court he had never felt intimidated, isolated or threatened in relation to taking up the Dublin post.

13th Jul 2006, 11:14
I wonder if the lawyers get supplied with free tea bags and water? What a waste of money. Low cost airline, high cost legal bills! Stop wasting the share holders money! Whats the point in everyone doing their best to save a few kgs in fuel when its all wasted on legal bills!!

13th Jul 2006, 11:20
Too right morningglory.

Another side effect of this is that Mr. Warwick Brady and Mr.Eddie Wilson future's as reliable witnesses in the next 357 legal disputes Ryanair probably have lined up may be in doubt after this.

Whereas once again Capt.Goss has been vindicated. That's twice now isn't it? :) :)

13th Jul 2006, 13:16
Any chance that that Police will instigate or be instructed to instigate a perjury investigation into this alleged false evidence by Eddie Wilson and Warick Brady. Its only right that these people sould earn that they are not above the Law.

Well done.

13th Jul 2006, 13:39
Is anyone keeping a record of the number of court cases won and lost by Ryanair?

The only winners as far as the company are concerned are the Legal team that must be laughing all the way to the bank.

How much credibility does an individual have to loose before he is recognised as a liability to the company?

Camel Killer
13th Jul 2006, 16:43
Any chance that that Police will instigate or be instructed to instigate a perjury investigation into this alleged false evidence by Eddie Wilson and Warick Brady. Its only right that these people sould earn that they are not above the Law.

Well done.

No need to be so coy - it's not "alleged" false evidence. The judge found AS A FACT that their evidence was false.

Now remind me again - what happened to Jonathon Aitkin and Jeffrey Archer for that sort of thing??????:confused:

Here's a little reminder from http://wwa.rte.ie/news/1999/0608/aiken.html
In London, the disgraced former Conservative cabinet minister, Jonathon Aitken, has been jailed for 18 months after admitting perjury and perverting the course of justice. Aitken, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted lying to the High Court during a failed libel action in 1997. He had tried to sue the Guardian newspaper and Granada television in the High Court over allegations about his links with wealthy Saudi businessmen. The case collapsed after it emerged he lied about aides to the Saudi royal family settling his hotel bill at the Paris Ritz in 1993. Debt collectors last week took his Rolex watch and cufflinks, as well as other possessions from to try to recoup his legal costs of £2 million. He has declared himself bankrupt

13th Jul 2006, 17:46

Disdainfully arrogant; haughty.

Strikes me that the judge is one sharp cookie.

Not quite the words I'd use to describe the said individual; but then I'm no expert linguist.:p

13th Jul 2006, 23:12
As one of those who has felt it necessary to do my best here on pprune to keep warning potential Ryanair pilot employees about how they might find themselves treated, I have to welcome this judgment as a vindication of those who have been saying that all is not well in the FR camp. We have been "pooh-hooed", accused of "hijacking" threads and worse. But we have a High Court judge with us now.

There can be few organisations that would be prepared to suffer such a slating - and to have several senior Executives accussed of such serious mis-behaviour - without feeling obliged to take action. The reality, known to most Ryanair pilots and staff, is that this problem starts at the very top and colours the way the whole organisation works. For that reason (that it starts at the top) there will be no action.

And that means that they will continue with their little ways. Tails will be lowered for a short period, and then it will start again. But they have been seriously damaged, and they know it. There has been too much smoke and too much denial of any fire.

As for the future, who will employ such "Executives" elsewhere? Even worse, the pilots might even get their "tails up" and suffer notions of "fair play". We might even look back at this judgment and say that this was the moment things changed forever.

13th Jul 2006, 23:37
The important thing that took place is that some Ryanair pilots went into court and told the truth. That is what made the walls of the evil empire come tumbling down. It is easy to say that everyone should tell the truth, but a bit harder to do in some organisations that others.

I don't know how many pilots were involved, but I think we should all be VERY grateful for their courage, whoever they may be.

14th Jul 2006, 09:34
No doubt that it was a stunning victory, but I'm looking forward to 2pm this afternoon, when the judge gives his decision on costs etc.There'll be some a@se kicking in the boardroom later!

14th Jul 2006, 12:19
Ah to be a fly on the wall late this afternoon in FR HQ,. Can you imagine:

MOL(in CJ Haughey accent): well now OBrien whose feckin idea was this anyway?
DOB: it wasn't me boss, honest boss, it was Eddie's idea, I tried to dissuade him honest boss.
MOL: well Wilson, who's going to pay for this. €100,000's down the feckin ****ter, for what? Eh, you feckin gob****e.
EW: no boss it wasn't me, honest boss. It was.....your idea boss....I swear I have it in a memo.
MOL: you're all fired. (clicks intercom) Send in the next bunch of brown nosing bastards.

old,not bold
14th Jul 2006, 18:20
As one of those who has felt it necessary to do my best here on pprune to keep warning potential Ryanair pilot employees about how they might find themselves treated, I have to welcome this judgment as a vindication of those who have been saying that all is not well in the FR camp.
As a simple question, and no more, can someone who works for FR, is extemely unhappy, and posts complaints like that on pprune all the time about it explain in simple terms why he or she doesn't just quit, instead of carrying on drawing the pay while telling us all how awful it is?

My assumption that Aloue works for FR might be wrong, but there are plenty of negative posts from people who evidently do.

I expect to be reviled for asking the question, but this is something I simply cannot understand.

Presumably if disaffected staff walk in sufficient numbers, things would change, if they really are so bad.

14th Jul 2006, 19:00
Trying not to be rude,OLD, but that is a very simplistic view. It really is not easy to walk out of job, people will put up with huge amounts of cr@p, because they like the type of work, kids are settled at school, dont want to leave an area, cant find another job, havent yet got the hours etc etc.
And often there is a loyalty to colleagues and friend, and people develop this odd siege mentality, we can take anything you throw at us!.
However, it is clear that the tide is turning, there is huge anger and bitterness which is going to explode, and hopefully, sweep away the management aberrations currently in charge.
And huge congratulations to REPA:)

Leo Hairy-Camel
14th Jul 2006, 20:48
why he or she doesn't just quit, instead of carrying on drawing the pay while telling us all how awful it is?
Someone once told me, ONB, that a true socialist will fight to the death to modify his working environment to suit himself rather than morph to the space available. Simplistic, yes, but a reasonable analysis of our callow Aloue who regularly falls over himself to shout from the rooftops just how dreadful Ryanair is. The poor chap must be hyperventilating with apoplectic joy at our recent legal speed hump. Oh well, a good mood is such a fragile thing, and who am I to spoilt it for him.

He's not alone in his delight, though, and such base pleasure from so admired an adversary too. Dear oh dear.
Leo, Leo, wherefore art thou Leo?
Never too far away, Minuteman, rest assured. Most unbecoming of you to gloat, though, and over such small beer too. To take you up on your Shakespearean affectation, though, I wondered how I might gently remind you of the dangers of gloating. Aaron seems to do the trick, if you know your Titus Andronicus. He, too, was gloating in his own villainy, Minuteman, but was rather more machiavellian than your good self, in my estimation at least. Aaron, rest assured, was planing rape too, though. He of Levinia, you of Ryanair. He was motivated by his love of Tamora. What motivates you to rape, Minuteman? Perhaps a clue lies in Canto 13 in the Hell of Danté, as distinct from the hell of IALPA, which is proving somewhat more expensive.
The harlot, who ne'er turn'd her gloating eyes
From Caesar's household, common vice and pest
Of courts, 'gainst me inflam'd the minds of all;
And to Augustus they so spread the flame,
That my glad honours chang'd to bitter woes.
My soul, disdainful and disgusted, sought
Refuge in death from scorn, and I became,
Just as I was, unjust toward myself.
By the new roots, which fix this stem, I swear,
That never faith I broke to my liege lord,
Who merited such honour; and of you,
If any to the world indeed return,
Clear he from wrong my memory, that lies
Yet prostrate under envy's cruel blow.”

Like all enduring long term relationships, Minuteman, we know by now how to push each other's buttons. Lets not bother, though, until the real game's afoot and as you and I will both no doubt agree, its some way off yet. Happy summer to you, old friend.

14th Jul 2006, 21:30
My dear Leo, indeed when the real game is afoot there may well be a lot of buttons pushed. However it may be more akin to the following:

We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror.

A happy summer indeed!

14th Jul 2006, 22:34
Nice to have been mentioned by Leo, to whom full marks must be accorded for the act of turning up and making an impressive entry, stage left (ooops... I meant right). Funny enough Leo I am not hyperventilating, but I am going to address the issues, as you do above, by changing the subject from the inconvenience of an apparently damning judgment by a High Court judge.

While thinking earlier today about Ryanair I got to thinking about the weather and some people I know somewhere. It was nice. It kept me from having to think about bad things, or answering inconvenient questions from the wife, or anything unpalatable like perjury.

Just as well you think the judgment is a speed hump Leo- I've just been reading a bit of the judgement on another site ..... de judge has said some blunt things Leo and denial is probably the only recourse. But it's a bit more than a "speed hump" or even "speed hill" - more like a "speed mountain".

15th Jul 2006, 06:54
was the ruling on costs announced yesterday???

15th Jul 2006, 07:42
Apparently the hearing on costs was delayed until next Friday. However, it seems like counsel for one (or both) of the two pilots associations has said they might be looking for "indemnity costs". I don't know what those are (but I suspect that they are not likely to be pleasant for Ryanair).

Apparently the words in court were to the effect that the association lawyers wanted Ryanair's lawyers to know that this would happen next week. Given the comprehensive defeat that Ryanair has suffered it seems highly probable that costs will be awarded against them (whatever of "Indemnity Costs" I know nothing).

15th Jul 2006, 08:17
Google produced this on costmonkey
Conduct will commonly be a deciding factor in deciding whether the indemnity basis is the appropriate alternative to the standard basis and then only if the court considers a party's conduct has been wholly unreasonable. An example of such unreasonableness may be where a claiming party has been purposely dishonest and, more to the point, has intentionally misled the parties to the proceedings.

15th Jul 2006, 11:55
Interesting that, while decrying the judgement as a "disappointment" or a "legal speed bump", Ryanair have not actually disputed the judges damning indictment of both the organisation and the executives concerned.
So Leo, why don't we cut through the bull$hit in your post and focus on the actual issue. Seeing as denial is not a realistic option (though no doubt it is the chosen one), can you tell us if you agree with the judges judgement that Ryanair are the only bullies in town and the management are the only liars? And if you do agree, do you think this is an acceptable attitude to take?
Finally Leo, how do you think the impending court cases are gonna go seeing as so many principle management witnesses have been utterly discredited?

Leo Hairy-Camel
15th Jul 2006, 12:54
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he ’s most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
It doesn't do to stop short like that, Minuteman. The best bits are always toward the end. Premature articulation muddies the pond so.

15th Jul 2006, 13:15
Does LHC still claim to be a Ryanair line captain?

(sorry for not paying enough attention)

15th Jul 2006, 13:50
DH121, he still makes that claim. As you can from his posts, line pilot or not, he does not enjoy a close relationship with reality.

Leo, as you no doubt read my last post, why not provide some answers to the questions instead of posting nonsensical irrelevant verse? Could it be that the white house is badly rattled by this judgement?

15th Jul 2006, 14:01
DH121, he does indeed. However, he has seen "the writing on the wall" and is hoping to apply for alternative employment as a Professor of poetry and obscurity back in the antipodes. Like all Ryanair fellow travellers he never, but never, but never-ever answers or addresses any questions that might bring even a scintilla of doubt on the moral or business behaviour of Ryanair.

I'm trying to hunt down some of the words uttered by the Judge which, by all accounts are rather unfavourable regarding the said Ryanair behaviour. When I get them I will invite Leo to reply(ignore) the EVIDENCE and FINDINGS 0F FACT by a High Court judge.

Leo might Cowper have had such as you in mind ? ….
Fanaticism soberly defined,
Is the false fire of an o’erheated mind.

More pertinent to the Ryanair-Hairy Camel view of the world perhaps is the story of Heywood Broun who listened with disbelief to a politician giving his version of the facts. “How does he get away with it?” whispered a fellow reporter, “he is murdering the truth”. Broun shook his head in disagreement, “He’ll never get close enough to do it bodily harm.”

Which is why Ryanair never saw the disaster coming at them. Tee hee …. now that IS justice.

15th Jul 2006, 14:09
Ah Capt. Leo, for once you are correct.

The quote you make is entirely relevant!

This quite nicely points at what is also relevant about the court case: not the fact that FR were unable to get the disclosure of identities but the fact that senior management personnel have been found to get up on the stand in a court of law and give false evidence in an attempt to perpetuate FR myths whilst attempting to "break the resolve" of FR pilots - in order to maintain what "little brief authority" they have.

The judge in the case also points out the "perfectly reasonable terms and conditions" which we had another debate on some time ago bear "all the hallmarks of oppression." What an extraordinary difference in opinion!

So now we have determined that FR management cannot be trusted and it has been shown that the "most cossetted group of employees" are being bullied "by Ryanair itself," where do your beloved management stand now, Leo?

Why shouldn't your colleagues be allowed to seek to change the "most onerous" conditions they find themselves in? It could be you next, being the ordinary line pilot that you are!

cargo boy
15th Jul 2006, 18:12
A snippet of commentary from the judgement in the case regarding Warwick Brady:
Mr. Brady said he was very surprised at the sort of attitude of the people who signalled a preference to go back to Dublin once offered. I wondered at his surprise in the light of the sneering disregard of the tone of the letter of 30th June 2004 addressed to the pilots seen, in my opinion, wholly inappropriate to the discourse of industrial relations [T.2 p.109/110]. It indeed might have a resonance to the terms of inquiry of the police officers in the questioning in the play Assinamali.

:hmm: Hmm... does that not remind you of "sneering" and "disregard" that is so inherent in Leo's posts? Perhaps it is a quality required of Ryanair management wannabes. Maybe there'll be a position for a Swiss national based in Germany some time in the near future. :oh:

This bit in reference to the above mentioned letter:

The context in which the tension between the Plaintiff and the captains/pilots (in Dublin) or who may have wished to be transferred to Dublin to fly the 737-800s was that the only terms which Ryanair would tolerate were their own (not such as might have been consensually agreed between the company and the individual pilots). These dictated or non-negotiable terms were set out in the letter dated 12th November 2004 addressed to the pilots:-

"Dear ...

We are pleased to offer you a place on a conversion training course for a Boeing 737-800. This offer is conditional on your understanding and acceptance of the following conditions:

1. A position on the B737-800 based in Dublin will only be offered after you have successfully completed the conversion training programme and the relevant regulatory authority has endorsed your pilot's licence. The cost of this training programme is £10,000 (€15,000) and payment of these training costs is required prior to commencement of training. Since your gross total remuneration from Ryanair is over [ ] (putting you in the top two percent earners in Ireland) this training cost in modest in the context of your substantial income.

3. However Ryanair proposes to defer payment of training costs for a period of five years from commencement of conversion training. Payment will become due immediately if either of the following two conditions materialises before the end of the five year period;

(a) You leave Ryanair's employment within five years of commencement of your conversion training then you will be liable to repay the full training costs, which amount to Stg£10,000 (€15,000). Repayment will not apply to pilots who reach normal retirement during the five year period.

(b) It has been Ryanair's policy - for so long as our people deal directly with the company - that pay will be better, pay increases higher, and training costs shall be met by the company. We wish to remind you that should this policy be altered and Ryanair be compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of your conversion training, then you will be liable to repay the full training costs. Naturally this does not and will not affect your right to freely join any trade union or association of your choice.

4. Ryanair will write off this debt in full at the end of this five year period provided that neither of the events specified at 3(a) and 3(b) have materialised.

5. If you decline this offer of conversion, then you will continue to operate on the B737-200 fleet. However, it is envisaged that the 200 fleet will be phased out over the next number of years, and if there is no suitable alternative work available at that time such as 737-800 series flying at one of our other bases then you will be given notice of redundancy.

6. This offer is available for acceptance by you for a seven day period. The offer automatically lapses at 17:30 on 19th November 2004. You may confirm your acceptance of this offer, by signing this document and returning the original by hand to the undersigned before 17:30 on Friday, 19th November next.

Finally, congratulations on your selection for conversion training and we look forward to working with you.

David O'Brien
Director of Operations."

In short the pilots not only were given a Hobson's choice, but in respect of condition 3(b) a pilot through no act or default on his part could suffer the loss of €15,000. The letter is evidence as to its being written and its contents but not necessarily the veracity of the contents and in particular I had no evidence as to whether the reference to the gross total of remuneration referred to in paragraph 2 is comparable to a base information. It may be that in certain categories the gross total of remuneration for certain Ryanair pilots may exceed that in other airlines, I am not aware of the fact either way but even if it does, evidence as to its true worth as to whether sums have to be allowed for meals, uniforms, periodic in-service training, meals away from home allowances, et cetera. However, it is not an issue that requires determination in this case.

...However, it seems both irrational and unjust that the actions of third parties when a trained pilot could not control their actions should in effect be penalised by an alteration by Ryanair engaging at a future date in collective bargaining "with any pilot association or trade union." In my judgment this is a most onerous condition and bears all the hallmarks of oppression.

cargo boy
15th Jul 2006, 18:26
With reference to Warwick Brady and Eddie Wilson:
Mr. Wilson through some Iscariot or Iago had a password to the REPA website and this secured access to it since in or about 10th/14th December 2004, and Ryanair have been able to monitor it to date on whatever frequency is chosen. It was the wish of the Plaintiff that the anonymity of the informer of the password be protected (a marked contrast in attitude to the supposed disloyalty to the company of those who used the website) - it was not an issue and is not an issue that I have to decide and I did not insist on an answer to the enquiry. Like Mr. Brady, Mr. Wilson too swore that he did not know who left excerpts from the website on his desk. I have great difficulty in believing this evidence from either. :hmm:

When Mr. Wilson came to give evidence on what Mr. O'Brien's reputed response to a phone call from Mr. Brady concerning the alleged threats was, there is not only a difference as between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Brady, but also between Mr. Wilson and Mr. O'Brien. I find it impossible to know who is telling the truth on the stated/reputed response of "don't provide me with names but we will instigate an investigation immediately." In many other cases such differences on such a detail might be of little account, but in the instant case it is a matter of importance for it is the point from which the 'Goss investigation' begins in earnest. Altogether from reflecting no credit on the "open culture" said by Mr. Wilson to exist and which Ryanair is imbued [T.3 p.47 q.63 l.6], it betokens a mindset with a predisposition to subject Captain Goss to an investigation without any fair or reasonable bases. If industrial relations in Ryanair had become fraught in late November/early December 2004 and thereafter, its origins, appear to me, are unburdened by integrity.
A judge with a particularly good insight methinks. :D

My emphasis and italics

cargo boy
15th Jul 2006, 18:30
And the judges' coup de grace:
Regrettably, but without hesitation, I find as a fact that on a conspectus view of the evidence as a whole in this case "fairness" did not seem to come into the reckoning of the Plaintiff in its dealings with the Defendants on the issues raised in and by this case. In summary, in the words of Isabella in Measure for Measure Act II.2: "Oh, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." :D

Now, if only Leo could learn how to use quotations and relate them to the discussion. I fear that we are about to be overwhelmed with yet more of his blustering attempts to show how "learn'd" he is... NOT! It will, no doubt, only serve to highlight the wisdom of a judge as opposed to an "Iscariot" or a "Iago"!

15th Jul 2006, 19:01
So, in simpler language, the Judge said that Ryanair management are liars and bullies. Sounds pretty spot on to me.

I lasted barely 6 months as a Ryanair pilot before they made me so sick to my stomach I had to leave. Each time I read the latest condescending, sneering and propagandistic memo from DOB or EW, it provoked something between disgust and anger within me - not good before you go and operate a flight with 189 passengers on board.

Why oh why can't they just realise that you can have a very profitable airline without treating everyone (customers, staff and vendors) like dirt?? I just can't understand it - it doesn't make business sense.

Congratulations to all involved. I wish you all at Ryanair and REPA the very best for the future.

16th Jul 2006, 08:16
It gets worse for Ryanair - is the tide turning?

The following is from the Sunday Independent - not normally an organ to willingly criticise Ryanair. The tone towards Ryanair and its practices has clearly changed ....

Ryanair case crash lands spectacularly in the High Court

RYANAIR'S Michael O'Leary describes himself, with accuracy, as an "obnoxious little b****x".

Last week, in a startling (and so far under-reported) judgment, the High Court made findings about Ryanair executives that are far more serious than that.

Ryanair isn't just a company that makes millions from air transport - it's a massive economic and political presence in any country in which it chooses to operate. The High Court judgment of Mr Justice Thomas Smyth illuminates that company in a way not previously seen.

It was a small legal action - hardly more than a technical motion. It led, in the words of the judge, to the giving of "false evidence" under oath by two Ryanair executives.

Ryanair was a failing company in the early Nineties, then it studied and adopted the business model of a US carrier, Southwest Airlines. The policies of short haul, fast turnaround, secondary airports, no tickets, cutting frills, a single aircraft model (it cuts costs for spare parts and maintenance) all were taken from Southwest.

O'Leary modelled his publicity-hound image on that of Southwest's founder, Herb Kelleher.

One aspect of Southwest Airlines that wasn't imported to Ryanair was its relentlessly-friendly style. Instead of Southwest's slogan, "Spreading the luv !", Ryanair adopted a bullying manner and an often gratuitous aggression. When Belgian authorities demanded that Ryanair repay a couple of million euro, O'Leary's response was to write back with a suggestion that they "f**k off". It wasn't enough to sidetrack travel agents, O'Leary wanted to "take the f**kers out and shoot them".

O'Leary guessed that customers didn't care about abuse, as long as the price was right - and many do indeed find the aggression absolutely appropriate in this tigerish age. The company became huge. Assertions that Ryanair isn't as cheap as it likes to claim were drowned by a relentless stream of free publicity, as Clongowes old boy O'Leary played the anti-establishment rebel for an accommodating media.

Customers who sought a refund for one reason or another, were treated to O'Leary's response: "What part of 'no refund' don't you understand? You are not getting a refund, so f**k off".

The aggression, not surprisingly, carried over into staff relations.

From 1999, Ryanair began retraining pilots on bigger Boeing planes, the 737-800 instead of the 737-200. This led to an ultimatum to Dublin pilots. Ryanair would pay the €15,000 cost of the retraining - but should "Ryanair be compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of your conversion training, then you will be liable to repay the full training costs".

If pilots didn't accept this offer, they would become redundant as the Boeing 737-200 was phased out. They had seven days to decide.

"It seems both irrational and unjust," Judge Smyth said, that pilots should be penalised to the extent of €15,000 for the actions of third parties over which they had no control.

"In my judgment this is a most onerous condition and bears all the hallmarks of oppression."

In September 2004, pilots set up a closed website, Ryanair European Pilots Association (REPA). This is a forum within which pilots who are spread geographically can meet electronically to frankly discuss relations with their employer. A password is needed to enter the website.

Within three months, in the words of Judge Smyth, "some informer or traitor amongst the pilots" gave Ryanair the password. (The judge also used the words 'Iscariot or Iago' to describe the management-friendly pilot.) From December 2004, Ryanair has monitored the private discussion. And this led to the legal action that resulted in last week's judgment.

To maintain confidentiality, the pilots use pseudonyms in the website discussion. Ryanair wanted to identify the pilots. The company chose remarks made by a pilot - "considered slashing their tyres" - as the basis for a legal claim. The company alleged that this referred to pilots overseas who might accept the offer and move to Dublin. And this was evidence of intimidation. And Ryanair had a duty of care to its staff to investigate such threats.

So, Ryanair made a "sole discovery" motion, asking the High Court to order REPA to disclose the identity behind a number of pseudonyms.

Having heard the evidence, Mr Justice Smyth concluded that there was no threat or intimidation. A reference to slashing tyres was "weak adolescent street humour", quickly sidelined and withdrawn, in a private gripe among a staff suffering from frustration.

Judge Smyth quoted evidence of Mr Warwick Brady, Ryanair's Deputy Director of Flight Operations, that a Captain Gale "received warnings not to go back to Dublin to fly and be based there".

The judge found that this was one of two pieces of evidence from Mr Brady that "I consider to be false".

The judge was impressed by the pilot allegedly intimidated, Captain John Gale, who gave "clear, unequivocal evidence" that he "was never warned or threatened". After examining Ryanair's claims, Judge Smyth said he was "quite satisfied" that the alleged threats, intimidation and warnings "did not exist".

Judge Smyth rejected the evidence of Ryanair's head of personnel, Eddie Wilson, as "baseless and false".

He went further. "The pleaded concern and invocation of the statutory duties" to protect its staff from bullying and intimidation, "was to lend a facade of concern" to Ryanair's action against the pilots.

"It is a feigned exercise," he found, designed to divide the loyalty of the pilots.

RYANAIR swore on oath it wanted to investigate the identity of the pilots on the website in order to protect other staff.

"The real as opposed to the putative purpose of any investigation," said Judge Smyth, "was to break whatever resolve there might have been amongst the captains to seek better terms." And, in particular, "a very reasonable and justifiable concern" about the "take it or leave it" offer, which could cost the pilots €15,000 each.

The judge concluded that Ryanair "is entitled to loyalty from its workforce, but not supine deference".

The High Court is a busy place. People queue to have the court rule on life-changing issues. And, Judge Smyth concluded from the evidence, a major company used the court in a "feigned exercise" to achieve its commercial ends.

And, he found, in the process, two of its executives gave "false evidence".

Judge Smyth (as judges are sometimes wont to do) quoted Shakespeare: "Oh, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."

Ryanair uses its giant's economic strength to demand best terms from those with whom it does business. It also uses its political strength. It is currently mobilising customers in Poland in a writing campaign to force the government to build a new airport at Modlin, north of Warsaw.

In Ireland, it regularly buys adverts attacking politicians (very sensitive people as elections loom) - always with a commercial end in sight. It has funded parties, including the PDs.

That powerful and politically-active company has been found to have mounted a "feigned" legal action under a "facade of concern" for its staff.

Questions arise: if two executives gave "false evidence" were they each engaged in a solo run? Or did they discuss their evidence? Was anyone else involved in such a discussion?

Are there any consequences for what the judge has found transpired?

Will Ryanair appeal? Will it accept the judgment and maybe even apologise for wasting the court's time in mounting what Judge Smyth called a "feigned" legal action?

Or will the company simply respond to the High Court with the same answer it gives to those of its customers who seek a refund?

Gene Kerrigan

16th Jul 2006, 08:39
Why oh why can't they just realise that you can have a very profitable airline without treating everyone (customers, staff and vendors) like dirt?? I just can't understand it - it doesn't make business sense.

Because the head honcho just doesn't let his brain think that way.

cargo boy
16th Jul 2006, 09:32
So that means they can't sue anyone for telling the truth which is...

Ryanair is an opressive and obnoxious employer managed by bullies and liars.

It would seem that this message has been preached on this website for many years. I wonder what took the media so long to figure out what we, as pilots, already knew.

It just goes to show you why the likes of Leo Hairy Camel is so obnoxious when he types his defence of his "lying and bullying" managers methods. What more would you expect from an Iscariot and an Iago. :rolleyes: :yuk:

adolf hucker
16th Jul 2006, 15:17
Next time I walk into a bar and find myself standing next to a gent wearing the garb of a High Court Judge and a small name badge 'Mr Justice Smythe', I might have to break the habit of a lifetime and buy the dude a drink.

As a current FR pilot, I can confirm that M'Lud has hit the nail squarely on the head regarding the fact that Ryanair management are not over-burdened with integrity. The fact that he has identified them as (unconvincing) liars has also not come as a great surprise but is, in any case, a most gratifying observation.

Can't wait for the next lunatic memo from DOB proclaiming Ryanair's great victory at the High Court. Come on Comical Ali, you know you want to send us all a memo.

16th Jul 2006, 15:39
We must be one of the few airports that, allegedly, have told OlearyAir to **** off....:p :mad: :p ;)

16th Jul 2006, 17:23
I don't know how it works in Ireland but the FOD in the UK is a named and approved person on the AOC.

It might be a bit of a problem to the IAA to have someone who was named as giving "false evidence" in such a position, but there again possibly it won't.

16th Jul 2006, 18:12

As one who has dealt with the IAA for many years, I can assure that this would cause them not a shred of concern. As an organisation they lack integrity and is full of ex EI and FR management bods.

There was a time that one joked about it being the downtown office of an airline, but that joke has long died with the stark reality that they are little else.

16th Jul 2006, 18:24
An official announcement from Leo, the camels' hairy hole:


16th Jul 2006, 20:46
Kindly lay off Baghdad Bob.
His tongue was firmly in cheek, and his occasional cheeky smile was proof of that.

To put the Camel in the same class is a gross insult to Bob, unless of course the Camel is approaching the cheek from the other end.

16th Jul 2006, 21:30
I hear Alistair Cambell is currently without fulltime employment. Perhaps his past skills(?) might be called up on? It would be fascinating to find out how victory could be grasped from the jaws of defeat. Surely there has to be some response to the judgement, even if it is only an apology? (Woops; just found a toungue in my cheek.)

16th Jul 2006, 21:57
Don't want to be all P.C. here but I whince when I read the word Pikey so often in posts about RYR...
I've always found the Irish to have very good manners and charm in spades. Ryanair management culture is not representative of the Irish IMHO.
One of the most suprising things about RYR (to a Brit ex-RYR pilot) is that they treat their Irish pilots the worst of all. The Dublin pilots have been the strongest rock in fighting the management oppression within the company and the rest of us owe them a great debt of gratitude. (Which I think is best repaid by joining IALPA / BALPA and forcing union recognition on RYR - go on - it'll be highly entertaining at least!)

16th Jul 2006, 22:01
Well done BALPA!

16th Jul 2006, 23:28
Thank god for freedom of speech and long may it be defended against all commers. I believe and insist that we can all say exacly what we want about anything, and anyone who doesnt agree with us can say so, so long as the 'harm' principal is not violated.

If a big company such as Ryanair feels that it's actions are morally defensible, then why does it have to go to court in the first place.

It seems to me that Ryanair doesnt like freedom of speech very much, which puts them on roughly the same moral ground, as many other repugnant organisations and individuals.

Like all great dictators, and dogs, it will have its day and be kicked to the kerb, nothing lasts forever, people will only tolerate cheap and nasty until they can afford better, and they wont tolerate expensive and nasty at all.

Devious and snide tactics always rebound in the end. Honesty and quality have no betters. That is my opinion.

16th Jul 2006, 23:32
What goes around comes around................eventually.

17th Jul 2006, 01:53
I noticed in that letter to pilots it goes from para 1 directly to para 3 - typo or is there a missing paragraph? It would be hard to top what is already in that letter.

Just curious..... Oilhead - R1200GS

Flying Microphone
17th Jul 2006, 08:46
just catching up with this thread...

Still no news of court costs then?

17th Jul 2006, 09:45
Cost deferred until next Friday 21st. There is also the likelihood of perjury prosecutions being initiated in the near future.The possibility that the Ryanair board may find the presence of so many bullies, liars and individuals otherwise 'unburdened by integrity' too much of an embarrassment will no doubt create a number of vacancies in Ryanair management. However, the penalty for perjury should ensure that the day-to-day living expenses of certain parties will be minimal for a considerable time, so they won't miss the pay. (An opportunity for you to polish up your C.V.. eh Leo?) Meanwhile, the puppet master will get off scot free, while the scapegoats do the time.

17th Jul 2006, 10:10
oilhead I was told that the entire letter was read out, so I think that paras 1 & 2 are probably there as para 1. (Actually I am repeating what I heard in a long discussion / speculation..... including costs, what FR will do next, etc.).

As for costs, etc. the (alcohol enabled) wisdom is that this is going to be interesting. Err... not much, but that took about an hour. More interesting is the "fact" that an appeal by FR is inevitable, even though they will lose it. Apparently an appeal will allow the big boss to do nothing about those executives found to be not entirely truthful. (As in he can justify inaction).

Which brings me back to the man we love to hate, Leo H-C. He said some uncharitable things about Captain John Goss (whose innocence was well established by the judge in passing) and the captain who was demoted after the fatigue event. In each case Leo supported and promulgated a management version of events by alluding to poor behaviour on behalf of these two colleagues.

Any chance - fat chance? - of an apology by Leo for adding to the Ryanair PR push to establish that there had to be a fire if Ryanair claimed there was smoke? Leo, if you are to have even minimal credibility you will have to face facts and show some willingness to engage with the real world - and without using poetry to obscure things.

18th Jul 2006, 09:04
Pleasurable as I'm sure it is to chide Leo HC, lets not lose sight of the total lack of real reaction, so far, from FR, perhaps that will change after Friday, and I hope the damages/costs awarded are sufficient to make them Appeal, just so we can have the pleasure of FR being slaughtered, again, by IALPA in the Courts.

18th Jul 2006, 09:33
Escalation of Legal Costs is a tactic that Ryanair uses to beat opponents into submission. Danny Fyne made refernce to this here:

Ryanair has a record of going to court over anything that they feel is claimed to be unfair criticism....... As they have very deep pockets, not many people can afford to dispute them when any allegations do arise, including myself here at PPRuNe, but it would appear that many people think PPRuNe is the only platform where they can at least raise their allegations.

But even as bloody minded as they are, they did not loose this court case in Dublin, they were slam dunked. How even they could justify spending the money on an appeal is beyond me.

18th Jul 2006, 11:19
As badly as they lost some would say that appealing shows that you are true to your convictions and believe that the courts have treated you unjustly. Afterall its no use making a press announcement stating how you were unfairly treated etc if you don't bother appealing. An appeal also takes time and Ryanair will be hoping that in the intervening months it all dies down a bit and any anxious auditors/shareholders etc will forget the whole thing - assuming that they really cared in the first place anyway.

Be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom though. There have been many commentators that have said that MOL has taken the company about as far as his skillset will allow and that a change in style could be needed. Be interesting to see what the rest of the year holds.

18th Jul 2006, 11:37
Hmm, that's interesting, the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website news section. It was there up to this morning. No doubt some trusty wordsmith is, as we speak, crafting a new version of events or perhaps hoping to airbrush out the actual history so far....

But wait, the Friday ruling has yet to come. The costs? Did someone say perjury?

Time for another poem I think ;)

the grim repa
18th Jul 2006, 12:04
I Have just finished reading the entire verdict.I believe that the judge could not have read the situation more completely.word in legal circles dublin side is that ther will be at least 2 perjury proceedings on the back of this case and possibly a contempt of court proceeding.screwed the pooch this time.

18th Jul 2006, 12:14
Might This:-

the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website

relate to this??

possibly a contempt of court proceeding

18th Jul 2006, 12:17
Ryanair have been very successful (in the past) of using their deep pockets along with MOL's madman like attitude to scare people off.

What is happening now is their is no longer fear.

Capt. John Goss continues to work in Dublin and that gets on MOL's T1TS.

Many pilots have spoken against RYR management in court and some senior RYR figures have effectively been called LIARS.

Dragging people through courts have 2 purposes.

1. You win (well we can see they never do that)

or 2. You exhaust people (sorry boys not any more).

Ryanairs main priority should be to try and protect their management as these guys are in a very precatious position.

And, as Mr. O' Brian, Bagnall etc. may well find out is that MOL cares as little for them as he does for the Pilots.

18th Jul 2006, 12:57
Hmm, that's interesting, the FR politburo has removed its version of these events from its website news section.
Just in case you'd like to save a copy for posterity, even though it's not in the list of news articles on the Ryanair site, it can still be found (for the moment at least) if you know where to look: here. (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=06&month=jul&story=gen-en-120706)

(Thanks to Firefox's cache for this one! :cool: )

18th Jul 2006, 14:37
Many thanks Cyrano.

Well having had a quick re-read of this little gem, I'm reminded FR may well have to engage in a bit of "protecting our employees".

Ironic perhaps?

18th Jul 2006, 15:00
Can anyone provide a limk to the judgement?

18th Jul 2006, 18:50
I would have thought that Ryanair did NOT put that Press Release past their lawyers before it went up.

I would also have thought that when the lawyers saw it ..... it came "off" the site pretty quickly.

After such a comprehensive drubbing you would have thought they would have been extra careful. But not this bunch.

Ryanair is clearly an organisation for slow learners.

18th Jul 2006, 21:06
If they choose to appeal, are those managers going to repeat their perjury?
A jail cell awaits!

19th Jul 2006, 08:58
For the avoidance of any doubt :-


"The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath"


"criminal offence of making false statements under oath"

Watch out for "Mr Big" in the showers guys ........... :eek:

19th Jul 2006, 09:14
Can anybody throw any light on this perjury thing.

If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.

What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.

In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.

What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?

19th Jul 2006, 09:44
I think the perjury thing is wishful thinking. Highly unlikely that there would be any sort of "state" prosecution in this situation, and I think it unlikely that IALPA would want to spend the time/effort/money on launching a prosecution which might fail and give Molly yet more publicity, and if it succeeded, proves what? That Ryanair has some managers who lied under oath? What a surprise, and anyway, the judge already said it.
I think there are more important fish to fry than pursuit of already discredited FR employees.

19th Jul 2006, 10:00
WWW good questions. I'm not setting myself up as an expert, because I am not - but I did ask about this and allied matters earlier this week and was told as follows:

1. The "Facts"

There are two findings of "false evidence" on the part of two FR witnesses and a further two FR witnesses gave testimony "found to be unworth of belief". (On an aside, that means that for all practical purposes the four key FR witnesses was each found wanting). The former are the two which potentially attract the charge of "perjury".

The judgment also contains several statements by the judge in which he used the words "I find as a fact ..." etc. (More on this below).

2. Significance

All the judge did was deliver a judgement. He himself does not generate (directly or indirectly) an investigation about "false evidence". He has identified something which can or might lead to an investigation or charge of perjury. The judge does not (normally) take any action.

3. What the future might hold

Any issues relating to alleged perjury require a formal complaint to be made to the Irish police if the matter is to be pursued. (Note: if I got this right it is the perjury that is alleged when making the complaint - but the "false evidence" is a finding of fact by the judge). Apparently such a complaint can be made by anyone.

In this regard it is worth noting that in the REPA case one of those accused of giving "false evidence", the Ryanair "Director of Personnel and In-Flight" Mr. E. Wilson, himself initiated an Irish police investigation of the REPA moderator sued by Ryanair as part of the REPA case. The judge found that there were no grounds to justify calling that investigation and made a disparaging reference to the action by Mr. Wilson.

4. Appealing the judgment

This judgment, I am told, can only be appealed on matters of law. In other words, the judge's findings of fact cannot be challenged. This answers somebody's question above about "repeating perjury" - that does not arise as there will be no examination of witnesses. In respect of any Appeal the judge was stated (to me) to have done a good job in (legally) demonstrating that the Ryanair action lacked any merit in the first place - though at this point my grasp of the nuances is weak.

5. The bottom line

The outcome was represented to me as being a "nightmare" for Ryanair. They did more than lose the case - they were routed and the reality revealed to all. Senior Executives, who rarely blink without permission from on high, did some very strange things and made some very strange decisions that are now manifest to all.

If there are any errors of interpretation above it would be exceedingly helpful if someone with legal training would comment / correct any of the legal points that rely on my understanding of third party information.

19th Jul 2006, 10:41
Nice one GGV, that looks like a lot more than idle banter to me.

I think the bollocking the judge gave to these witnesses goes a long way. Looks like unless the DPP goes after them, it's unlikely to go to a perjury case.

Will they try this nonsense again? Seems unlikely unless they are a complete bunch of numpties and really do want to invite the wrath of the DPP.

Hmm, poetry corner has gone a bit quiet......:ooh:

the grim repa
19th Jul 2006, 12:05
all will be revealed on friday.

19th Jul 2006, 13:00
I'll be watching closely for the result, suspect many others will be too, including some very senior figures in FR

Camel Killer
19th Jul 2006, 20:28
The Perjury Act 1911, (common to Ireland and the UK) defines perjury as follows:If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a Judicial Proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury. The maximum sentence is seven years. I cannot find figures for perjury prosecutions in Ireland but the situation in the UK is described in the following academic article (Warning - heavy reading):eek: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/academics/articles/edwards-paptcojc.pdf It contains the interesting statistic that over 100 prosecutions are brought per year (1991-2000) Over 80% of defendants are convicted and 53% of those go to prison. In the Hall case (1982), Judge Talbot remarked it is almost inconceivable that a sentence of less than three months would be given for a deliberate perjury in the face of the court, since such false evidence strikes at the whole basis of the administration of the law and from the Crown Prosecution Service:Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is a wide one and includes the fabrication of evidence or inducing an other person to do so This would widen the net and could put others apart from Wilson and Brady into the frame. And into Mountjoy:p

19th Jul 2006, 22:30
Can anybody throw any light on this perjury thing.
If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.
What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.
In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.
What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?
In a criminal case, if you plead guilty your sentence will usually reflect the fact that you have accepted responsibility for your crime and not wasted Court time.

If not, you can expect little leniency in sentencing.

In this case I expect that a judge would take the perjury of witnesses into account when considering the awarding of costs - a stiff financial penalty might be considered appropriate for the waste of Court time.

Individual liability to prosecution would depend on the DPP.
A further mischievous appeal of the Courts ruling might well colour the DPP's considerations.

20th Jul 2006, 06:49
I have to say that this is almost too much to contemplate ..... the idea that these powerful, ruthless "untouchables" might get their due come-uppance is almost beyond belief (it is not meant to happen in real life, is it?).

green granite
20th Jul 2006, 07:56
I have to say that this is almost too much to contemplate ..... the idea that these powerful, ruthless "untouchables" might get their due come-uppance is almost beyond belief (it is not meant to happen in real life, is it?).

Don't hold you're breath :(

20th Jul 2006, 09:05
greent granite if you read my words with care you will see that I am not ... but ... all the same ...

20th Jul 2006, 09:49
Didn't someone above say that a complaint must be filed with the Gardai before perjury charges could be entertained?

20th Jul 2006, 11:21
Like GGV suggests earlier, the perjury thing is down to the DPP following a complaint. I suspect that it won't go to a perjury case so some here may be disappointed. But no need. If GGV's legal chums are correct, FR really has bugger all grounds for an appeal. Therefore the damage is done and the ruling will stand which states that they lost the action and that at least two of these FR managers are liars and arguably bullies too.

Considering FR's history of attempting to solve most of their industrial disputes in the Four Courts and not in the Labour Court (the more usual channel for such disputes), perhaps this is an important point in that history where a pretty clear message has come from the Irish judiciary for FR to take these ill-advised actions against their employees elsewhere.

The employees on the other hand now have a useful collection of judgements about FR up their sleeve which may be of use in the future.

Of course none of this is to say I won't be getting a bit of repetitive strain injury tomorrow afternoon looking for the final word!

20th Jul 2006, 15:46
If anything, the real value here would be in any future legal case where either of these two men appear as a witness.

Their credibilty would be immediately under question and the fact that a judgement found them to have given false evidence in this case would render either of them an unreliable witness.

Does anyone know if these judgements affect their continuance as directors of a company?

21st Jul 2006, 08:22
In any other company........ maybe.
In RYR.......... definitely not ! (They'll probably get a promotion)

21st Jul 2006, 09:28
Didn't someone above say that a complaint must be filed with the Gardai before perjury charges could be entertained?
In that case, in the words of John Cleese many years ago........

I wish to register a complaint!

;) ;) ;)

21st Jul 2006, 11:09
According to the REPA site the hearing on costs took place this morning and the "extra" costs are being looked for by BALPA and IALPA. The lawyers mentioned to the judge the Ryanair press release sent out after the court case. The judge will give his finding this afternoon at 16:00.

Billy the Kid
21st Jul 2006, 17:06
Total Victory in Dublin this afternoon:eek: :eek: :eek:

21st Jul 2006, 17:08


21st Jul 2006, 18:40
Will cost FR over a million Euros according to press releases.

Billy the Kid
21st Jul 2006, 19:06
Any ideas on the links? 1,000,000 euros is a lot of money. Especially when they started it? Has got to go down as the biggest legal own goal of all time...:=

21st Jul 2006, 19:27
The estimates before today were for total costs of between €1million and €1.25 million. Today's judgment appears to have moved the costs into a higher band.

In reality nobody knows what the direct costs may be - but this can all be summed up as a combination of (a) losing the case, (b) pissing off the judge, (c) calling into question your bone fides in taking the case, (d) paying everybody's costs, (e) paying penal costs IN ADDITION.

HOWEVER, for anyone who thinks it is over, look at the history - there may well be an act of vindictiveness to follow this, aimed against some individual or organisation. So those of you in congratulatory mode might like to pause and think about that.

22nd Jul 2006, 12:15
To make a complaint of Perjury, a person or persons who witnessed it, or was affected by it would have to make a complaint to the appropriate authority, ie. The Garda Siochana, or through his\her solicitor to the DPP. The Judge can also direct such an investigation. But the proof of the charge would require showing that the Culprit knowing made false or misleading sworn testimony.

Go For it Guys...

22nd Jul 2006, 12:50
From today's Indo

Ryanair lands €1m legal bill over failed pilots action

RYANAIR was yesterday landed with an €1m legal bill .

High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Smyth ruled the no-frills airline has to fork out all the costs of its failed seven-day court action against pilots.

The carrier also has to pay all the other costs surrounding the action and experts said the legal bill could be as high as €1m.

Last week the judge threw out a bid by the airline to find out who was behind messages on its pilots' website and in a strongly worded ruling said the only evidence of bullying was by Ryanair.

The judge said he was satisfied there were no threats or intimidation by pilots or unions of the type contended by Ryanair.

He also made a finding of false evidence in relation to two of Ryanair management who had given evidence in the witness box.

Yesterday the judge said he had no doubt that all the costs should be awarded to the pilots' associations against Ryanair. He said it is to include the cost of the action before the High Court and all other applications and even the cost of the daily transcript.

He refused to put a stay on the costs order in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Referring to his strongly worded judgment last week in which he made a finding of false evidence against two of Ryanair management, Mr Justice Smyth said it was only the second time in his career on the bench that he had to say things he found extremely difficult to say which could not be left unsaid.

Mr Justice Smyth dismissed a bid by Ryanair for orders aimed at identifying pilots who posted messages under codenames on a pilots' website.

The judge also held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose was to "break the resolve" of the pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from the gardai.

Ryanair had sought a number of orders against Neil Johnston, an official with IMPACT; the Irish Airline Pilots Association and its British counterpart, BALPA.

Earlier yesterday counsel for BALPA Michael Cush SC asked for full indemnity costs in the case. There should, he said, be something penal in the nature of the order sought.

The Ryanair case, he said, had been launched on the back on what the court found was not a bona fide investigation but was a "feigned exercise".

Counsel for Mr Johnston and IALPA, Bran O'Moore SC, said the entire case was driven by deceit. It was the witnesses that Ryanair had to subpeona who were found to be truthful.

Ryanair counsel Richard Nesbitt SC said it appeared the feeling of victory had brought the right to demand more than the ordinary.

Ann O'Loughlin

the grim repa
22nd Jul 2006, 13:46
spin that bullies,bull****ters and LIARS!!!!

Norman Stanley Fletcher
22nd Jul 2006, 15:22
It brings a tear to your eye. All those people doubting BALPA should take a close look at how well they have done in very trying circumstances. They and their counterparts at REPA took an enormous risk on behalf of their members. Like many pilots who care deeply about our industry, I would like to congratulate them on a job well done.

22nd Jul 2006, 16:29
This is not a win. Nothing has been gained by the Pilot group. All we have done is fend of an attack by the “Management”. This case should never have been brought before the court. Ryanair could never win it with the evidence they presented and as for committing perjury, should these people be managing a multinational company that relies the honesty of its staff to run a SAFE operation. Why was this money wasted in this way? Who will pay for this gross mismanagement. The only way to prevent a repeat of this is to make individuals personally responsible. MOL appointed these people to increase the revenue of the company. They have failed someone must carry the can. In my opinion this should go right to the top but I doubt it will.

1 million euros for this case. 1 million for the John Goss case. This wipes out all the savings from : uniform/tea/coffee/hotels/ids and much more in one go. Nice work boys!

23rd Jul 2006, 10:59
Let's all hope that MOL & Co. continue to get more of what they deserve. This is a good start. :}

23rd Jul 2006, 14:05
essexboy you are correct but nothing will change. The actions taken by mangement will have been with the approval of MoL. I say that because MoL is the ultimate control freak and nothing happens without his say so. That does not mean that he gave specific instructions for these specific actions but he hired and trained people who learnt the way he wants things done. Therefore, nothing will change because it is MoL's way of running the company.

Nothing can change in the future because the basic operation of the company is long since established. It is correct that they lost this one but they will not change because it is not within their ability to change. They are locked deeply into their view of how to run the company and (as I have said before) even after MoL is gone - nothing will change. Even if the company were to become financially vulnerable - they will not change.

23rd Jul 2006, 21:05
Onething will change....The underling management of MOL will realise that they are now individually responsible for their actions and words. The collective shafting is now a dangerous game. There will be no MOL to protect them for a Judges penalty.

23rd Jul 2006, 21:33
... the real purpose was to "break the resolve" of the pilots to seek better terms and conditions.
So found the judge. In fact it has now had exactly the opposite effect from that intended, with much pilot rejoicing! But the more I read and re-read the long and subtle judgment, the worse Ryanair's position seems to be.

It all seems to have been a multi-faceted and massive own goal. For example, four members of mangement, including two senior members have had their behaviour and honesty questioned. I think that this must begin to have an impact on what they say and do - at least it will if they have any wit (which, it must be conceded, does not always appear to be the case).

These executives also have an important role to play in front of various hearings and tribunals where the honesty of what they have said and written had already been agressively questioned - even before the judge spoke - by Ryanair pilots.

Were these executives to leave Ryanair the stain of the finding will follow them - forever.

In addition the campaign against Captain Goss has now been untangled and the cynicism of Ryanair actions in pursuing an innocent man are laid bare. This, for me, has been the real shocker. The basis on which the airline pursued this man was close to zilch - in effect it was a rumour which, it is hinted, might even have originally come from a management source.

What never seems to change for FR management is their boundless self-confidence and almost pathological self-belief. Will this win out over the truth yet again in the future? The answer is no longer quite so clear as it might have appeared in the past.

23rd Jul 2006, 21:54
Airbus made a statement recently, about thier own plights, which seems appropriate to this situation:

"We have shot ourselves in both feet with one bullet."

24th Jul 2006, 12:26
Atse: you mention reading the judgment - do you have a link or do you know where I could find it?


24th Jul 2006, 12:26
Now may be time for a rethinkon current legal actions pending. Do you want to cost the company MILLIONS Mick, perhaps its time the board kicked you up the backside and put manners on you, seeing as you have yet to learn some !!!!

24th Jul 2006, 17:27
Management? More like clowns! Capt's receive snotty letters for not being at the top of fuel savers and not doing CDA approaches. Tea, coffee, uniforms etc all gone.
Lost cost? Are you sure seems to be VERY high cost! Lawyers and court settlements are not cheap. So all the hard work of the already whipped employees buys the laywers another 1m euro house, well done MOL!
No doubt he'll get the mil back by further cuts!
What a joke, if any other employee was responsible for this much loss they'd be booted out!

The Sandman
24th Jul 2006, 20:07
PAXboy - I have to disagree. If there is one thing that can be taken for granted, it is most certainly that MOL - if not all of his selected minions - is a shrewd and clever character. Maybe only recently has the penny begun to drop that certain management practices are not, shall we say, the most productive in the long term - and the short term is ending. I think that what will happen depends largely on MOL's own future desires. If he wishes to pursue an alternative path on the way to (yet more) riches - or simply a more relaxed lifestyle, and the accolytes are left in charge, I think that yes, you may be right. Due to their own rigorous selection and training, they probably lack the collective ability and initiative to change horses sucessfully - even if the obvious need for a change in tactics were perceived. My fear is that they would likely, suddenly faced with unaccustomed decision-making authority and responsibility, feel slightly out of depth and simply apply the old same ole same ole with more force - just to make up for the instability of the new ground.
If, however, FR's helm still holds professional interest for MOL, he might just find an incredible challenge in reinventing a more productive - and potentially long-lived, management (and corporate) culture. A man's real measure is not simply in seeing that change is needed, but in ensuring that said change occurs. Having single-mindedly created the most successful aviation story in at least 30 years, the real challenge now, is to convert that force-fed and fiery birth, infancy and adolescence, into a more mature personality that can survive the type of geographic expansion that now lies at the doorstep. One strong-willed and forceful personality can horsewhip a small organization into the type of rapid expansion which FR has enjoyed, but a different style is now needed if this vibrant youngster is not to burn out just when the borders of Europe are eached.
If married life hasn't yet dulled his edge, I think it wholely possible that Michael might be the only person capable of accomplishing the type of gear change required for FRs longer term potential. The question is: Is MOL still up for this possibly more demanding challenge?

25th Jul 2006, 08:05
Octopussy2 I read it on the REPA site. BTW, the judgment is long but quite an interesting read. They also provide a pdf download - the pdf file is about 1mb. However, all of this is on the actual site. All I can suggest is to try REPA by sending an e-mail using info on their "Contact Us" page (www.repaweb.org). Maybe they would send you a copy.

25th Jul 2006, 08:28
So after MOL lost the case about disabled pax and then levied a wheelchair surcharge on every ticket, can we expect a legal costs levy on every ticket now?

26th Jul 2006, 09:14
Following Sandman's comments, I think there is an alternative view to his conclusion that MOL is the only person the carry the Ryanair story forward.
Frequently in other business types an entrepreneur starts something up, grows it through energy and sheer force of will to a certain level, and then passes the reins to someone else. The new boy is a different type of character, one who is good at process and integration because these are what are required in a new business rather than smashing down the walls for the initial land-grab.
I have read somewhere (but can't for the life of me remember where) some comment that non exec directors at Ryanair were privately (or not, if it's in the public domain) considering whether MOL was the right man to continue leading the company. A change might be in the best interests of the future growth of Ryanair now that it is a firmly established leading player in the low cost business. That was recently and before last week's judgement. If true, it can only enhance their view that maybe it's time for change at the top.
He'd go with all the accolades they could shower on him, but he'd go becuase his job, with his skill-set, was done. Time for a steady hand on the tiller.
Finger crossed...

26th Jul 2006, 18:21
If you start at the top and read your way all the way through, this thread really does make for good (even exciting) reading. A great story unfolds, the good guys are easily identified and the bad guys are equally obvious (I like simplicity!). “Good” triumphs over … “whatever” … and we even get a sense that there is yet more to come. Maybe we could get a TV series out of this, something like: “Ryanair, the unending saga”!?!

One thing is clear, it is all going in the right direction. Well done to all concerned. Finish the job.

26th Jul 2006, 19:48
Yeah, how about "Loco Wars II - Darth MOL strikes back". I'm writing the script right now :}

28th Jul 2006, 19:46
Hot from the press .... Mr. Justice Smyth has spoken again. The record of the hearing on costs in the REPA case has been published (this was a week later than the verdict). I have cut and pasted some that may make some readers here smile. Here is Mr. Justice Smyth on various subjects:

On Ryanair’s “lack of candour”:

"Where internally on the Plaintiff's team the lack of frankness arose is irrelevant for present purposes, there has been a failure of candour with the Court. The fact is that there were consequences of the lack of frankness with the Court, which was moved to make the order, and an onerous order, for discovery and the Defendants were put to an undue and unfair trouble and expense, and I cannot, with equanimity, express other than disapproval of such conduct.

It is, I regret to note, all of apiece with the approach of the Plaintiff towards the Defendants and others to whom I have referred in my judgment. The Plaintiff's conduct of the litigation as a whole, and discovery in particular, was unreasonable, and in its prosecution oppressive."

On Ryanair's “unreasonableness”:

In my judgment, there was unreasonableness of a high degree by the Plaintiff, and I do not consider it merely to have been wrong in hindsight. In the instant case, the Defendants made a real effort to find a reasonable solution to the contested facts that led them to the formulation of a case by referring same to the Labour Relations Commission. The invitation was not merely refused; it was rejected.

On his duties as a trial judge:

I am mindful of my animadversions as a trial judge and the necessity to be temperate in language. On the other hand there are occasions, of which this is regretfully I think the second in my career as a judge I have had to do so, to say things that I found extremely difficult but which could not be left unsaid. There are times when one must say out boldly and without equivocation matters that cannot be pleasant for the hearer or recipient of the expression of view or a finding of fact or an inference drawn from the findings of fact.

On the “investigation” of Captain John Goss:

It seems to me that the questions on the evidence before me, there was no basis for the Goss investigation ….

On Ryanair’s attitude to Discovery:

The disparity between what was sworn to for discovery purposes and what was sworn in court was a serious matter. It went to the essential relief being sought by the Plaintiff. Someone had clearly forgotten Cordelia's reflection in King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1:

"Time shall unfold what pleated cunning hides;

Who cover faults, at last shame them derides."

On his judgment re costs:

In my judgment and without any sense of doubt, although perhaps the human being should always have some doubt, but to the extent that I can be as certain as a judge can be, I have no doubt that this is a case in which solicitor-and-own-client costs should be awarded to the Defendants.

Now, I am quite conscious that it is a serious order to make. It was intimated, as I say, to me earlier on that this would be done almost immediately the case was over. I have had to think about it. I have to re-read sections of the transcript again. I have very carefully considered every submission that was made. I read them all. I read all the authorities in full. Nonetheless, I have come to this conclusion, and it is a firm and unequivocal conclusion. That will be my order, and this would include the costs up to today's date.

All I can say is .... Whot a Judge!!

29th Jul 2006, 07:57
Anybody know if Ryanair did appeal either of the two judgments (i.e. the main case and/or the costs)?

bia botal
29th Jul 2006, 11:02
European Ryanair pilot union 'a step closer' after Irish court internet forum privacy ruling

Pan-European union representation for Ryanair pilots took a step closer to reality last week after Ireland's highest court upheld the privacy rights of the airline's union's internet discussion forum.

Ryanair European Pilots Association (REPA) was established by the airline's pilots in 2004 and draws resources from the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) and the Irish Air Line Pilots Association (IALPA). Ryanair had sued the association over anonymous comments posted by users of its website -all Ryanair pilots- claiming a campaign of harassment. The Irish High Court found in favour of the association and its members' rights not to be identified and late last week ordered the low cost carrier to pay €1 million ($1.3 million) to the two pilot unions to cover legal costs.

REPA says it does not "yet" offer legal representation to its members, who must seek recourse through national courts with national pilots unions. However, this case has given the association a credibility boost as it moves forward. The membership of REPAweb.org is approaching 600, it says.

BALPA says the REPA website was launched to enable Ryanair pilots exchange views on the carrier’s move to make individual pilots responsible for repaying the €15,000 training costs associated with the operation of larger Boeing 737-800s in the event the airline enters union negotiations within five years.

Ryanair says it took legal action in order to identify “just three individuals who had made anonymous postings on the REPA website advocating threats, including the slashing of car tyres, against specific Ryanair employees who had accepted posts in Dublin”.

It adds: “Had Ryanair not taken action to identify and prevent the publication of these threats, Ryanair may have been accused of allowing its employees to be bullied or intimidated by these pilot trade union activists.”

BALPA claims that Justice Thomas Smyth dismissed Ryanair’s request because the evidence surrounding it was “baseless and false”.

Union chairman Mervyn Granshaw adds: “The judge’s comments that the management style of Ryanair bears all the hallmarks of oppression were spot on and should sound another warning to governments, regulators, investors and the travelling public.”

A Ryanair spokesman says the carrier is “disappointed” with the High Court ruling, and is considering appealing the decision.

bia botal
29th Jul 2006, 11:18
Sorry to beat you to the (sucker) punch minuteman, but as most of the readers of this site will have trouble obtaining the transcript of the hearing i couldn't let the words of Judge Smyth go un-spoken (un-written as it were). No doubt the camel jockey has access to the site but in-case he hasn't gotten around to reading it all yet, and figured out he is batting for the wrong team (he say"s tongue in cheek).


"Time shall unfold what pleated cunning hides;

Who cover faults, at last shame them derides."

29th Jul 2006, 13:44
just three individuals

I love this!!!

"We were going to victimise, bully an ruin the carreers of just three individuals, so why all the fuss?"

Well, that's alright then...:hmm: :ugh: :hmm:

Bomber Harris
31st Jul 2006, 00:07
EssexBoy, I would like to reply (and in no way criticize) your comment.

This is not a win. Nothing has been gained by the Pilot group. All we have done is fend of an attack by the “Management”.

I think your comment has a lot of validity and I respect your opinion completly. But I would like to point out that there is more to this, in my opinion, than meets the eye.

The Dublin pilots are taking the company to court because they believe they were "bullied" into new terms and conditions which were not as agreed in their employment contract (which will be different to your contract if you joined in this decade). As you pointed out this case was taken as a "side issue" by the company. This case can be viewed as a either an attempt by the company to prevent pilot association members from "bullying" colleagues OR an attemot to slow down and hamper the progress of the action taken by the pilots against the company. Whichever view you take on this is actually irrelevent.

The fact which is important to the OVERALL issue is that a judge has made clear and unambiguous statements which now become facts by virtue of them appearing in a judgement.

He has made statement (or indeed JUDGEMENTS) on the company's approach to resolving the conflict, the companies handling of the Goss case and the companies reliability as witnesses.

These statements can be presented as fact in the main case. As such it has now become, as a direct result of this judgement, very likely that the Dublin pilots will win their main case against the company.

This result of a win in the main case will open the doors for the rest of FR pilots to take an action against the company if they feel their terms and conditions have been erroded illegally and with the aid of "bullying" tactics.

This wipes out all the savings from : uniform/tea/coffee/hotels/ids and much more in one go. Nice work boys

So, in fact, it could be argued that the case may well result in the reinstatement of uniform/tea/coffee/hotels/ids.

I do not which to take what you said out of context so I should not ignore that you were actually talking about profit rather than the benefits. It is debateable as to who actually initiated the losses. IE should the pilots have not taken an action because it would be expensive even though they felt unfairly treated OR did the company incur these costs through mistreatment of staff.

Just points for you to ponder. Not meant to be critcal of you (just argumentative) because I think you made very valid points

the grim repa
31st Jul 2006, 08:24
I Believe that having read the judges full findings.that this is a very significant finding for all pilots in ryanair and for other working in industries throughout ireland.Read the detail and bear in mind that judges do not usually make such black and white findings.There is huge precedent here,which in itself is outstanding.
The only way that this finding will become insignificant for ryanair pilots is if they choose now to let their fight for proper treatment stop following the next finding in the intimidation case.
Attacks by management is par for the course when working in ryanair,so this action had to be shown in a court of law exactly what it was,an attack on the right to free speech and an attempt to degrade human rights,so that a few fat cats could continue to line their pockets unhindered.

31st Jul 2006, 08:58
Bomber, Your points are well made. When I first commented I had not realized the magnitude of the defeat that the management had suffered and the consequences this will have on the up coming disputes. As you pointed out I was looking at direct profit in terms of pilot advancement rather than the precedent that this case sets and how the judiciary will view the company in the future. Thank you for your comments

31st Jul 2006, 09:05
Once again incorrect reporting.............Irelands Highest Court is not the High Court, where the case was heard, It is the Supreme Court. So if he can wrangle it, MOL can go there on appeal...........I say if he can wrangle it because the Judge knocked an appeal on the head. But I assume they can still apply to the Courts for leave to appeal !!!!!!

Of course they might have SWALLOWED enough Judgement for a while.

31st Jul 2006, 09:44
There are very few grounds on which an appeal of the judgement to the Supreme Court can be made. Essentially the only appeals to the Supreme Court in such a case can be on the grounds of either the judge erred in law or the law contravenes some element of the constitiution.

the grim repa
31st Jul 2006, 10:39
There will be no appeal.At the most management may try to appeal costs,which will not get them anywhere.To appeal the case of trying to identify those who post on www.repaweb.org ,in order to persecute them,would be a further waste of money as the judge gave repa legal right to delete any information relating to the website.That is my reading of the judgement.

31st Jul 2006, 18:01
Word now has it that no appeal was lodged by Friday, which seems to have been the deadline.

The judge apparently gave them absolutely nothing by way of "face saving" - no leave to appeal, no injunction against deleting the database and no hold on the costs order pending an appeal. He apparently told them that they had to try in the Surpreme Court if they wanted anything. He just 100% wiped them - not even a single crumb of comfort!