Ryanair launches legal action against pilots' union (merged)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: west of here
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit i did start laughing when i read te "consenting adults" part.
I presume the next Ryanair recruitment advertisment will appear in the next edition of "bondage weekly" or some other S&M mag that these guys have tucked away under their matress.
Seriously, it would seem the hired thugs think that just because we know we're getting ****** it therefore follows that we like it.
I konw MO'L throws some strange parties, with some strange hired guests, i hope i don't recieve an invite soon.
Consenting adults indeed.
I presume the next Ryanair recruitment advertisment will appear in the next edition of "bondage weekly" or some other S&M mag that these guys have tucked away under their matress.
Seriously, it would seem the hired thugs think that just because we know we're getting ****** it therefore follows that we like it.
I konw MO'L throws some strange parties, with some strange hired guests, i hope i don't recieve an invite soon.
Consenting adults indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many Ryanair pilots would be willing to state here that they did feel intimidated by IALPA? How many would state that they were not intimidated?
I'm no lawyer (too much self respect), but how valid a defence, in the High Court, would written statements and/or statements in court to the above effect, be?
I'm no lawyer (too much self respect), but how valid a defence, in the High Court, would written statements and/or statements in court to the above effect, be?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: one step beyond
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just in..........
Ryanair has secured leave from the High Court to challenge a finding by the Labour Court that there is a trade dispute between Ryanair and the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) concerning Ryanair's Dublin-based pilots.
Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, was granted leave by Ms Justice Macken to bring proceedings challenging a number of findings of the court arising from the decision by the IMPACT trade union, of which IALPA is a part, to ask the Labour Court to investigate the alleged trade dispute.
Ryanair contends there is no trade dispute between it and IMPACT and that IMPACT is not entitled to "intermeddle" in Ryanair's affairs.
After considering the matter, the Labour Court decided on January 25th last that there is a trade dispute and it is that and other findings which Ryanair seeks to overturn in its judicial review proceedings.
Ryanair also wants orders quashing the Labour Court's decision that it was not Ryanair's practice to engage in collective bargaining and that there was/is no operative internal dispute procedure in place within the private airline.
In an affidavit, Mr Eddie Wilson, director of personnel and inflight with Ryanair, said IMPACT had asked the Labour Court in November last to investigate an alleged trade dispute between it and Ryanair over the airline's Dublin-based pilots.
Ryanair accepted the right of all employees to join, or not join, trade unions but it did not accept that it, as an employer, was compelled to negotiate with any trade union. It had been the policy and practice of Ryanair for many years to deal directly with its employees without the "intermeddling" of trade unions and this system had served Ryanair employees "very well", he said.
Employees elected representatives to Employee Representative Committees and those ERCs negotiated directly with Ryanair in relation to all terms and conditions of employment. In the case of Dublin pilots, it was for them to elect representatives onto the pilots ERC. Since the retirement of the pilot members of the pilot ERC in August 2004, the pilots had not appointed new representatives.
In those circumstances, Ryanair strenuously objected to the referral of the matter to the Labour Court. The airline believed the court had no jurisdiction to carry out the investigation.
Ryanair contended that the decision of the Labour Court that there was a trade dispute in existence was unreasonable and one which could not have been arrived at by any reasonable adjudicator of fact, Mr Wilson said. It also breached Ryanair's right to fair procedures and to natural and constitutional justice.
Posted on the eircom news page
Ryanair has secured leave from the High Court to challenge a finding by the Labour Court that there is a trade dispute between Ryanair and the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) concerning Ryanair's Dublin-based pilots.
Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, was granted leave by Ms Justice Macken to bring proceedings challenging a number of findings of the court arising from the decision by the IMPACT trade union, of which IALPA is a part, to ask the Labour Court to investigate the alleged trade dispute.
Ryanair contends there is no trade dispute between it and IMPACT and that IMPACT is not entitled to "intermeddle" in Ryanair's affairs.
After considering the matter, the Labour Court decided on January 25th last that there is a trade dispute and it is that and other findings which Ryanair seeks to overturn in its judicial review proceedings.
Ryanair also wants orders quashing the Labour Court's decision that it was not Ryanair's practice to engage in collective bargaining and that there was/is no operative internal dispute procedure in place within the private airline.
In an affidavit, Mr Eddie Wilson, director of personnel and inflight with Ryanair, said IMPACT had asked the Labour Court in November last to investigate an alleged trade dispute between it and Ryanair over the airline's Dublin-based pilots.
Ryanair accepted the right of all employees to join, or not join, trade unions but it did not accept that it, as an employer, was compelled to negotiate with any trade union. It had been the policy and practice of Ryanair for many years to deal directly with its employees without the "intermeddling" of trade unions and this system had served Ryanair employees "very well", he said.
Employees elected representatives to Employee Representative Committees and those ERCs negotiated directly with Ryanair in relation to all terms and conditions of employment. In the case of Dublin pilots, it was for them to elect representatives onto the pilots ERC. Since the retirement of the pilot members of the pilot ERC in August 2004, the pilots had not appointed new representatives.
In those circumstances, Ryanair strenuously objected to the referral of the matter to the Labour Court. The airline believed the court had no jurisdiction to carry out the investigation.
Ryanair contended that the decision of the Labour Court that there was a trade dispute in existence was unreasonable and one which could not have been arrived at by any reasonable adjudicator of fact, Mr Wilson said. It also breached Ryanair's right to fair procedures and to natural and constitutional justice.
Posted on the eircom news page
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear for how much the IAA is willing to take FR and MO'L on directly. Although I am not a pilot, I am a lawyer by training (although having developed self respect, I no longer practice!) and I am very concerned at these developments.
Let's take a few worst case scenarios:
- A pilot is bullied and intimidated by the airline to the extent that he fails his medical (what is happening now can take an enormous physical toll - remember the BA 744 pilot who was fired and reinstated a few years back, only to die shortly after)
The above is of particular concern, because I have little doubt that FR knows this; if it wants someone out, it can just hound them to the extent that it drives them to a stress related illness.
- What if a serious accident is caused - already referred to, but remember the Staines accident in '72, where the death of the captain followed a furious row in the crew room between union and non union pilots. How would FR's CRM deal with something like this?
Now, if this did happen and the AAIU found that a contributory factor was FR's management style and treatment of crews, would it take something like this for the IAA to stand up to FR and MO'L?
Ultimately, I think the situation may require a legislative provision similar to the one in the US which removed Frank Lorenzo from involvement in the airline industry a few years back; different reasons there, of course, but on principle, if the regulator believes that the involvement of certain people (not necessarily those it licences as flight ops personnel) in air transport undermines or threatens safety, then it should be in a position to require their removal from the airline (among other conditions, such as external monitoring of industrial relations) as a condition of granting/renewing the AOC.
It's time someone stood up for FR's pilots and it needs to be more than the pilots themselves.
Let's take a few worst case scenarios:
- A pilot is bullied and intimidated by the airline to the extent that he fails his medical (what is happening now can take an enormous physical toll - remember the BA 744 pilot who was fired and reinstated a few years back, only to die shortly after)
The above is of particular concern, because I have little doubt that FR knows this; if it wants someone out, it can just hound them to the extent that it drives them to a stress related illness.
- What if a serious accident is caused - already referred to, but remember the Staines accident in '72, where the death of the captain followed a furious row in the crew room between union and non union pilots. How would FR's CRM deal with something like this?
Now, if this did happen and the AAIU found that a contributory factor was FR's management style and treatment of crews, would it take something like this for the IAA to stand up to FR and MO'L?
Ultimately, I think the situation may require a legislative provision similar to the one in the US which removed Frank Lorenzo from involvement in the airline industry a few years back; different reasons there, of course, but on principle, if the regulator believes that the involvement of certain people (not necessarily those it licences as flight ops personnel) in air transport undermines or threatens safety, then it should be in a position to require their removal from the airline (among other conditions, such as external monitoring of industrial relations) as a condition of granting/renewing the AOC.
It's time someone stood up for FR's pilots and it needs to be more than the pilots themselves.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone looking in from the outside it seams clear to me that this is a concerted effort of intimidation aimed at preventing the airline becoming unionised. To that end I believe Ryanair need to be dragged into the courts and explain there behaviour and if as it appears, they are breaking the law censured.
As for the stress causing a serious accident prompting a change in management style, I suspect it would but only because the company would not survive a major accident.
As for the stress causing a serious accident prompting a change in management style, I suspect it would but only because the company would not survive a major accident.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. Value Jet is no more !!! That is why it had to be rebranded AirTran.
These sort of things seem to work in the US. Not sure they would work here.
Value Jet crashed. Oops. Let's rename it Value Jet.
13 is an unlucky number. Oops. Let's remove seat row 13.
DOH !!! Could only happen in the US. God bless America !!!
Anyway, what would a re-branded Ryanair be called ? LearyAir ?
CG
These sort of things seem to work in the US. Not sure they would work here.
Value Jet crashed. Oops. Let's rename it Value Jet.
13 is an unlucky number. Oops. Let's remove seat row 13.
DOH !!! Could only happen in the US. God bless America !!!
Anyway, what would a re-branded Ryanair be called ? LearyAir ?
CG
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worst Case scenario...
Dear all,
I have just reviewed a number of contributions and in particular would like to pick-up on the motif "Let's take a few worst case scenarios:"
Surely the worst scenario is that Ryanair consider the 5 year contract agreement broken for Dublin Pilots and hire/train and employ pilots from elsewhere?
That's surely worst case... for Dublin pilots from a legal and practical point of view.
PaxmanwithInfo
I have just reviewed a number of contributions and in particular would like to pick-up on the motif "Let's take a few worst case scenarios:"
Surely the worst scenario is that Ryanair consider the 5 year contract agreement broken for Dublin Pilots and hire/train and employ pilots from elsewhere?
That's surely worst case... for Dublin pilots from a legal and practical point of view.
PaxmanwithInfo
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere European!
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The initial one that pops to my mind is how much of this background does 'Joe Public' realise?
Lets face it the 'Firm' have always been dodgy on their route advertising and, admittedly, the SLB generally goes for the cheapest but wouldn't it hurt the company if a few more of the background discussions, as aired here, came to light.
Joe the Public doesn't like the idea of getting on to an aircraft with a tired and mentally harrassed crew. It don't work. The flip side of this would be, obviously, the potential loss of jobs within the company but at the end of the day, with the court fighting, thats probably going to occur anyway.
Look through the boards and you'll see that the T's + C's are dropping everywhere and I find it an excellent thing that someone, somewhere is finally taking a stand. I find it appalling that people can refer normally to 'can only take the strain for five years or so'!!!
If a bus breaks you can park it at the side of the road and wait for the tow truck. If our bus breaks then your hard work really starts and who has ever come across 'Management Error' on an accident report.
Good luck to all the Dublin boys!!!!
Lets face it the 'Firm' have always been dodgy on their route advertising and, admittedly, the SLB generally goes for the cheapest but wouldn't it hurt the company if a few more of the background discussions, as aired here, came to light.
Joe the Public doesn't like the idea of getting on to an aircraft with a tired and mentally harrassed crew. It don't work. The flip side of this would be, obviously, the potential loss of jobs within the company but at the end of the day, with the court fighting, thats probably going to occur anyway.
Look through the boards and you'll see that the T's + C's are dropping everywhere and I find it an excellent thing that someone, somewhere is finally taking a stand. I find it appalling that people can refer normally to 'can only take the strain for five years or so'!!!
If a bus breaks you can park it at the side of the road and wait for the tow truck. If our bus breaks then your hard work really starts and who has ever come across 'Management Error' on an accident report.
Good luck to all the Dublin boys!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The road to hell and bad intentions.
"no greater sacrifice hath man than to give up what he has for his brethern".
I hope things work out well for the lads in Dublin, but it seems clear to me that they've received very bad advice.
Welcoming today’s judicial review decision, Ryanair’s Director of Personnel, Mr Eddie Wilson, said:
“This must surely be the first time in history that a trade union and the Labour Court have suggested that a group of workers who have negotiated a pay increase and share options are somehow not entitled to them. We intend to overturn this erroneous Labour Court finding so that Ryanair’s Dublin pilots can enjoy the pay increase and the share options which they have previously negotiated directly with the airline”.
“This must surely be the first time in history that a trade union and the Labour Court have suggested that a group of workers who have negotiated a pay increase and share options are somehow not entitled to them. We intend to overturn this erroneous Labour Court finding so that Ryanair’s Dublin pilots can enjoy the pay increase and the share options which they have previously negotiated directly with the airline”.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would someone care to point out how Valuejet and/or Pan Am went under due to the sort of behaviour MOL is being accused of.
The following may help, for those of poor memory.
MIAMI - ValuJet was forced to "voluntarily" ground its fleet June 17. David Hinson of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said that the airline would not reopen "until such time as it demonstrates appropriate corrective action" for "serious deficiencies" in its maintenance program. The action came more than a month after ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board. The families of six of the victims had filed a complaint with the FAA requesting that the airline be grounded for violating maintenance regulations.
Hinson said the problems at the company include failing to establish the airworthiness of some of its aircraft; system-wide deficiencies in the airline's maintenance program; multiple shortcomings in the quality assurance of ValuJet's contractors; and lack of engineering capability.
---------------
In the late 1970s Pan Am began exploring domestic flights. In January, 1980, Pan Am merged with National Airlines thus airline industry, the proliferation of airlines around the world and the fragile global economy led Pan Am to attempt a number of organizational restructures. Following a series of unsuccessful initiatives designed to improve the economic performance of the company, Pan American World Airways, Inc., ceased operations in 1991.
----------------
Neither example is valid in the context raised.
I'll rephrase my original point.........
Any pilot flying whilst subject to stress is violating the regulations as laid down by the regulating authority (in the UK, at the very least).
I pity the pilot, having been involved in an accident, who stands up in court and admits to having elected to fly whilst excessively stressed.
Apart from which, there is the burden of proof. I can recall absolutely no precedents to support that possibilty. Certainly not Valuejet or Pan Am.
The following may help, for those of poor memory.
MIAMI - ValuJet was forced to "voluntarily" ground its fleet June 17. David Hinson of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said that the airline would not reopen "until such time as it demonstrates appropriate corrective action" for "serious deficiencies" in its maintenance program. The action came more than a month after ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board. The families of six of the victims had filed a complaint with the FAA requesting that the airline be grounded for violating maintenance regulations.
Hinson said the problems at the company include failing to establish the airworthiness of some of its aircraft; system-wide deficiencies in the airline's maintenance program; multiple shortcomings in the quality assurance of ValuJet's contractors; and lack of engineering capability.
---------------
In the late 1970s Pan Am began exploring domestic flights. In January, 1980, Pan Am merged with National Airlines thus airline industry, the proliferation of airlines around the world and the fragile global economy led Pan Am to attempt a number of organizational restructures. Following a series of unsuccessful initiatives designed to improve the economic performance of the company, Pan American World Airways, Inc., ceased operations in 1991.
----------------
Neither example is valid in the context raised.
I'll rephrase my original point.........
As for the stress causing a serious accident prompting a change in management style, I suspect it would but only because the company would not survive a major accident.
I pity the pilot, having been involved in an accident, who stands up in court and admits to having elected to fly whilst excessively stressed.
Apart from which, there is the burden of proof. I can recall absolutely no precedents to support that possibilty. Certainly not Valuejet or Pan Am.
??
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people were drawing comparisons related to airlines suffering major accidents and then ceasing trading shortly afterwards. It is a tenuous comparison since the reasons that ValuJet and Pan Am ceased trading were complex and were merely excaserbated (sp?) by the accidents.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well leo "looks like we have bitten off more than we can chew boys" hairy camel.if you don't have two humps,cut and run.
i advocate no ones suicide professional or otherwise,you confuse the statement with the biblical "laying down ones life" for others.my quote was an adaption on that in "giving what one has" for others.
"bad advice" and "black agenda",now that is management speak or is it one of our esteemed colleagues justifying his/her sell out.
it must hurt you to see the level of unity within the dublin pilot group and others.
sleep well tonight as you ponder on the thoughts of how these guys families are suffering under you buddies/masters stress.you have a good look in the mirror before you switch the light out.
you wish the guys in dublin well,hmmmmm!me thinks not!
i advocate no ones suicide professional or otherwise,you confuse the statement with the biblical "laying down ones life" for others.my quote was an adaption on that in "giving what one has" for others.
"bad advice" and "black agenda",now that is management speak or is it one of our esteemed colleagues justifying his/her sell out.
it must hurt you to see the level of unity within the dublin pilot group and others.
sleep well tonight as you ponder on the thoughts of how these guys families are suffering under you buddies/masters stress.you have a good look in the mirror before you switch the light out.
you wish the guys in dublin well,hmmmmm!me thinks not!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hairy Camel, as I said before you not only look like management, but you talk like management. And you are not welcome here. Go join silly Ms. Turret and create your own thread of neo-capitalist aviation fantasy.
One can only feel proud of colleagues who have the guts to do what should have been done years ago - which is to stand up to the bully whom you seem to admire. Bullying is always nasty and can only be solved by decisive counter-action, whether in the playgound or workplace.
Now that you have published your vindictive memos and claimed the right to deliver retribution we again see clearly what you stand for. And if you think that your silly posts here are likely to have an impact on the resolve of those who oppose you, you are as out of touch as the silly efforts to attack us seem to indicate.
You lot lack any moral depth beyond 1mm and you probably have lost any sense of why and how your actions are so despicable. But you will be told. Let's see you all on a witness stand, which is where you are going to end up. The days of being untouchable are over. Difficult questions are going to be posed, sooner or later. It's finished for you. Let's see who has "blundered very badly indeed".
One can only feel proud of colleagues who have the guts to do what should have been done years ago - which is to stand up to the bully whom you seem to admire. Bullying is always nasty and can only be solved by decisive counter-action, whether in the playgound or workplace.
Now that you have published your vindictive memos and claimed the right to deliver retribution we again see clearly what you stand for. And if you think that your silly posts here are likely to have an impact on the resolve of those who oppose you, you are as out of touch as the silly efforts to attack us seem to indicate.
You lot lack any moral depth beyond 1mm and you probably have lost any sense of why and how your actions are so despicable. But you will be told. Let's see you all on a witness stand, which is where you are going to end up. The days of being untouchable are over. Difficult questions are going to be posed, sooner or later. It's finished for you. Let's see who has "blundered very badly indeed".