More unrest at ryanair
 

Just read this more trouble at ryanair.


A number of senior Ryanair pilots have made a complaint about victimisation in the workplace to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). The complaint stems from the actions of the airline's senior management, who are seeking to persuade the pilots to accept terms and conditions attached to their training to fly new aircraft.

Ryanair has told the pilots that they will have to pay €15,000 to complete this training if the airline is forced to deal with a trade union over the next five years.

Ryanair has been notified of the complaint and will be invited to attend a hearing at the LRC on the issue. A spokesman for the airline said it was in correspondence with the LRC and would make no further comment.

A number of other pilots at the airline are also believed to be considering a similar claim.

The victimisation complaints have arisen as the airline has begun to offer its senior captains conversion training courses to fly its new Boeing 737-800 aircraft. Earlier this month Ryanair's head of operations, Mr David O'Brien, wrote to these individuals to offer the training course and stated that the offer was conditional upon their "understanding and acceptance" of a number of conditions.

In this letter, seen by The Irish Times, Mr O'Brien states that the training programme will cost €15,000, a sum he said was "modest" in the context of pilots' income, and that Ryanair would write off this debt if they agreed to certain conditions.

The pilots must remain working at Ryanair for five years and he warned that they would have to repay the full training costs if they were represented by a trade union or staff association. "We wish to remind you that should this policy be altered and Ryanair be compelled to engage in collective bargaining with a pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of your conversion training, you will be liable to repay the full training costs." The letter continues: "Naturally this does not and will not affect your right to freely join any trade union or association of your choice."

Mr O'Brien states that, should the pilots decline this offer, they could be facing redundancy when the existing Boeing 737-200 fleet is phased out in Dublin. They were given seven days to accept the airline's offer or it would immediately lapse. Mr O'Brien signed off by congratulating the pilots on being selected for this training, adding: "We look forward to working with you."

Prior to receipt of this letter, the pilots had attended a meeting with senior Ryanair management where management had outlined a number of "consequences" if they were to opt to be represented by a trade union or association in their dealings with the airline.

According to sources, the consequences included no share options or pay increases, no promotions in Dublin, payment for future recurrent training, the cancellation of staff travel when in uniform, being required to take annual leave in blocks of five days only and possible redundancies. The pilots were told that if the IALPA didn't "go away", the €15,000 conversion training fee would become a mandatory up-front charge.

The victimisation complaint will be heard in private by a rights commissioner who will issue recommendations. This process will go ahead even if Ryanair refuses to attend.

Either party can appeal those recommendations within six weeks to the Labour Court and if upheld the recommendations are binding. Either side can then apply to the Circuit Court to seek the enforcement of the recommendations.

And then this. All in one day


A complaint regarding the alteration of contracts of employment at Ryanair will be moved to the Labour Court.

The complaint, which was initially lodged by the Irish Airline Pilots Association, a division of the IMPACT trade union, at the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) has progressed to the Labour Court, which could issue a binding decision.

The union wants to reach agreement that pilots will be supplied with full particulars of their contract of employment in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. It also wants to ensure that contracts of employment cannot be altered other than by agreement.

This week Ryanair chief executive Mr Michael O\'Leary said he would not let the Labour Court impose conditions on the airline and that he would mount a constitutional challenge to the Act.

Two weeks ago Mr O\'Leary wrote to Mr Declan Morrin, LRC director of advisory services, after it had notified the airline of the complaint. In the letter, seen by The Irish Times, Mr O\'Leary said Ryanair would not participate in the proposed procedure and said IMPACT and IALPA had no basis for making the application.

"We will not allow a trade union, which primarily represents the pilots of our main competitor, to impose effective union recognition through the back door of the Labour Relations Commission, using what is clearly an unconstitutional process," he stated.

Mr O\'Leary warned the LRC that, unless it received confirmation that this "unwarranted and unconstitutional interference" would cease by November 22nd, Ryanair would initiate legal proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the 2001 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act and its 2004 Amendment.

"This challenge will, when successful, prevent any further interference by trade unions and the Labour Relations Commission in the affairs of high-pay, non-union multinational companies like Ryanair," the letter stated.

Mr O\'Leary said that, if the airline did not receive such confirmation from the LRC, High Court proceedings would follow without further notice. Yesterday, a Ryanair spokesman said its position remained unchanged.

The IALPA case is being taken under the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, a measure which emerged from discussions between the social partners on the issue of union recognition.

Unreal, is this what the once proud profession of aviation has been degraded too?

Every Dog has its day!!

Its about time this very clever arrogant t***er who thinks that he is some kind of "untouchable" gets his due. Its sad to think that he has prob now millions in the bank so quite frankly he doesnt give a sh1t. But this Ryanair bandwagon rollercoaster is going to end, the public are getting more wise as are the authorities.

Good old MOL,

He must hate pilots that much it gives him sleepless nights.

Whatever one says about MOL, he is a tough so-and-so, and really aviation could do with more like him. OK, I can hear howls of derision coming from all directions. But at least he is straightforward and says what he thinks, and actually, if you can leave the emotion aside, more often than not it makes sense.

He might not like pilots. That is his prerogative. But my guess is that he is very happy with pilots who do what he employed them to do, and he doesn't want them to change the terms of engagement. He doesn{t like them if they try and do that. His position is that if you join Ryanair you join on these terms. If you want a B738 conversion, these are my conditions. Now its up to you.

We still live in a capitalist world, believe it or not, and to survive you have to be prepared to fight for what you believe in. The British have had a lot of bad management in this respect, and that is why we are gradually fading away from just about everything, except shops and financials. I know MOL is not British, but I rather wish he was.

I don't think I will dare read any more posts on this subject, because I can feel I am going to be severely chastised!

Low Cost Carriers, LCC Pilots the world over take heed.

Ryan Air and the likes world wide should be supported by pilots worldwide. It is the fragmentation throughout our community that has led to many airlines especially LCC's exploiting pilots by paying significantly lower renumeration.

If we look back in time we will see that pilots payscales have reduced over the years.

Would it not be great to have a worldwide body to negotiate the terms and conditions for pilots globally.

Fight on Paddys.

Wooblah.

BluePilot "Every dog has its day" and a good dog (MOL) just might have two.

In Ireland, if and when a mangy mutt is killed, e.g. hit by a speeding vehicle ( or maybe even a speeding bullet :E ) would you have to report this to the police ?

Where I'm from plenty of dogs get whacked every day and nobody gives a flying f... !

Riverboat: Cuts both ways, mate.

I don't suppose that when these guys joined, the cost of moving on to a new type upon redundancy of the old, was part of the contract.

MOL is imposing change without consultation, so why is that OK and the reverse not?

Low Cost originated with SWA and was never meant to spawn green-eyed monsters like this Irish cabbie firm.Unfortunately,pilots are prepared to put up with it so he gets away with it.Pilots joining dont even get to meet the CP(maybe they're better off I suppose).Rude bunch of third-raters and Ireland's worst export.

Just a little legal note.
Ryanair are threatning to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant labour acts. I don't know where they are getting their legal advice but the general consensus of opinion within the legal profession is that unconstitutionality is the defence of last resort and such a challenge could have unforseen consequences. It would seem to be a very unwise course of action to take.

;) ;) Lionel..... with half his work force working on offshore contracts with dodgy agencies therefore avoiding expensive company costs....... I dont think so mate....MOL should lay low in this respect

Remember, a few years ago, the FAA barred Frank Lorenzo from involvement in the airline industry. I can't remember what the precise circumstances were, but I believe a contributory factor was that he was - much like O'Leary - a bully with little regard for the disciplines of running an airline. Having someone like that running an airline or involved in the operational side in any way, could have a detrimental effect on safety.

Perhaps a future Irish Air Navigation Act could include a provision permitting the minister to exclude a certain individual from holding an executive or director position with an airline? Of course, I doubt this will happen; I can't see the Irish DoT having the b***s to stand up to O'Leary. They can either fire shots across his bows now - or wait for some unholy catastrophe which is traced back, to any extent, to his management style and the willingness (or lack of it) on the Irish govt's part to provide adequate oversight.

akerosid

He may be uncouth and no lover of pilots - but he provides work for scores of them who presumably could not find it elsewhere -or they would they not have left?

And as for "....with little regard for the disciplines of running an airline", surely you just have to be wrong there! If anyone shows discipline in this regard, it is him and that is what hurts you so much, I suspect.

Arkroyal: You are right, of course. It should cut both ways. In the end there has to be balance. But it looks to me like MOL is trying to redress the balance from what he considers to be way over the other side, and to do that he has to try and pull it way over to his side, going beyond the balance. (If you see what I mean!)

Personally the e15000 conversion course would not trouble me as much as the commitment to stay 5 years (assuming that actually IS a condition). If I pay for the conversion course, or part of it, I think my commitment should be commensurately reduced - maybe to 2 years. It should cut both ways here, too.

How odd that it seems to be acceptable to some that they should buy continuation of their jobs and deny themselves elements of flexibility. It is like being indentured.

If one were self employed then I could imagine that preparing oneself to undertake a contract would be accepatable practice. However, I don't believe that that should apply to employees. Nice work, if as an employer you can get away with it, but I believe that it does abrogate some of an employers responsibilities. Of course it is morally indefensible, but why should that worry MOL?

So Riverboat, you'd not only pay for the conversion but take on a bond too? You can come work for a company that I run anytime. Not only can I make money out of you working for me, I can make money out of you too!

A company decides that it is going to change it's fleet, and then gets the employees to pay for it? Is the company's business model not up to scratch? Yes, many are employed by FR but their pay is not theirs, it's a loan... it must be given back to the company in the form of retraining.

People become employees because they want job security and do not want to risk their money on setting up their own business. Others want to take the risk with the prospect of greater returns than taking a job. Here, FR employees have the pleasure of risking their money without the prospect of the returns. The return's are going into MOL's pocket.

Even when I was an unemployed pilot, I baulked at the prospect of paying for "being considered". Boy am I glad...

Cheers,

LP

I'm only a PPL but is everybody confident that the Lo Co airlines are going to last another five years? In which case what happens to the up-front payment then?

It's bullying and intimidation, plain and simple. The fact that this is taking place in the business world is irrelevant - it is unpleasant and it is unethical.

Most unions are clumsy, inefficient, and not always looking out for their members. They are also the only thing that protects people against a potentially abusive employer.

Just when you see behavior that gives trade unions a bad name, you see behavior from management that gives it an even worse name.

One could in theory justify paying for training because it gives the trainee a marketable skill that can be taken elsewhere, but how can one tie any aspect of this to membership in a trade union? That's an outrageous overreach on the part of Ryanair, IMHO

--ev--