In Dutch law, when to be discharged, the employer would have to get permission from the social security office, making it plausible they discharge them because of economic reasons. They also have to present a decent plan to help those discharged get other jobs, keep them in the company, etc. This has to comply with Dutch law.

In this case, this seems difficult and if permission is not granted, ryanair has to go to court. The judges might not be favourable to ryanair, judging from the last courtcase and while they might make it possible for ryanair to discharge the pilots, they then have to pay a significant som, probably as much as that 250.000, but maybe more.

It is usually around (nr of years in service) x (monthly gross salary), so a few months... not getting close to 250000..

(again, hope I will be proven wrong!)

From what I've read the pilots are not being fired, they are being offered to change base and remain employed or leave the company. The internal memo which was attached to a previous post seems to show this is the move the company are taking. I worked a few years ago for a European wide company in the automotive industry which closed a branch in the UK and to avoid firing employees they offered to change department or leave. Nobody in that case was paid any form of compensation as it was seen as an attempt by the company to keep everyone employed. This looks awfully similar to that. Unfortunately it looks like all possible outcomes here are going to be very bad for the pilots involved.

Did Ryanair make any agreements with the Dutch pilot union like other countries? I have heard some unions around Europe have come to the negotiating table with long lists of demands on pay and benefits as apposed to laying the foundations for a viable long term strategy to stop base closures & undesired base changes etc. If this is the case that seems more like a strategy to cause problems for Ryanair with strikes etc rather than look out for the wellbeing of the crew they are supposed to be negotiating for.

Ryanair pilots are deprived of those things already. I was pointing to the fact that you need to build a solid foundation before you can build something. I work for a more 'reputable airline' and although we do have sick pay etc we do not have LOL insurance.

If the unions had taken the longer term goals into consideration why not demand local permanent contracts for crew first? That would then have immediately allowed access to basic benefits such as sick pay and maternity/paternity leave under local legislation (I'm sure in a country like Holland the local laws would stipulate very favorable benefits to the employees). Things like summer leave and loss of license insurance take a very long time to negotiate and can be dragged out for an even longer time by management, in the meantime at least you would have had your base covered by a local contract subject to local law and collective work agreement.

We all know the usual argument of ask for everything and hope to get as much as possible, but in reality the more you ask for the more of a hard line the company will take. Asking firstly for job security through local contracts may possibly have been quite an easy win, especially when FR were short on crew! Leave the big fight for summer leave, LOL, pensions etc. until the next argument where at least your job in a specific base is secure, at least then the threat of closing a base or firing staff is nullified by the previous agreement.

In Dutch law, if you want to lay somebody off, you will have to prove it is because of 1 of 8 possible grounds.

The only ground that Ryanair can use in this case is the a-ground. For this, they have to prove that they are firing those employees due to economic reasons.

In the verdict on the first of November, the judge has already stated that the base closure is not a proven result of economic reason, but suspectibly done because of the strikes. He sees the closure as a misuse of power.
He has ruled the pilots will have to stay based in Eindhoven, get their salary, and maintain their currency.

So, if Ryanair decides to start a redundancy case to lay the pilots off, they will have to go to Dutch court again and prove the a-ground. Which, in the light of the 1 November verdict, is never going succeed.

Think we can nearly all agree the pilots and cabin crew in Ryanair should get much better contracts. I also think we can all agree Ryanair are the masters of the numbers game, there is always an exploit. I'll believe the situation only when the highest court in Holland rules in favour of keeping the base open.

Isn't it an economic case that they could earn more money elsewhere? I have no trust for that company, that is why im so pessimistic!

Could you possibly list or link to the 8 grounds as I haven't been able to find them online? The use of the word "firing" is confusing the issue here even if you genuinely believe they are being fired ("dismissed")

In researching more info on the NL laws it is necessary to find definitive rules that distinguish between "dismissal" of an employee and "redundancy" brought about by a company deciding to close its business.

This link is a summary of the redundancy payments situation in NL:

Redundancy payments in the Netherlands Netherlands Law Firm LVH Advocaten

On the face of it, it would be a ludicrous law that dictates that if an International company opens a branch in a NL town and then decides at some future point that it was not a good business decision to do so and wishes to close down it is obliged to comply with a law that says "the employees will have to stay based in the NL town and get their salary".

I couldn't find any law that states that and it is very hard to see how a higher court would agree with that decision.

During research I came across this Dutch case from earlier this year in which Ryanair's "dismissal" of an employee in Eindhoven was upheld in the courts. In this case Irish Law appears to have prevailed and the employee got no compensation.

https://www.lvh-advocaten.nl/en/the-...ons-is-upheld/

I certainly hope so, or that they at least think twice about how to run the company.
It really isn't that difficult, as long as you play nb the Dutch law. There are countless foreign companies in the Netherlands, but usually they are not as..... abrasive as ryanair.

Thanks SigWit, that was some read (after translation :)) and a lot to take in. Well worth it, though.

As people have said, it was, undoubtedly, as one-sided a judgment as I've possibly ever seen.

Trying to maintain a balance and bearing in mind that the strikes were, allegedly, the cause of the closure of the base, I couldn't find any mention of the judge requesting any details as to what the strikes were about. In my view this would have a considerable bearing in order to make a judgment on whether the pilots' demands were reasonable or not in the first place especially with future strikes promised if not conceded. Is that information in the public domain, i.e. the pilots' demands?

There was mention that one of the claimants was withdrawing his claim to which Ryanair agreed. It would be interesting to know why one decided to withdraw.

The judge ruled that ánd a previous threat to fire those who would strike ánd a lack of proof from ryanair that closure was indeed out of economics instead of revenge, was sufficient to indicate the real reason behind the closure.

If it was anything other than revenge, ryanair could and would have had an easy time proving it, but they didn't/couldn't.

And without a valide economic reason, Dutch law stipulates the forced transfer was illegal.

Firstly, something to keep in mind is the fact that workers have a lot of rights in the Netherlands. That may be the reason that some of the rulings may sound strange to foreigners.

One of the rights is the right to strike. For a judge the reason doesn't really matter, if a strike is a legal one the striking employees may not face ANY negative consequences.
(other then not getting paid for the days that they where striking). In this case no judge forbid the strike, so it is a legal one and whatever the demands were, it may not have negative consequences.

Big issue is also the fact that this is civil right. Unlike criminal law, it is way more lenient with proof. For example: The pilots claimed that the closure is due to the strikes. Ryanair claims it is due to economic reason but fails to prove so. Thus the judge rules that the closure is due to the strike (also based on letters send earlier by Ryanair stating that they will close the base if strikes occur, not so smart).

This is actually how the law works in The Netherlands, with a lot of protection for the workers, not so much for the companies. We will have to wait and see what happens when Ryanair declares those pilots redundant and goes to court. Your guess is as good as mine in that respect :)

They sure do :).

The right to strike exists in many countries but I don't know of any other country that accepts a situation that employees can strike for virtually anything, no matter how unreasonable and be protected to such an extent that they can't lose, no matter what.

It has been an interesting and very enlightening discussion and thanks to those, especially fox niner and SigWit, who contributed positively.

I look forward to seeing how it goes from here on. (I also look forward to seeing the next Johan Cruyff someday soon :))

If you, as an employer, believe the upcoming strike is unwarranted, you can easily go to court and ask a judge to decide if the strike has sufficient cause.
And more often than not strikes are either forbidden of limited after a ruling.
Besides that, striking is relative uncommon in the Netherlands, since trying to talk eachother into a compromise is the preferred option (polderen).

Nowadays a lot of employers decide not to talk and a strike is the logical result.