Mass intimidation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mass intimidation
I have just seen a report to the effect that Ryanair will be operating Buzz flights as of May, following the acceptance by 90% Buzz pilots of a new contract. I would like to point out that we already had a legally binding contract and were bullied into accepting a much worse package under threat of loss of job, no redundancy, no pay in lieu of notice etc. Several people who did not accept the new contract by the deadline, which was imposed quite illegally, are expecting to be wrongfully dismissed on the 1 April, although Ryanair has invented a quaint new legal term "dismissing yourself".
The behaviour of KLMuk and Ryanair during this take-over has been disgraceful, numerous UK employment laws are being broken, I am sure that law books of the future will be filled with case studies from this take-over.
The behaviour of KLMuk and Ryanair during this take-over has been disgraceful, numerous UK employment laws are being broken, I am sure that law books of the future will be filled with case studies from this take-over.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Why ? If a company is blatently flouting the the Laws of the land, then surely they must be held to account ?
Otherwise you may as well not have any Laws and then there will be total anarchy.
Mind you that is probably not a million miles away............
Why ? If a company is blatently flouting the the Laws of the land, then surely they must be held to account ?
Otherwise you may as well not have any Laws and then there will be total anarchy.
Mind you that is probably not a million miles away............
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things might have changed in recent years but I was once told that it wasn't possible for a company to make a _person_ redundant. Only _jobs_ could be made redundant. The difference being quite important in some cases.
I know it's an unlikely example but... if you were hired to fly only one particular route and that route was still being flown by someone else in the company or a new recruit after you were made redundant, then you could argue that your job had not been made redundant and the company acted incorrectly.
On the other hand you might not get very far as most companies hire expensive consultants to make sure they get this right. I imagine that in the airline industry they just make sure individual pilots are never associated with a particular task/job in this way.
...I forgot to ask if Buzz is proffitable?
I know it's an unlikely example but... if you were hired to fly only one particular route and that route was still being flown by someone else in the company or a new recruit after you were made redundant, then you could argue that your job had not been made redundant and the company acted incorrectly.
On the other hand you might not get very far as most companies hire expensive consultants to make sure they get this right. I imagine that in the airline industry they just make sure individual pilots are never associated with a particular task/job in this way.
...I forgot to ask if Buzz is proffitable?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm one of the pilots that didn't sign the contract. As things stand at the moment, Ryanair have said my last day of employment will be 31.3.03 - which is strange, as they won't own the company until the next day. Nevertheless, if that is the case, I'll be dismissed when still an employee of KLMuk, and either get the enhanced redundancy package (no job, as no a/c), or be looking at legal action for unfair dismissal.
There is still Ryanair to look at as well, with their total disregard for English law during this episode. There is much over which they can be held to account. It may well take a long time, but it won't rest here.
There is still Ryanair to look at as well, with their total disregard for English law during this episode. There is much over which they can be held to account. It may well take a long time, but it won't rest here.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine this takeover is well covered by the UK Law concerning TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings - Protection of Employment)
Full details in the UK Government TUPE Brochure.
TUPE Regulations Guide
Go get him boys and girls !!!
Employees' position in a transfer
When an undertaking is transferred the position of the employees of the previous or new employers is as follows:
* An employee claiming to have been unfairly dismissed because of a transfer has the right to complain to an employment tribunal.
* Transferred employees who find that there has been a fundamental change for the worse in their terms and conditions of employment as a result of the transfer generally have the right to terminate their contract and claim unfair dismissal before an employment tribunal, on the grounds that actions of the employer have forced them to resign. Employees may not make this type of claim solely on the grounds that the identity of their employer has changed unless the circumstances of an individual case change and that change is significant and to the employee's detriment.
In both the above cases dismissal because of a relevant transfer will be unfair unless an employment tribunal decides that an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce was the main cause of the dismissal and that the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissal. Even if the dismissal is considered fair, employees may still be entitled to a redundancy payment
When an undertaking is transferred the position of the employees of the previous or new employers is as follows:
* An employee claiming to have been unfairly dismissed because of a transfer has the right to complain to an employment tribunal.
* Transferred employees who find that there has been a fundamental change for the worse in their terms and conditions of employment as a result of the transfer generally have the right to terminate their contract and claim unfair dismissal before an employment tribunal, on the grounds that actions of the employer have forced them to resign. Employees may not make this type of claim solely on the grounds that the identity of their employer has changed unless the circumstances of an individual case change and that change is significant and to the employee's detriment.
In both the above cases dismissal because of a relevant transfer will be unfair unless an employment tribunal decides that an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce was the main cause of the dismissal and that the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissal. Even if the dismissal is considered fair, employees may still be entitled to a redundancy payment
TUPE Regulations Guide
Go get him boys and girls !!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sceptred Isle off Europe
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't have more sympathy, but.......
TUPE suggests that you have the option to terminate and sue for unfair dismissal. That way you get months of uncertainty and expense, and suppose you win? In today's pilot market you could well win the battle and lose the war. You still have to find another job, and the small pile of cash you get from the tribunal won't last forever.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people have come to that conclusion, and decided to grit their teeth, take the O'Leary shilling, stay current, and polish their CVs. Not nice, but that way the rent gets paid, and you can invite MOL to stuff his job at a time of your choosing.
Good luck!
TUPE suggests that you have the option to terminate and sue for unfair dismissal. That way you get months of uncertainty and expense, and suppose you win? In today's pilot market you could well win the battle and lose the war. You still have to find another job, and the small pile of cash you get from the tribunal won't last forever.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people have come to that conclusion, and decided to grit their teeth, take the O'Leary shilling, stay current, and polish their CVs. Not nice, but that way the rent gets paid, and you can invite MOL to stuff his job at a time of your choosing.
Good luck!
Are you dissenting chaps absolutely certain that you will be able to prove in a court of law that "your terms and conditions have been fundamentally changed for the worse" if you turn down the Ryanair contract?
The fact that 90% of your mates have accepted the deal will not look good. I know of a recent case where one pilot took his case (breach of TUPE) all the way to the Lords with the backing and support of BALPA and lost.
If you want any advice, I would first check with BALPA to see if they are going to back you in the light of their recent and rather expensive TUPE exercise.
The fact that 90% of your mates have accepted the deal will not look good. I know of a recent case where one pilot took his case (breach of TUPE) all the way to the Lords with the backing and support of BALPA and lost.
If you want any advice, I would first check with BALPA to see if they are going to back you in the light of their recent and rather expensive TUPE exercise.
Last edited by JW411; 18th Mar 2003 at 18:36.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herod,
I sympathise completely with the situation you and your colleagues are in, however, would caution you that progress through the legal system is slow and costly. You have to be prepared for a 2 to 3 year slog.
I wish you luck my friend.
I sympathise completely with the situation you and your colleagues are in, however, would caution you that progress through the legal system is slow and costly. You have to be prepared for a 2 to 3 year slog.
I wish you luck my friend.
