The High Court has dismissed Ryanair Limited’s application to strike out proceedings brought by the Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union and 63 pilots employed by the airline. The court did not decide whether the union or pilots’ claims were established; it held that the claims could not be said to be bound to fail at this stage.
In a judgment delivered on 6 April 2006, Miss Justice Laffoy considered allegations arising from Ryanair’s approach to collective bargaining. The plaintiffs pleaded that the union invited the airline in November 2004 to negotiate on matters including pilots’ transfer between Boeing 737 aircraft types and related training, but that Ryanair declined.
They further alleged that Ryanair later offered pilots conversion training, at a stated cost of €15,000 to the airline, while warning that failure to accept within a specified period could result in dismissal on redundancy grounds. The pleadings said some offers also required pilots to repay the training cost if Ryanair was compelled to engage in collective bargaining within five years, or to confirm that claims under the Industrial Relations Act 2004 had been withdrawn. Ryanair disputed aspects of the plaintiffs’ description of the letters.
The plaintiffs alleged breaches of constitutional and Convention rights, as well as conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract and other economic torts. They sought declarations, an injunction and damages. Their central argument relied on the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Wilson v United Kingdom and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The union accepted that the Constitution did not require Ryanair to negotiate through it, but argued that the claims concerned alleged inducements or penalties intended to deter employees from using union representation.
Ryanair argued that the claims disclosed no legal right against it and were unsustainable, including because the Convention placed relevant obligations on the State. It also argued that the union lacked standing and that the proceedings duplicated other claims being pursued through the Labour Court and Labour Relations Commission.
Justice Laffoy said the case raised novel and difficult questions about the effect of Convention obligations and recent changes in domestic law. Those issues should not be finally determined on an application to strike out proceedings, which is reserved for clear cases. She also found it could not be said with certainty that the union lacked standing, and concluded that pursuing this case alongside the other claims did not amount to an abuse of process.
The court dismissed Ryanair’s application. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claims or grant the substantive declarations, injunction or damages sought by the plaintiffs.