We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

High Court

Trade union Forsa contests Ryanair's bid to stop planned strike action

Forsa claims that the airline’s response to its detailed pay proposals “was curt and dismissive”.

THE TRADE UNION representing Ryanair’s Irish based pilots has told the High Court that the airline is not entitled to an injunction preventing its members from going on strike later this week.

Forsa told the court that it is involved in a trade dispute relating to pay with Ryanair, which it says has failed to agree or engage with proposals it made last March.

Forsa claims that the airline’s response to its detailed pay proposals “was curt and dismissive”.

While it regrets any negative consequences the industrial action will have on Ryanair’s customers, they claim the proposed strike has been caused by Ryanair’s treatment of a legitimate pay proposal.

In its action Ryanair DAC seeks orders against Forsa, which is the parent union of IALPA, preventing the union’s members from striking for 48 hours commencing on midnight on August 22nd next.

The airline’s action is also against a number of pilots who are members of IALPA, including that union’s president Mr Evan Cullen.

IALPA represents approximately 180 Dublin-based pilots who are directly employed by Ryanair, and recently balloted its members who voted to go on strike.

If granted the injunction would remain in place pending the final outcome of the airline’s action against the defendants.

The airline, represented in court by Martin Hayden SC and Eoin O’Shea Bl, is also seeking a declaration from the court that Forsa’s ballot for the proposed strike action and its notice of strike action served on Ryanair last week was unlawful.

The airline claims that the proposed strike breaches an agreement the parties agreed to, following a mediation conducted by retired Workplace Relations Commission Chair Mr Kieran Mulvey, in 2018.

The airline also claims that the dates of the industrial action were chosen to cause maximum disruption to its business and coincide with strike action being taken on the same dates by Ryanair’s UK-based pilots.

The airline also claims that there is no trade dispute, nor any valid complaint about the pilot’s terms and conditions of employment, between the parties.

Ryanair claims no detailed pay proposals have been put to it by Forsa in advance of the ballot or the time the strike notice was served on the airline.

Ryanair also alleged that the strike ballot is invalid because not all relevant members of the union who are directly employed by Ryanair were balloted.

The airline further claims that the union and its members are not entitled to the benefits of the 1990 Industrial Relations Acts.

The claims are denied.

Marguerite Bolger SC, appearing with Jason Murray Bl for the defendants oppose the application.

Forsa’s position is that the 2018 agreement only concerns issues that arose between Ryanair and the union members in July and August of 2018, and has nothing to do with the current dispute.

The 2018 agreement was not about pay or pay increases, the union says, and had to do with specific issues including pilots grades, annual leave and base transfers.

In a sworn statement to the court, Forsa’s assistant general secretary, Angela Kirk said the union is involved in a trade dispute with Ryanair.

It was a fundamental role of any trade union to seek the best possible deal for its members and that is exactly what Forsa/Ialpa have sought to do.

She said the union had not engaged in any inappropriate behaviour as alleged by the airline.

The airline’s comments in those regards she said were part of a pattern of behaviour by Ryanair to make “broad sweeping criticisms of anyone who seeks to assert employment rights in a manner that is not in keeping with Ryanair’s views of their employees entitlements.”

Ms Kirk said Ryanair had claimed that the union was adopting a belligerent approach to engender conflict and dispute” aimed at causing “maximum damage” to the airline, and that “the old IALPA urge to attack and damage” Ryanair “is likely to emerge as it so often has in the past”.

The union has done this in a responsible and appropriate manner and it was unfortunate that their attempts to get a good deal for its members had been met by “groundless allegations and hysterical criticisms” by Rayanir, she said.

She also said that there is “no basis whatsoever” to Ryanair’s “outrageous, false and misleading allegations of shortcomings by Forsa around the conduct of the secret ballot”.

The injunction application is before Mr Justice Denis McDonald. The application resumes tomorrow when both sides are expected to finish their submissions.

The judge said that he hopes to have a decision in the case by Wednesday morning, but said that he may be in a position to deliver his ruling on Tuesday afternoon.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Aodhan O'Faolain & Ray Managh