Ryanair Dac v Mr B Morais and 28 Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 18 November 2021 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Ryanair v Morais & Others
Page 1 EA-2021-000275-DA
© EAT 2021
Case No: EA-2021-000275
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 18 November 2021
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
RYANAIR DAC Appellant
- and -
MR B MORAIS AND OTHERS Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr P Gott QC and Miss J Clement (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) for the
Appellant
Mr B Carr QC and Mr S Brittenden (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 September 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Ryanair v Morais & Others
Page 2 EA-2021-000275-DA
© EAT 2021
SUMMARY
TRADE UNION RIGHTS
The claimants in the employment tribunal are airline pilots employed by the respondent and based in
Great Britain. They are members of the trade union BALPA. They all participated in a strike called
by BALPA. Because of that the respondent withdrew concessionary travel benefits from them for a
year. They complained that they had been subjected to detrimental treatment contrary to (a) section
146 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and (b) regulation 9
Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010.
In a decision arising from a preliminary hearing the tribunal decided that, in taking strike action the
claimants were taking part in the activities of trade unions or trade union activities within the meaning
of regulation 3 of the 2010 Regulations. It did not err in so finding. The words in their ordinary
meaning embraced participation in industrial action, and nothing in the 2010 Regulations, the parent
statute, or the 1992 Act pointed to a different conclusion. The tribunal also did not err in concluding
that the fact that certain actions related to the withdrawal of the benefits were taken in Dublin did not
mean that the claimants did not have a cause of action under regulation 9.
In light of the wording of section 146 as read down by the EAT in Mercer v Alternative Future Group
Limited [2021] IRLR 620, the tribunal’s conclusion that, in taking part in the strike, the claimants
were taking part in trade union activities for the purposes of section 146, was also correct.
In light of that read-down wording, it was, however, wrong to conclude that the outcome, in respect
of section 146 and the 2010 Regulations, depended on the strike being action to which section 219
of the 1992 Act applied. But it was right in any event to conclude that, in light of the outcome of
High Court litigation against BALPA in which that was at issue, it was not open to the respondent to
run the point as a defence to the tribunal claims, as that would amount to an abuse of process.
To continue reading
Request your trial