top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Ryanair industrial action


Detriment on trade union grounds

Case Ryanair DAC v Morais and others EA-2021-000275-DA

Facts Ryanair pilots who belonged to the BALPA trade union took part in a strike. As a result of this, they had concessionary travel benefits withdrawn from them for a year. They complained that this had been an unlawful detriment for the purposes of section 146 of TUL(C) Act 1992. The ET upheld the complaint. It found that the pilots had taken part in a trade union activity. Ryanair appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The meaning of “trade union activities” covered participation in industrial action.

3. The protection provided by section 146 applied not only to those participating in protected industrial action, which is action which is lawfully organised by a union and complaint with balloting requirements, but also to those participating in any form of union endorsed or authorised industrial action.

15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Crown immunity and the rule of law (3)

Civil proceedings Until 1948 the Crown could not be made a party to a civil action. This was an offshoot of the principle of sovereign immunity. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 changed this rule. The C

Crown immunity and the rule of law (2)

Recent examples In June 2018 prison officers were taking part in a petrol bomb training exercise. This was part of an eight-day commanders course at the National Tactical Response Group training facil


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page