Ryanair is planning to pursue the Labour Court and Impact, a trade union representing many of its Dublin-based pilots, to recoup its costs following the Supreme Court's decision to rule in its favour on the "trade dispute" between the parties.
Costs for both sides are estimated to be more than €500,000 following two years of legal wrangling that involved hearings in the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Labour Court should rehear the case, a move described as a "fudge" by trade union sources. By contrast, the airline was claiming a complete victory in the case following yesterday's unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court judges.
Eddie Wilson, Ryanair's director of personnel, said: "We are very happy with the judgment and believe it vindicates our stance on this matter. This legislation was never intended to cover companies like Ryanair."
Pilots, however, have vowed to continue to pursue the case. The Labour Court is expected to rehear the case within the next eight weeks. The Supreme Court found that the procedures used by the Labour Court to decide if it had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute were flawed.
Justice Hugh Geoghegan said that the Labour Court was not entitled to disbelieve Ryanair management that appropriate collective bargaining procedures were in place at the airline when it had heard no evidence directly from pilots.
An amendment three years ago to the Industrial Relations Act 2001 gave workers in non-unionised companies recourse to the Labour Court in disputes.
In order to rule, however, the Labour Court must satisfy itself that a trade dispute was involved; that there was no collective bargaining mechanism existing within a company; and that there were not proper dispute resolution procedures.
On foot of the Supreme Court's ruling, Ryanair is thought to believe that the Labour Court will be unable to establish that no collective bargaining mechanism is in place at the airline.
Michael O'Leary has already vowed to test the constitutionality of the legislation if required, a move that would delay the final outcome in this case yet further.
