A Ryanair pilot will next week apply to the High Court for an order for the committal to prison of the company's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, and its head of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien, for alleged contempt of a court order.
John Goss claimed that in purporting to suspend him on Tuesday last, the Ryanair defendants were in contempt of a High Court order of February 28th which restrained the airline from conducting a disciplinary meeting with Mr Goss pending the outcome of legal proceedings initiated by him last month.
Mr Goss said he believed the real reason for his suspension was to subject him to further bullying, harassment and intimidation. It was also meant to send out a message to other Ryanair pilots that anyone who challenged the company or attempted to enforce their lawful rights as employees, as he had done, would be made to suffer by the company and may have their employment put in jeopardy.
Mr Goss said his purported suspension would have devastating effects on him and his ability to work as a professional pilot into the future.
Mr Goss, Yellow Walls Road, Malahide, Co Dublin, was yesterday given permission to serve notice on Ryanair Ltd of his intention to seek an order next week for the committal of the company's servants or agents, in particular Mr O'Leary and Mr O'Brien.
Leave was also given to Mr Goss to serve notice of his intention to seek an order rescinding his purported suspension of April 12th last.
The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, returned the proceedings to court on Tuesday next. Yesterday's application was made in the absence of Ryanair.
Mr Goss in an affidavit said an order was made by the High Court on February 28th last restraining the company from holding a disciplinary meeting with the plaintiff pending the trial of the action between the parties. The trial date has been fixed for May 31st.
Mr Goss said when the application was made for a hearing date, the company indicated that his suspension was being considered. He was very concerned and instructed his solicitor to write to the company's solicitors about his concern.
Mr Goss said his solicitor had made clear the significant implications which a suspension would have for his position as a pilot and potentially for his ability to work as a pilot into the future. As a pilot, he was obliged to renew his flying licence every six months and to do so, he must be flying at that time.
Any suspension for a period of more than six months could have serious consequences for the renewal of his licence and therefore his ability to earn a livelihood.
At approximately 6.30pm on Wednesday evening last, he had received a letter from the company dated April 12th, 2005. It had been left in the letter box and the word "courier" was marked on the envelope.
Mr Goss said the letter told him of the company's decision to suspend him from his position, on full pay, until the legal proceedings and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings had ended. The company seemed to suggest in the letter that he had delayed legal proceedings and this was untrue.
In the course of the interlocutory injunction before the court, Mr Goss said, he had through his legal advisers made it clear at all times that he was anxious to obtain an early date for hearing.