Ryanair today won an appeal against a judgment that gave the Labour Court the right to investigate a row between the airline and its pilots.
The Supreme Court quashed the decision by the Labour Court that it could intervene in an industrial dispute within the carrier.
Ryanair had appealed against a High Court ruling that there was a trade dispute between the company and the trade union Impact - which represents the Irish Airline Pilots' Association - and that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to investigate the dispute.
The case involves the retraining of pilots on a new fleet of aircraft, which the pilots had to pay €15,000 for.
The five-judge Supreme Court ruled that procedures followed in the Labour Court were incorrect but ordered that the dispute be returned to the Labour Court for a rehearing to decide if it has the jurisdiction to take on the industrial dispute.
Impact said the judgment was a temporary setback that did nothing for the disastrous relationship between Ryanair and its pilots. The airline welcomed the decision.
The judgment could have massive ramifications on industrial relation disputes in big companies who have not recognised trade union representation.
In his report, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said the Labour Court decided against Ryanair to a large extent due to omissions in Ryanair's documentation, and as a result of a view put forward by the union that Ryanair's employee representative committee was a consultative body only.
He said there was an unfortunate reluctance on the part of Ryanair to engage in the real issues. "Continual propaganda in correspondence as to how excellent the company is rather than taking up the issues point by point was not helpful to anybody," he added.
The dispute began in summer 2004 when Ryanair began the conversion of its Dublin fleet. This involved retraining for some 90 pilots, who were told they could either pay €15,000 for the training or sign a bond abandoning their entitlement to raise matters with the Labour Court.
The proposed investigation was conducted under the legislative regime enacted under sections of the 2001 and 2004 Industrial Relations Acts which, Ryanair claimed, was being used by pilots to achieve compulsory trade union recognition through the back door.
The Labour Court previously found that a trade dispute existed, however Ryanair argued it had traditionally operated non-union recognition and had an employee representative committee where matters were resolved.
Ryanair challenged the Labour Court's decision on grounds of unfair procedure and on grounds of irrationality.
The court hearing concerned just one count taken on behalf of all pilots in Ryanair, but Impact claims it has received over 250 complaints of victimisation submitted under the same legislation, which will be dealt with at a later stage.
Outside the Four Courts, Michael Landers, assistant general security at Impact, said the union was confident of getting a finding in their favour from the Labour Court.
He said Ryanair's strategy was to frustrate applications by engaging in delay tactics.