'Bizzare' Ryanair Employment Ruling

padser

From RTE

Ryanair has described as bizarre an order by the Employment Appeals Tribunal that a cabin crew member accused of falling asleep and breaching safety procedures during a flight should be reinstated.

The airline said it would examine the ruling before deciding on an appeal.

The tribunal ruled that Vanessa Redmond was unfairly dismissed.

Advertisement


However, it described her breaches of procedures as serious matters warranting disciplinary sanction.

Ms Redmond had been dismissed following an allegation she blocked off seats on a plane flying from Dublin to Durham in May 2005 and fell asleep while reading a book.

The EAT has ordered Ryanair to re-hire Ms Redmond within the next five weeks.

She had admitted blocking off the seats, but other Ryanair staff gave evidence that this was the norm.

The tribunal said that evidence that Ms Redmond was sleeping may at a stretch fall short of proving conclusively that she was asleep.

However, the EAT said that it remained uncontroverted by evidence that she had failed to carry out security duties. It called these serious matters warranting disciplinary sanction.

But the EAT found that Ryanair's disciplinary process had shortcomings and that she had been denied fair procedure and natural and constitutional justice.

This rendered her dismissal unfair.

Both sides had argued that financial compensation would be the appropriate remedy.



Seems like a bizzare ruling is right. Goes against lots of established principles [specific performance is almost never granted in personal service contracts - and never granted in employment contracts] and was contested by both sides.

I'd be concerned about Irish employment law going down this route, and it re enforces my belief the that EAT is an absolute joke of a body run by incompetant individuals with little or no legal expertise and certainly no common sense.

On a practical note the ruling wouldnt work, if Ryanair dont want her, and she doesnt want to work for Ryanair then presumably Ryanair will offer her a severance package (IE Damages) and she will accept it (probably after negotiation). So on a practical level the EAT are giving up the jurisdiction that they have to set the amount of the damages. Where previously they could dictate not only whether damages would be awarded but how much, in practice, this way they only get to dicatate whether or not damages are awarded.

hullaballoo

I've absolutely no interest in employment law, but what has it got to do with SP? I haven't covered it recently, but I don't see where SP was/could have been granted/where it applies in this case.

padser

hullaballoo wrote:

I've absolutely no interest in employment law, but what has it got to do with SP? I haven't covered it recently, but I don't see where SP was/could have been granted/where it applies in this case.

Well by ordering re engagement/re instatement they are effectly ordering the performance of a contract. Thus it is covered by many of the same maxims and caviats that govern specific performance/equity in general.

The court is saying the contract was breeched through unfair dismissal, and rather then allowing one party to treat it as repudiated and award damages, it is instead granting [or in this case imposing] SP.

For example it is generally accepted that you dont make parties who have fallen out work together. Equity doesnt do anything in vain, in this case ordering the contract be performed is likely to be in vain, if as is reported neither side want to perform it.

hullaballoo

Is SP really the remedy they use in these cases? Surely there's a separate statutory remedy. As I said, I've no interest in employment law, and I've never studied it, but it would seem inappropriate to have such a fundamental aspect of employment law as unfair dismissal hinging on a remedy like specific performance.

Especially since you rightly said SP is never granted in employment contracts.

padser

No your correct, there are remedies specified under the (I think, I dont have time to google) unfair dismissals acts 1977 -1990 (or 2001) such as damages, re engagement, re instatement.

So I guess I should clarify, that the EAT is within its statutary authority to make such an order.

However these have always been applied having regard to equitable doctrines and rules. The reason for this, as I remember is that these statutory remedies have their origins in equity. Thus in 99.99% of cases its always been damages awarded.

AFAIK there there has never been a re instatement order made by the EAT and (including this Ryanair order) there have only been 3 re engagement orderes. This would be the first one in a case where neither party wanted re engagement, and as such would represent a major departure, and the first departure from the equitable principles that it has heretofore respected.

Also on the facts of this case, I dont think it could be argued that they are exeptional facts given that the EAT conceeds the employee was at fault [hence re engagement rather then reinstatement - an additional 5 week penalty also imposed] and neither employee or employer wants to be forced back into the relationship.