Ryanair

Ryanair was found to have unlawfully used a prohibited blacklist after identifying UK pilots who participated in lawful industrial action and withdrawing their staff travel benefits for 12 months. The dispute involved Ryanair pilots represented by the British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA), a recognized trade union representing Ryanair pilots in the United Kingdom. In August 2019, BALPA notified Ryanair of planned strike action. Ryanair attempted to obtain an injunction preventing the strikes, but the High Court refused the application. On 16 September 2019, Ryanair informed its UK-based pilots that anyone participating in strike action that month would lose their discretionary staff travel privileges for 12 months. UK Supreme Court – Morais and others v Ryanair DAC: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0027 The pilots subsequently participated in strike action on 18 and/or 19 September 2019. Ryanair kept records identifying pilots who were absent from their rostered duties because they participated in the strike. It then used those records to identify the pilots whose travel privileges would be withdrawn. The sanctions were substantial. Affected pilots lost access to Ryanair's staff travel booking system, existing concessionary travel bookings were cancelled, and they were prohibited from using staff travel privileges for approximately one year. Ryanair also warned affected pilots that attempting to use the withdrawn travel privileges could constitute a serious disciplinary matter potentially resulting in sanctions up to and including dismissal. The pilots brought proceedings against Ryanair, arguing that the company had subjected them to detrimental treatment because they participated in trade-union activities and that Ryanair's record identifying strike participants constituted a prohibited blacklist under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Morais & Others v Ryanair: https://www.judiciary.uk/live-hearings/morais-ors-respondents-v-ryanair-dac-appellant/ The litigation ultimately focused on an important question of UK employment law: whether participating in industrial action constituted taking part in the activities of a trade union for purposes of the Blacklisting Regulations. The Employment Tribunal found for the pilots on the Blacklisting Regulations issue. Ryanair appealed, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal also found for the pilots. Ryanair subsequently took the dispute to the Court of Appeal, which again ruled in favor of the pilots on the blacklisting issue. The courts concluded that participation in industrial action could constitute participation in trade-union activities for purposes of the Blacklisting Regulations. Ryanair's record of pilots participating in the strike and its subsequent use of that information to remove their travel benefits therefore fell within the statutory protections against blacklisting. The Court of Appeal judgment explains that the affected pilots were Ryanair employees and BALPA members and that Ryanair had recognized BALPA for collective bargaining concerning matters including pay, hours and holidays. Ryanair's own employment arrangements provided employees with concessionary travel benefits. After the September 2019 strike, those privileges were removed from participating pilots for approximately one year. Court of Appeal judgment – Ryanair DAC v Morais: https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2021005130/2025ewcaciv19_TNA/html Ryanair continued challenging the finding and sought permission to take the case to the UK Supreme Court. On 4 June 2025, Supreme Court justices Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen and Lady Simler refused Ryanair permission to appeal. The Supreme Court stated that Ryanair's application “does not raise an arguable point of law.” The refusal left intact the lower-court determination in favor of the pilots on the Blacklisting Regulations issue. UK Supreme Court – permission to appeal decision: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0027 Company position: Ryanair contested the pilots' claims through multiple levels of the UK court system. A central part of its legal challenge concerned whether participation in industrial action legally constituted participation in trade-union activities for purposes of the Blacklisting Regulations. Ryanair ultimately sought Supreme Court review of the adverse interpretation, but permission to appeal was refused. The litigation also originally included a separate claim under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Following the UK Supreme Court's decision in a different case, Mercer v Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the parties agreed to dismiss that particular issue. This did not eliminate the pilots' successful Blacklisting Regulations claim, which remained the subject of Ryanair's unsuccessful attempt to obtain Supreme Court review. Key facts: BALPA announced industrial action involving Ryanair pilots in 2019; Ryanair warned UK pilots that participating in the September strike would result in withdrawal of staff travel privileges for 12 months; pilots participated in strikes on 18 and/or 19 September 2019; Ryanair recorded which pilots participated; those records were used to determine whose travel privileges would be withdrawn; affected pilots had existing bookings cancelled and access to staff travel suspended; Ryanair warned that attempts to circumvent the restriction could lead to disciplinary action up to dismissal; the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal found for the pilots on the Blacklisting Regulations issue; and on 4 June 2025, the UK Supreme Court refused Ryanair permission to appeal because the application did not raise an arguable point of law. The case is significant because Ryanair did not merely express opposition to a strike. It identified employees who participated in industrial action and then used that information to impose a year-long employment-related disadvantage on those workers. The resulting litigation established that the conduct fell within UK protections against prohibited trade-union blacklisting. It provides a second, independently documented worker-rights case against Ryanair, separate from the Spanish litigation concerning cabin crew and strike rights.

Spain's Supreme Court confirmed in November 2025 that Ryanair violated the fundamental rights to strike and trade-union freedom of cabin crew during industrial action in Spain in 2022 and 2023. The case arose after negotiations over working conditions and a collective agreement broke down between Ryanair and the Spanish unions USO (Unión Sindical Obrera) and SITCPLA (Sindicato Independiente de Tripulantes de Cabina de Pasajeros). Cabin crew subsequently organized several periods of industrial action. Strikes took place in June and July 2022, followed by an extended strike period running from August 8, 2022 to January 7, 2023. Coverage of the Spanish Supreme Court judgment: https://cincodias.elpais.com/companias/2025-12-01/el-supremo-ratifica-la-sentencia-contra-ryanair-por-vulneracion-de-derecho-a-huelga-en-2022-y-2023.html The litigation concerned multiple actions by Ryanair during the strikes that Spanish courts found interfered with employees' fundamental labor rights. According to the judgment, Ryanair changed assignments for legally required minimum-service flights without sufficient advance notice, including changes made during strike days themselves. The unions argued that this allowed Ryanair to compel employees to operate flights beyond the manner contemplated by the minimum-service arrangements. Ryanair also contacted employees through their personal telephones, including during rest periods, directing them to report for minimum-service assignments. The courts additionally found that Ryanair failed to provide the strike committee with information concerning scheduled and protected flights and the employees assigned to those services. Another particularly serious part of the dispute involved disciplinary proceedings against striking employees. More than 200 disciplinary proceedings were opened against workers who allegedly failed to report for minimum-service assignments. According to the case record reported in the judgment, more than 50 workers were dismissed. A number of those dismissal disputes were subsequently resolved through conciliation in which Ryanair recognized that the dismissals were improper, while other dismissals were declared null by courts. The unions argued that the disciplinary measures had a deterrent effect designed to discourage employees from participating in the industrial action. Spain's National Court ruled against Ryanair in December 2024, finding multiple violations of the fundamental rights to strike and trade-union freedom. Ryanair appealed. On November 12, 2025, the Social Chamber of Spain's Supreme Court rejected Ryanair's appeal and upheld the National Court's findings. The Supreme Court said the lower court had established an extensive factual record identifying multiple violations of the fundamental rights involved. Ryanair was ordered to pay a combined €187,515 in compensation for moral damages to USO and SITCPLA. Earlier Spanish Supreme Court precedent involving Ryanair: https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/en/Judiciary/Supreme-Court/Pressroom/Press-Archive/El-Tribunal-Supremo-confirma-que-Ryanair-vulnero-el-derecho-a-la-huelga-de-los-trabajadores-en-2019-y-condena-a-la-aerolinea-a-pagar-30-000-euros-a-dos-sindicatos The 2025 judgment is especially significant because it was not the first time Spain's Supreme Court had confirmed that Ryanair violated workers' strike and trade-union rights. In April 2023, the Supreme Court rejected appeals by Ryanair DAC, Crewlink Ireland Ltd and Workforce Contractors Ltd concerning separate Ryanair cabin-crew strikes held on ten days during September 2019. In that earlier case, the Supreme Court confirmed a National Court judgment finding violations of employees' right to strike and the unions' right to freedom of association. The companies were ordered to pay €30,000 to each of the two unions for moral damages and restore affected workers' monthly productivity bonuses, subject only to a €5 deduction for each strike day. Company position: Ryanair challenged the findings in the 2022–2023 case and appealed the National Court judgment to Spain's Supreme Court. Among its arguments, Ryanair contended that the unions themselves had encouraged workers not to comply with minimum-service requirements during online meetings held during the strikes. Ryanair submitted recordings of union meetings in support of its position. The Supreme Court did not accept this evidence. According to reporting on the judgment, the court noted that although the meetings were held openly, they were directed at Ryanair employees and the company had entered the meetings without being invited. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Ryanair's appeal and left the finding of fundamental-rights violations in place. Key facts: The dispute involved Ryanair cabin-crew strikes during 2022 and 2023; Spanish courts found violations of workers' fundamental right to strike and trade-union freedom; conduct identified by the courts included changes to minimum-service assignments, failure to provide information to the strike committee and disciplinary proceedings against participating employees; more than 200 disciplinary proceedings were opened and more than 50 employees were reportedly dismissed during the dispute; some dismissals were subsequently recognized as improper or declared null; Spain's National Court ruled against Ryanair in 2024; the Spanish Supreme Court rejected Ryanair's appeal on November 12, 2025; and Ryanair was ordered to pay €187,515 to USO and SITCPLA for moral damages. The case is particularly significant because the final ruling concerned fundamental worker rights rather than an ordinary disagreement over wages or employment contracts. Spain's Supreme Court confirmed that Ryanair's conduct during the industrial action violated employees' right to strike and the unions' freedom of association. It also represents a repeated pattern: Spain's Supreme Court had already confirmed violations of the same fundamental labor rights by Ryanair arising from a separate series of strikes in 2019.