Blacklisting – Morais & others v Ryanair DAC – Court of Appeal decision
The claimants are Ryanair pilots who are members of the British Air Line Pilots’ Association (BALPA).
In August/September 2019, BALPA notified Ryanair of planned strike dates. Ryanair attempted to stop BALPA from organising the strikes by seeking a temporary court order, but this attempt was unsuccessful. Ryanair did not appeal the decision.
On 16 September 2019, Ryanair issued a memo warning that any pilot participating in further strikes in September would lose their staff travel privileges for 12 months. On 19 September 2019, Ryanair sent a letter to pilots who had participated in strikes on 18 and/or 19 September, confirming their travel privileges had been revoked for a year.
On 6 January 2020, the claimants filed claims in an employment tribunal (ET), arguing that the removal of their travel benefits was unfair. They claimed this violated their rights under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), or that Ryanair had created a list of pilots involved in the strike action, which could be considered blacklisting under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 (Blacklisting Regulations).
ET decision
The ET ruled that the claimants were engaged in trade union activities when they went on strike and that Ryanair’s actions amounted to blacklisting. The ET also noted that, after the High Court dismissed Ryanair’s case against BALPA, Ryanair could not argue again about the legality of the strike ballot. The tribunal found Ryanair’s action to be a form of blacklisting and violated the Blacklisting Regulations.
EAT decision
Ryanair appealed the ET’s decision to the EAT. The EAT ruled that, based on the recent Mercer case, the claim for any remedy under TULRCA was not valid, because the law did not provide protection from detriment short of dismissal. The EAT agreed that the claimants were participating in trade union activities, and it would be an abuse of process for Ryanair to challenge the lawfulness of the ballot again. Ryanair’s appeal was dismissed.
Court of Appeal decision
Meanwhile, the Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd and anor case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the law (section 146 of TULRCA) does not protect workers from detriment unless they are dismissed. This was deemed a violation of workers’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the Supreme Court declared the law incompatible with the ECHR. Following this, the parties in this case agreed that the claims under TULRCA could not succeed and were dismissed by mutual consent.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Blacklisting Regulations should be interpreted to prevent blacklisting for participation in the activities of trade unions, including industrial action organised or endorsed by a trade union. It agreed with the ET and EAT decisions that Ryanair’s attempts to challenge the lawfulness of the strike ballot were an abuse of process.
This case is important because it shows that employers cannot penalise employees for participating in strikes. Ryanair’s attempts to use technicalities to justify unfair treatment were rejected. Employers should learn from this and treat striking employees fairly.
Note: The UK government plans to address the gap in section 146 of TULRCA, highlighted by the Mercer case, through the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to be enacted by autumn 2026. This bill will ensure workers cannot be penalised for taking part in protected industrial action.
Author: Haylee Chambers, employment
