The National Court has declared void the collective dismissal of 22 cabin crew (TCP) from Crewlink, Ryanair’s employment agency, who provided service in the Spanish bases of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Tenerife and Lanzarote. As the court did with the ERE applied by Ryanair in 2019 to 224 workers, the magistrates also annul the collective dismissal applied by this subcontractor of the Irish airline in which they again observe a “manifest fraud of law”, in response to the demand presented by the unions USO and Sitcpla.
Justice close to Ryanair in Spain with seven convictions in a year for labor abuses
The sentence that annuls the ERE applied by Crewlink is very similar to the one that annulled Ryanair’s ERE, since the Irish multinational negotiated the collective redundancies together with its employment companies, Crewlink and Workforce, who also fired their staff at the bases of Ryanair affected by the closures.
The judges reiterate the existence of “an evident employer bad faith”, among other reasons for the lack of negotiation of the company, as well as for the obstructions during the period of consultations of the ERE, the individual offers to workers during the negotiation of the collective dismissal and “coercion” of staff.
One of the bad practices highlighted by the judges is the simulation of the closure of the Girona base to condition the negotiation. Initially, the companies reported the collective dismissal of all the staff of the Catalan base, as well as that of the Canary Islands, since Ryanair claimed that it would also close it. However, late in the consultation period, the airline announced the possibility of keeping the Girona base open in exchange for the workers’ representatives accepting the conditions for the collective dismissal of the rest of the staff, as well as the transformation of the Girona employees in discontinuous fixed. After the consultation period without an agreement, Ryanair closed the Canary Islands bases, but kept the Girona base open.
The Hearing concludes that all the verified facts show “that their sole intention (of the companies) was to carry out a predetermined decision – to close the Canary Islands bases and turn the Girona base into a seasonal base – at the lowest possible social cost”.
For all these reasons, the court declares the nullity of the contested collective dismissal and the right of the affected workers to “immediate reincorporation in their jobs under the same working conditions that were in force before the dismissal, with payment of the wages they had not received. from the date of dismissal until reinstatement takes place “.
Conviction for illegal transfer of workers with Ryanair
The judges of the National Court, who have condemned in the last year on many occasions to Ryanair for their labor practices, they recall in the ruling that they have invalidated the Irish airline’s outsourcing model with these two recruitment agencies, Crewlink and Workforce, which they understand is incurring an illegal transfer of workers. The judges concluded that the recruitment agencies are only simulated employers and that there is “an illegal transfer of labor since it is clear that it is the latter entity (Ryanair) that exercises the effective status of employer with respect to said workers.”
In the ERE negotiation process, Crewlink argued the need to dismiss all its personnel at the bases affected by the base closures announced by Ryanair “given that Crewlink does not have other clients in the aforementioned bases nor does it have more activity than the own developed for our client “, argued the subcontractor.
During the consultation period, Ryanair and the recruitment agencies jointly negotiated the ERE with the workers’ representatives and, after the agreement was concluded, Darrel Hughes, Ryanair’s Director of Human Resources, sent the same statement with the unilateral decision. to apply the ERE to the representatives of the workers of the three companies (supposedly independent).
The magistrates of the National High Court refer to this communication from Darrel Hughes as an example of “coercion and abuse of rights” in the collective dismissal: “It is enough to read in this regard the terms in which the communication sent on date 28 is written. -11-2019 in which the lone dismissal conditions seem to be adopted as punishment for the refusal of social representation to accept the conditions offered and the situation in which it leaves the Girona base personnel “.