Introduction

The case of Morais & Ors v Ryanair DAC ([2025] EWCA Civ 19) represents a significant development in employment law, particularly concerning the interplay between blacklisting regulations and trade union activities. The appeal, heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), centered on whether Ryanair’s actions in withdrawing travel benefits from pilots who participated in industrial strikes constituted blacklisting under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010.

The Claimants, pilots employed by Ryanair and members of the British Air Line Pilots' Association (BALPA), challenged the airline’s removal of discretionary travel privileges following their participation in legally sanctioned strike actions. This case navigates complex issues related to statutory interpretation of blacklisting, the protection of trade union activities, and the boundaries of lawful industrial action.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially held that the Claimants’ participation in strike action constituted prohibited listing under Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Blacklisting Regulations. Ryanair's subsequent appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was partially dismissed, specifically regarding the protection of activities under the Blacklisting Regulations, but faced challenges due to the Supreme Court's decision in the Mercer case.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the ET’s findings, affirming that the withdrawal of travel benefits based on participation in industrial action fell within the ambit of prohibited activities under the Blacklisting Regulations. The court rejected Ryanair's grounds of appeal, emphasizing that the regulations were intended to protect employees from discriminatory treatment related to union activities, including lawful strikes.

The judgment clarified that participating in industrial action organized by a recognized trade union constitutes a trade union activity covered by the Blacklisting Regulations, thereby making Ryanair’s actions unlawful. The court also addressed and dismissed Ryanair’s arguments regarding statutory interpretation and issue estoppel, reinforcing the protections afforded to trade union members under the law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to build its legal reasoning:

• Drew v St Edmundsbury Borough Council [1980] ICR 513: Established the distinction between trade union activities and participation in industrial action for unfair dismissal claims.
• Mercer v Alternative Futures Ltd [2021] IRLR 620: Clarified that Section 146 of the 1992 Act does not protect against detriments short of dismissal for trade union activities, emphasizing that lawful industrial action is not encompassed under trades union activities for the purposes of certain protections.
• P v NASUWT [2003] UKHL 8: Influenced the understanding of issue estoppel, particularly in contexts where parties in different cases are involved.

These precedents were pivotal in interpreting the statutory language and determining the scope of protections under both the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Blacklisting Regulations.

Legal Reasoning

The court engaged in meticulous statutory interpretation, focusing on the meaning of “activities of trade unions” within the Blacklisting Regulations. Key points include:

• Statutory Definitions: Regulation 3(2)(a) defines prohibited lists in a way that includes individuals participating in trade union activities, expressly encompassing industrial action organized by such unions.
• Interpretation Consistency: The court examined Section 3(6) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which mandates that terms used in the 1999 Act and the 1992 Act retain consistent meanings, reinforcing that participation in strike action qualifies as prohibited under the Blacklisting Regulations.
• Deconstruction of Ryanair’s Arguments: Ryanair’s reliance on the Mercer case was scrutinized and found inapplicable to the Blacklisting Regulations, as Mercer dealt with protections under a different section (s 146) that does not extend to detriments short of dismissal.
• Issue Estoppel and Abuse of Process: The court determined that Ryanair could not reuse previously adjudicated points from the High Court case as defenses in the current tribunal, labeling such attempts as an abuse of process.

This comprehensive analysis underscored that the Blacklisting Regulations were designed to prevent discrimination based on trade union membership and activities, which necessarily includes participation in lawful strikes.

Impact

The judgment has far-reaching implications for both employers and trade unions:

• Strengthening Trade Union Protections: By affirming that participation in industrial action is covered under prohibited lists, the ruling enhances protections for union members against discriminatory practices beyond just dismissal.
• Employer Compliance: Employers must exercise greater caution in managing employees involved in union activities, ensuring that benefits and privileges are not unlawfully withdrawn based on such participation.
• Legal Precedence: This case sets a definitive precedent for interpreting the Blacklisting Regulations, limiting the scope for employers to argue that their disparaging of union activities does not constitute prohibited behavior.
• Future Litigation: The clear boundaries established in this judgment provide a robust framework for future cases involving allegations of blacklisting, simplifying the legal landscape for both litigants and adjudicators.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the integrity of trade union activities and ensures that employees are safeguarded against unjust treatment related to their participation in collective actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Blacklisting Regulations

The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 prohibit employers from compiling, using, or supplying lists of employees involved in trade union activities to discriminate against them in employment contexts. A “prohibited list” typically includes details of individuals who are or have been trade union members or have participated in union activities.

Prohibited List

Defined under Regulation 3(2) of the Blacklisting Regulations, a prohibited list is any list that details persons involved in trade union activities and is used by employers for discriminatory purposes. Creating or using such lists is unlawful and aims to protect employees from unfair treatment based on union involvement.

Section 146 of the 1992 Act

This section provides protection against adverse treatment by employers for engaging in trade union activities. Specifically, it safeguards employees from detriments that are not as severe as dismissal, such as the withdrawal of benefits or other forms of discrimination.

Issue Estoppel

A legal principle preventing parties from re-litigating issues that have been previously decided in court if the parties were the same or sufficiently similar. In this case, it prevented Ryanair from using arguments previously dismissed in the High Court to challenge the tribunal’s findings.

Abolition of Process

Abuse of process occurs when a party attempts to misuse the legal system, such as by introducing irrelevant or previously adjudicated issues. Ryanair's attempt to repurpose previously rejected arguments was deemed an abuse of process, reinforcing procedural integrity.

Conclusion

The case of Morais & Ors v Ryanair DAC serves as a landmark decision reinforcing the protections afforded to trade union members under the Blacklisting Regulations. By affirming that participation in industrial action constitutes trade union activities protected against discriminatory treatment, the judgment ensures that employees engaging in lawful strikes cannot be unjustly penalized by their employers.

This ruling not only strengthens the legal safeguards for union activities but also imposes clearer obligations on employers to respect and uphold the rights of their employees to participate in collective actions without fear of repercussions. The comprehensive analysis and adherence to established precedents provide a solid foundation for future cases, promoting fairness and equity in the employer-employee dynamic.

In the broader legal context, this judgment underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing labor laws that balance the interests of employers and the fundamental rights of workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining and industrial action.