Ryanair V FNV and FNV Bondgenoten

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/11/2004
Date Closed 31/12/2005
Case Duration 60 weeks and 5 days
Host Countries Ireland  (OECD member)
Netherlands  (OECD member)

Issue(s) Right to trade union representation
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.4-a  IV.8   
Case Description In October 2004, the FNV and its affiliate FNV Bondgenoten raised a case with the Dutch NCP concerning the activities of the Irish budget airline Ryanair. Although Ryanair was based in Ireland, it had staff in the Netherlands and elsewhere who were affected by the company’s anti-union policy. Hence, the NCP was requested to co-operate with the Irish, as well as other relevant NCPs. In order to decide whether the case was receivable, the NCP asked the unions to explain which paragraphs not covered by Dutch legislation that Ryanair had violated.
Outcome The NCP rejected the case on the basis that there was no subsidiary in the Netherlands.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP Ireland NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Ryanair

Complainants

Lead Complainant FNV Bondgenoten : National Union 
Lead Complainant FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging : National Centre 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon

TUAC Assessment

The NCP appears to have taken an overly restrictive approach to the Guidelines both in terms of the investment nexus and the role of the Guidelines in the context of national law

Implications

The lack of an investment nexus - the "absence of a subsidiary". The role of soft law vis a vis hard law.