Lutz v Ryanair DAC and others

Lutz v Ryanair DAC and others

Facts

The claimant was provided to Ryanair as a pilot in accordance with a contract that lasted for five years and was handled by a firm known as MCG Aviation Limited. In accordance with the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (CAWR), he filed a claim for yearly leave against MCG. The foundation for his claim was that he was a "crew member" who was "employed" by MCG during the duration of his employment. Additionally, he claimed that he was a "agency worker" in accordance with the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR), and that as a result, he was entitled to the same working terms as pilots who were directly hired by Ryanair. According to Ryanair and MCG, the claimant was self-employed throughout the whole process.

Held

The EAT came to a decision that the claimant did not engage as self-employed. The companies Ryanair and MCG were not among his customers, and he did not run his own company on his own account. The distribution of power was fundamentally unbalanced. The service firm that he was compelled to utilise was a fabrication, and the substitute provision that was included in the formal agreement that he had with MCG was severely restricted. A supply deal for the Claimant that lasted for five years was nonetheless considered a "temporary" supply according to the AWR. It was to the extent that he was afforded protection under AWR as a "agency worker." Additionally, he was eligible for yearly leave from MCG in accordance with CAWR since he was considered to be "employed" by MCG in the broadest meaning of the word that is relevant under CAWR.

COMMENT

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) examined the business reality by looking behind the contractual arrangement. When determining his employment status the EAT discovered that the claimant's independence was "entirely notional" and that he was "plainly a worker." The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the claimant was a worker because he or she worked as a pilot for an airline through an intermediary business. The claimant was "employed" by the intermediary business under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and an agency worker under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.

Previous
Previous

Defending Employment Tribunal Claims

Next
Next

Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice