The Court of Appeal is hearing a test case today on whether the worker status of a Ryanair pilot, which could have major implications for aviation and other sectors.
The appeal, brought by Storm Global, challenges previous rulings by the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), both which found that Jason Lutz was a worker and an agency worker of Storm Global, who hired him out to work for Ryanair – despite both companies’ insistence that he was self-employed.
The case follows other worker status rulings in recent years on the rights of workers in the gig economy, such as cases against Uber and Hermes, where drivers were found to be workers rather than self-employed contractors as the companies had claimed.
If the previous rulings are backed by the Court of Appeal, it would have a significant impact on the rights of Lutz and other pilots who have been recruited and engaged in this way, including in respect of paid annual leave and pension contributions from their employment agency.
Worker status cases
Hundreds of Addison Lee drivers win worker status case
Bolt drivers win worker status at tribunal
Parcelforce drivers launch worker status claim against Royal Mail
They could also be entitled to the same employment terms and conditions as direct employees of the airline they fly for.
Storm Global was originally engaged in 2011 to provide “contract pilots” across Ryanair’s network. It was appointed as the airline’s primary supplier in 2014 and, according to its website, provides around 750 captains and first officers across the group.
“An innovative and compliant contracting model has been put in place, complemented by a new direct employment model unique to the UK,” says Storm Global.
Amy Leversidge, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA), which is supporting Lutz, said: “The previous rulings are unambiguous, and the fact that Ryanair and Storm Global continue to challenge these decisions is a disgrace. This is another nail in the coffin of bogus claims of self-employment, yet Ryanair and Storm Global continue to deny their responsibilities, prolonging the process and delaying justice for affected pilots.
“No worker should be subjected to insecure gig economy-style employment arrangements that strip them of their rights, particularly those in roles where safety is paramount and stability and proper protections are essential. If the Court of Appeal upholds the rulings, we will be seeking compensation for pilots who have been denied their rights for far too long.”
Alice Yandle, partner at Farrer & Co, representing Lutz, said: “This case will have huge implications for all agency workers in the modern workforce, extending well beyond the aviation industry.
The ‘right to substitute another’ did not exist. The documentation purporting to show otherwise is a sham, with no purpose other than to try to defeat an assertion that he was a worker” – Employment Judge Housego’s original tribunal decision
“It will determine whether they are afforded rights to paid annual leave and access to the same basic working and employment conditions as if directly engaged by the hirer.”
The previous rulings were based on the findings that Lutz was a worker of Storm Global, which was an employment agency, hiring him out as an agency worker to work as a pilot for Ryanair. Although a right to substitution existed in his contract – meaning he could, in theory, send someone else to work in his place – the court found that there were restrictions because of airline safety regulations.
In Lutz v MCG Aviation (the respondent has since been divested to become Storm Global), the employment judge said: “I find that [Lutz] did have a contract to supply services personally. He could, and on occasion did, ask to change his rostered flights, but that is just to change the days on which he would work…
“The ‘right to substitute another’ did not exist. The documentation purporting to show otherwise is a sham, with no purpose other than to try to defeat an assertion that he was a worker. Insofar as there may have been a right of substitution, it is so narrow that it cannot be considered ‘unfettered’.”
In Ryanair and Storm Global v Lutz at the EAT, Mrs Justice Heather Williams agreed, finding that the employment tribunal was correct in taking into account the “fetters arising from airline safety regulatory requirements”. The appeal was rejected.
In January, the Court of Appeal ruled that Ryanair’s practice of putting pilots who exercised their legal right to strike in 2019 on a blacklist in order to withdraw their travel benefits constituted a breach of the Blacklisting Regulations.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR roles in the travel and transport on Personnel Today
Browse more HR roles in the travel and transport sector
