Facts:
Mr Lutz, a pilot, was supplied to Ryanair by an aviation recruitment agency called MCG Aviation Limited (now known as Storm Global Ltd) (Storm Global).
Storm Global had a contract with Ryanair to supply “contracted pilots”. Storm Global in turn mandated that Mr Lutz must provide his services through a service company called Dishford. There was therefore a secondary contract between Dishford and Storm Global under which Dishford was engaged as an “independent consultant” to supply the services of Mr Lutz, via Storm Global, to Ryanair.
In reality, however, Mr Lutz worked for Ryanair as a fully-integrated part of its pilot workforce. He wore a Ryanair uniform and had a Ryanair ID card. He had to pass Ryanair competency assessments. The base from which he worked was set by Ryanair. Ryanair set the rosters which were “on the same basis” for employed and contracted pilots.
Mr Lutz brought a claim for unpaid holiday pay against Storm Global under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (CAWTR), as well as a claim against both the agency and Ryanair for pay parity and equal working conditions compared to directly employed pilots under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR).
The Law:
Under the AWR, an agency worker is defined as an individual who has a contract with a temporary work agency which is either a contract of employment or a contract to perform work and services personally, and is supplied by the temporary work agency to work temporarily for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer.
Decision of the Courts:
Both the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal found in favour of Mr Lutz, ruling that the service company arrangement through Dishford was a “fiction” and that he was not truly self-employed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Mr Lutz was a crew member “employed” by Storm Global, entitling him to paid annual leave. The Court also found that a 5-year agreement still constituted a “temporary” supply for AWR purposes, clarifying that “temporary” and “short term” are not synonymous and should be interpreted as “not indefinite”.
Comment:
This case highlights the importance of accurately determining employment status in the context of the practical reality of the working conditions. This judgment follows the trend of decisions in recent years to find in favour of worker status.
It is also clear that long term agency arrangements, which are not indefinite, must still comply with the AWR in relation to equal treatment.
It should also be noted that there are 27 claims brought by other Ryanair pilots in similar positions, which had been paused pending the outcome of this case.
First published on 30/07/2025 on FCSA’s main website https://fcsa.org.uk
