Union accuses easyJet of replacing crew members during general strike. Company says it complied with the law

The Civil Aviation Flight Personnel Union (SNPVAC) accuses easyJet of replacing striking crew members during last week’s general strike, in violation of labour law. It will file a complaint with the Authority for Working Conditions.

“During the general strike on 11 December, and after several attempts on our part to prevent this from happening, easyJet again used two workers who are not based in Lisbon on the flight to Sal Island”, SNPVAC said in a statement sent to members on Friday, to which ECO had access.

“Consequently, a complaint will be filed today [Friday] with the Authority for Working Conditions, which, as before, will take the appropriate administrative action”, the union added.

The British airline rejects the accusation. “All easyJet employees who operated aircraft did so strictly within the limits of the law and with full respect for the right to strike of all workers”, it said in response to ECO.

SNPVAC, however, considers that this was a “deliberate action”, because the company has already been the target of an administrative offence in the past, also for replacing strikers. According to the union, during the cabin crew strike between 21 and 25 July 2023, easyJet moved workers between bases to ensure flights for workers who joined the strike.

ACT carried out an inspection during the strike and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 535(1) of the Labour Code, which states that “during a strike, the employer may not replace strikers with persons who, at the time of the prior notice, were not working at the respective establishment or service, nor may they, from that date, hire workers for that purpose.”

The decision was reported in August 2024, with ACT clarifying at the time that the violation of the law “not only constitutes a very serious administrative offence, punishable by a fine, but also constitutes criminal liability, punishable by a fine of up to 120 days”, and filed a report with the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The SNPVAC management states that prior to the general strike, it “warned easyJet about this situation on several occasions, but unfortunately, it still happened”. “By filing a complaint with ACT, SNPVAC cannot be considered ‘the bad guy’ or accused of trying to hinder operations in Portugal, because if the company wants to be considered an exemplary employer, it must comply with Portuguese law”, it adds.

SNPVAC concludes its statement to members by calling on the Civil Aviation Pilots’ Union (SPAC) to adopt “a strong stance, as there has also been replacement of strikers in their class”.

Disagreement on minimum services

EasyJet and the unions failed to reach an agreement on minimum services during the general strike, and an order was therefore issued by the office of the Secretary of State for Infrastructure and the office of the Deputy Secretary of State for Labour.

“The determination of the minimum services to be provided by the company includes the services it considers necessary to meet the essential social needs relating to the constitutional right to travel, given the need to safeguard the territorial continuity of the Autonomous Region of Madeira. On the other hand, it is also essential to guarantee the services necessary to ensure the connection of the most numerous Portuguese diaspora communities”, the Government explained.

EasyJet cabin crew and SNPVAC had to ensure two return flights to Funchal from Lisbon, two return flights to Funchal from Oporto, one return flight to Basel (from Lisbon), one return flight to London (from Lisbon), one return flight to Luxembourg (from Lisbon), one return flight to Geneva (from Lisbon), one return flight to Paris from Lisbon and another from Oporto. The necessary workers were designated by the union.