Ryanair has asked the High Court to strike out claims brought against it by Impact and more than 60 of its pilots alleging the airline is seeking to restrict their right to have a trade union represent them.

In proceedings before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, Ryanair contends the claims in High Court proceedings brought by Impact and the pilots betray no reasonable cause of action. Both the union and the pilots reject such arguments. The hearing of the application concluded yesterday and judgment was reserved.

During submissions, Richard Nesbitt SC, argued Impact and the pilots had "landed at the wrong airport" with their arguments. It was Ryanair's view that trade union representation was an "inefficient way" to run the airline's business and there was no legal obligation on an employer to engage in collective bargaining with a trade union, he submitted.

Gerard Durcan SC, for Impact and the pilots, said there could not be a situation where an employer was permitted to offer employees inducements to waive their legal rights.

The dispute arises after the pilots sought to have Impact represent them in relation to Ryanair's decision in 2004 to have the pilots move from Boeing 737-200 to Boeing 737-800 aircraft and to engage in the appropriate training for such movement.

In early November 2004, Impact invited Ryanair to enter into collective bargaining in relation to the movement of pilots from one aircraft to the other and the training required. The union said it has always been Ryanair's practice to refuse to enter into collective bargaining or otherwise recognise Impact and it had again refused to do so. Impact then referred the matter, as well as victimisation claims on behalf of the pilots, to the Labour Court.

The pilots claim Ryanair, on dates from November 12th, 2004, to date, has written to them offering them conversion training at a cost of €15,000 to Ryanair. Each of the letters, they claim, threatened the individual pilot with dismissal on the grounds of redundancy if they failed to accept the offer within a given period.

The letters also included a condition stating that, if Ryanair was compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of the conversion training, the individual pilots would each be liable to repay the full training costs to Ryanair. The pilots also claim a number of letters required them, on acceptance of the training offer, to confirm they had no claims against Ryanair under the Industrial Relations Act 2004.

A number of the letters, it is claimed, provided that the pilots could pay the €15,000 training costs themselves and consequently avoid dismissal on grounds of redundancy as well as acceptance of the conditions stipulated by Ryanair.

In their High Court proceedings, Impact and the pilots claim that Ryanair's action in offering such inducements or threatening such penalties breaches the pilots' rights under law and the Constitution.

Ryanair wants to have the claims struck out, alleging they disclose no cause of action and are frivolous and vexatious and/or an abuse of process. Ryanair also claims Impact does not have the required legal standing to bring such claims.

Impact and the pilots say they have brought the High Court action to protect themselves against behaviour by Ryanair which, they allege, is unlawful. They deny that the High Court proceedings are a duplication of proceedings before the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission and contend they have a constitutional right to freedom of association which has been breached.