I'm fully aware of that, and if they ever tried slapping cuffs on me I'd be on the phone to HNK Solicitors quicker than you can say 'Auditing Britain'.
Been made redundant myself lots of procedures to get me there albeit pretty crap. Wonder how you can make very specific roles on those ships redundant then employ people doing the same specific roles to make a ship sail? As someone says if the employment is based abroad maybe that’s a loophole , if so the govt needs to get a grip of it . The French would blockade the sailings
Last thought but if this is allowed then it will open floodgates for employers everywhere to not follow employment law and general good procedures .
They will be following employment law. It can be done by UK businesses, but is typically seen as an action / process of last resort. I would guess that P&O / DP World have near enough run out of other more palatable options to save the business. Whilst some might applaud the Captain and Officers actions from some sort of moral perspective, they are playing a dangerous, illegal game. Some dramatised headlines are saying 'sacked without notice'. Reality is they are being made redundant and will have to be paid in lieu of notice - something that is common place. I expect the company has been discussing for some time with the Unions (in reality, years as their challenges have been ongoing), but failed to get Union agreement to the cuts that were needed. I feel for those affected, and it's sad to see jobs lost to the UK, but it's a business not a charity, and they'll be plenty of 'ordinary' people unhappy when dividends are cut or scrapped, when shares plummet, when / if the business folds (i.e. 'we' are the greedy shareholders, through our pension schemes, stocks & shares ISA's, etc). Could it have been handled better? Probably yes, but never easy . Unpopular opinion, but just reality.
Maybe shareholders could put some of the money back, take a normal average wage, pay a little bit more tax, etc
There a statutory notification (HR1) that needs to be filed with the government showing intention of redundancies at least 90 days prior to the redundancies. There’s a consultation process (45 days for this number of staff) that should be meaningful, used as a method of minimising redundancies & setting criteria to be used as way of a selection process (voluntary redundancy, redeployment, TUPE etc). As this isn’t a decision taken at the last moment. They’d already signed contracts with a recruitment agency to provide replacements & the recruitment agency had been given enough time to recruit replacements (resulting in the affected employees been given no opportunity to apply for a role) there is no excuse in them neglecting their legal obligations. This is exactly what it appears to be. When we left the EU Ministers made a pledge not to diminish workers rights. This will be the first challenge to that pledge. Democracy is what it is. This is the will of the people. The public get what the public wants.
Yep, that would be nice but it just doesn't work like that and never will (not specific to P&O but the business world in general). Back to reality ...... “However, in its current state, P&O Ferries is not a viable business. We have made a £100m loss year on year, which has been covered by our parent DP World. This is not sustainable. “Our survival is dependent on making swift and significant changes now. Without these changes there is no future for P&O Ferries. “These circumstances have resulted in a very difficult but necessary decision, which was only taken after seriously considering all the available options. “As part of the process we are starting today, we are providing 800 seafarers with immediate severance notices and will be compensating them for this lack of advance notice with enhanced compensation packages. “In making this tough decision, we are securing the future viability of our business which employs an additional 2,200 people and supports billions in trade in and out of the UK. Yes, it's tough, but it's business.
Employment law hasn't changed (in this context) since Brexit and, as much as we might not like the situation, they will be following the law. Not commenting further (as I can't stay on here all day); I was just playing devil's advocate and getting behind the MSM headlines. It's crap, but it is what it is, and they (P&O) are far from alone.
A quick google suggests that it can be done legally but it's a very high risk strategy and fraught with danger. I'm sure P&O's lawyers have been all over it for months and are confident, the company will just have decided to take the adverse PR on the chin. Still stinks, whatever.
It can be, although in this instance, if there was time to come up with a plan, engage with a third party recruitment agency, draw up and sign a contract with the third party recruitment agency, the recruitment agency employing enough staff to cover 800 current roles (including checking eligibility to work in the UK), prepare a video, hire handcuff trained security staff & “have their lawyers go over it for months” then there was also no imminent chance of the company failing & plenty of time to carry out their legal obligations by way of informing the Government of their intentions (this is done so job centres can be best prepared to support those affected & has no interest in the business’ reasons) & consulting with Unions & elected employee representatives. It is a challenge to both the law & the Government’s pledge on workers rights.
A thought on NSF and p&o, years ago all the staff including waiters, cleaners,bar staff etc were brits. Over the years they have gone for cheaper and cheaper staff, first southern european all the way down to the Asians they now have. The cost of using them seems to have gone up in real terms, the free food of the past is now about 35 quid, the drinks on board used to be less than pub prices and now the are way above local pub prices. The boats are much bigger so should be more efficient. If they can't make profit now how did they manage in the past? They must have been loosing billions.
Using cheaper labour from countries such as India, Portugal and Phillippines has been going on for decades. Ships have been registered in countries and have flags of convenience, that don't have strict employment laws for as long as I have been working. It seems P&O has largely in the past used some British crews but have found with COVID that they have to find a way of cutting costs. Having said that, the way it is being done is appalling, and they need to be brought to task.
As much as people might not like it, It really isn't (a challenge)! Plum is correct. The government has already commented that it can't challenge it (= it's not illegal). And nothing to do with Brexit, diminished rights, current government etc . Listening to LBC as I type, where comment after comment stating that it's long established common practice. JO'B having a field day with his personal agendas!! Really off now ....
Ferry passenger numbers have been falling year on year since 1994 when the Channel Tunnel opened, the channel traffic has dropped by 50% since then and all other routes have suffered from cheap flight alternatives. Add to that two years of COVID restrictions and a massive drop in EU commercial traffic and you have a fairly ****ed business model.
The government won’t challenge it. The government don’t decide if it’s legal. Employees will challenge it, in the courts. The courts will decide if it’s legal by way of unfair dismissal claims. Based on the outcome of those cases P&O, including their directors, could be handed stiff penalties for failing to comply with their legal responsibilities. They are challenging the government’s pledge. The legal responsibilities are clear.
Does that apply to the Hull routes? NSF have grown loads since the Norwave / Norwind they first started with, and at least twice commissioned boats deemed to be the largest ferry in the world on the Hull to Rotterdam route.
Employment lawyers aren’t convinced… https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...-implications-of-po-ferries-sacking-800-staff I suspect this will all end up in out of court settlements, which P&O may have already accounted for.
There's nothing to legally challenge with "the government's pledge". The only thing to challenge / claim unfair is a lack of consultation. They'll likely win and p&o likely have factored in the cost (90 days pay I think,). Btw, anyone shopping at Primark today, or driving an MG or ......?
