Off Topic P&O

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
If that’s the case then there was more than enough time for them to fulfil their legal responsibilities.
But there would undoubtedly have been actions taken during the 90 day period ( official or unofficial actions, high absence, a few leaving if they had other job offers, etc). Operations would likely be severely hampered. Simply not practical
 
But there would undoubtedly have been actions taken during the 90 day period ( official or unofficial actions, high absence, a few leaving if they had other job offers, etc). Operations would likely be severely hampered. Simply not practical

A bit like now you mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
I agree, although there is a legal obligation to consult with employees when making redundancies. Good consultation can lead to negotiation.

A legal consultation regarding redundancies would normally follow a similar process.

The consultation must be meaningful & have the intention of minimising job losses.

The company representatives would give a detailed presentation of their plans regarding the redundancies. This would include a rationale behind their business plan, how it will benefit the company, the total number of roles being made redundant & exactly which roles these would be. They’d show an organigram of how the new company structure will look as well as names in the roles that people have been placed or not affected.

There would normally be a period of closed consultation (used to be 30 days with large numbers) followed by a 15 day period of of open consultation. The closed consultation has an expectation of confidentiality, usually broken by senior managers & because of this sometimes a hush hush NDA is asked for.

The open consultation period is used to reveal to constituents & members what had been discussed & go through the oncoming process with them.

During the closed consultation period the employee representatives will have the opportunity to question the business leaders on their decisions. Request to speak to other business leaders who are not part of the consultation process but were part of preparing the business model. Questions & suggestions would be asked or prsented regarding the business model, the process of selection for each new role (if people are being retained), putting together a package for the affected staff that will best enable them to find alternative employment. Making sure all processes have been followed correctly (eg you’d be shown a copy pf the HR1 form).

I’d normally ask for a FAQ document to be prepared & updated throughout the consultation period to aid constituents when they are made aware.

The company is not required to agree to any suggestions that are made or change their plans. Although a good company would do so.

Negotiation is totally different. Negotiations are needed to reach an agreement. Consultation is an exchange of ideas.

In the P&O case consultation wasn’t carried out because there were no redundancies to consult about, just illegal terminations. If they had dressed it up as such they’d have been found out much sooner.
Yep, pretty much what I've been saying 'in a nutshell' in my posts.
Discussions had been going on for months, even years, with no prospect of any meeting of minds. The current law and penalties enabled the company to do what they've done ( and they'll 100% have had barristers opinion before proceeding). It's not nice, but it needs the law and penalties changing if people want to avoid this in future cases .... but changes likely carry downsides too - as much as the public don't like it, it's not straightforward
 
But there would undoubtedly have been actions taken during the 90 day period ( official or unofficial actions, high absence, a few leaving if they had other job offers, etc). Operations would likely be severely hampered. Simply not practical

Nothing could have happened because if the confidentiality. It’s a legal requirement to hold consultation if making redundancies. Even if only a handful there should be 1:1 consultation rather than collective. It’s the law.

What has become apparent is that they have simply sacked the staff, illegally & not made them redundant. In doing so they have also broken legally binding agreements to consult with Unions on job losses.

A strike is exactly what is needed to bring the company to it’s knees. They all need reinstating & the Company & it’s Directors dealing with by the law.

I hope the docks refusing to load / unload their ships continues as well as the continuation of detaining their ships as they breach safety standards.

Not practical? Try using that as a legal defence. They have broken the law

“I know I was pissed your honour but there were no busses. Walking wasn’t practical so I had to drive.”
 
Nothing could have happened because if the confidentiality. It’s a legal requirement to hold consultation if making redundancies. Even if only a handful there should be 1:1 consultation rather than collective. It’s the law.

What has become apparent is that they have simply sacked the staff, illegally & not made them redundant. In doing so they have also broken legally binding agreements to consult with Unions on job losses.

A strike is exactly what is needed to bring the company to it’s knees. They all need reinstating & the Company & it’s Directors dealing with by the law.

I hope the docks refusing to load / unload their ships continues as well as the continuation of detaining their ships as they breach safety standards.

Not practical? Try using that as a legal defence. They have broken the law

“I know I was pissed your honour but there were no busses. Walking wasn’t practical so I had to drive.”

Bring them to their knees? They're a massively successful company who need some loss making ferry business like they need a hole in the head. What will happen here, is that the government will change the law to increase pay for those working on ships operating out of UK ports (because it's what they think people want them to do and they're probably right), at which point P&O North Sea Ferries will cease operations and all the shore staff will lose their jobs as well.

There are rules to follow, they didn't follow them, they're shabby bastards, but I suspect it was either we do this, or we just bin it and I now expect them to just bin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
..... and although maybe semantics but they haven't actually done anything illegal, it's that they haven't followed the required procedure laid down in EL and under ACAS (and likely under their Union Agreement), for which they are (more than) 'paying' the penalty / compensation as laid out in the same employment law.
 
If there are no consequences for disregarding procedures and agreements then it sets precedence for other companies to do what they like and just budget upfront for the fines and pay-offs. All sorts of employment, environmental, consumer and safety regulations and laws could end up being eroded away in practice if P&O "get away with it", because its cheaper to pay the fine than to actually do the right thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Staff and crew in Rotterdam refusing to load the boat due to sail to Hull. More protests there than in Hull I guess they know what's coming next.

I read thar anyone with a Dutch contract would be untouched by job losses - the Dutch gov't has laws against such ****itude, apparently.
 
If there are no consequences for disregarding procedures and agreements then it sets precedence for other companies to do what they like and just budget upfront for the fines and pay-offs. All sorts of employment, environmental, consumer and safety regulations and laws could end up being eroded away in practice if P&O "get away with it", because its cheaper to pay the fine than to actually do the right thing.
Many companies have been doing this & similar, to varying degrees for decades (and under both political parties)!