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
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
Likely a couple or more weeks disruption versus what would have been 90 days plus the same couple of weeks or so.
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.
..... 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.
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.
Many companies have been doing this & similar, to varying degrees for decades (and under both political parties)!
