P & O Ferries

P&O will take a massive financial hit from this. Brexit has not changed employment laws (so far anyway). P&O being based in Jersey does not change the employment laws that apply (UK). Otherwise American firms would fire UK employees without comeback or firms would move their registered country before mass firing employees to circumvent the laws.

All employees will need to be paid:
Redundancy pay
Notice period
Period of time for when they should have been employed while the company was running the redundancy consultation (can be about 3 months)

The bigger issue they face is whether they can argued whether it is even a redundancy situation. As they are replacing the workers with agency staff it suggests that the roles are still required and therefore it is not a redundancy situation at all. If this is how a judge views the situation (P&O business model viability does not factor in to this) then they could be responsible for paying all employees until they find a new job.

So there is the potential for this to get very expensive and messy for P&O…
 
There’s a guy interviewed on Reporting Scotland who is an agency worker but was working on the boat for 12 months with the rest of the crew. Once he found out what happened, him and a few others refused to continue working. So, seems there is less issue with having to learn the boat as the agency workers were already on it.
Nice to see him doing the right thing though! Not sure I would unless I was certain I was financially secure.

P&O: Agency seafarers quit after hearing about sacked staff https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60795417
 
PikeyPriest said:
P&O will take a massive financial hit from this. Brexit has not changed employment laws (so far anyway). P&O being based in Jersey does not change the employment laws that apply (UK). Otherwise American firms would fire UK employees without comeback or firms would move their registered country before mass firing employees to circumvent the laws.

All employees will need to be paid:
Redundancy pay
Notice period
Period of time for when they should have been employed while the company was running the redundancy consultation (can be about 3 months)

The bigger issue they face is whether they can argued whether it is even a redundancy situation. As they are replacing the workers with agency staff it suggests that the roles are still required and therefore it is not a redundancy situation at all. If this is how a judge views the situation (P&O business model viability does not factor in to this) then they could be responsible for paying all employees until they find a new job.

So there is the potential for this to get very expensive and messy for P&O…
Click to expand...

1) P&O aren't based in Jersey.
2) The employees fired are sea-based employees and are likely not based in the UK (maritime employment laws are different).
3) If enhanced pay is being given there may not be much to sue if the employees are already being compensated for loss of consultation period and notice period. The UK doesn't really do penalty compensation, just puts people back into the position they should have been if things had occurred correctly.
 
Pudney said:
1) P&O aren't based in Jersey.
2) The employees fired are sea-based employees and are likely not based in the UK (maritime employment laws are different).
3) If enhanced pay is being given there may not be much to sue if the employees are already being compensated for loss of consultation period and notice period. The UK doesn't really do penalty compensation, just puts people back into the position they should have been if things had occurred correctly.
Click to expand...

I think it was P&O that said they were jersey based and claimed this was the law that would apply to all employees (wrongly).
 
PikeyPriest said:
I think it was P&O that said they were jersey based and claimed this was the law that would apply to all employees (wrongly).
Click to expand...

Where did they say the company was based in Jersey? Are you sure they didn't say the contracts were based in Jersey (which is different and not necessarily wrong).

No idea if this applies in this context but suggests notice period for seafaring employees could be (legally) as short as 7 days when operating in UK waters:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F558110%2FMGN_477_MLC_SEAs.pdf&clen=514760&chunk=true

The minimum period of notice to be given by the parties to terminate the seafarer’s employment under an SEA is primarily a matter for agreement between the parties concerned but
  • must be stated in the SEA;
  • must be the same for each party; and
  • must not be less than seven days.
Click to expand...
 
HangTime said:
Seems to a be a lot of furore over this, wonder if it will lead to campaigns to boycott P&O Ferries?
Click to expand...

By who? They're all grounded in port.

chroniclard said:
I would boycott them but I haven't been on a ferry for about 20 years anyway :cry:
Click to expand...

Nobody does thats the problem there aren't the passengers and its not profitable. Its gone from a business to a service that can't survive without govt subsidy or so the unions would like.
 
If I wasn’t stuck on a ship myself until the end of May, I’d go and join the protest at the Port of Liverpool. I’m not a member of the RMT, but I am in Nautilus and what P&O has done is a massive slap in the face for what’s left of Britain’s maritime industry. I’ll be damned if ever set foot on a P&O ferry when taking my family on holidays in the future, even if it means paying more.

There’ll be a few guys I knew from my college days and when I worked on tankers for one of the oil majors who’ll have been affected by this, I think one of the guy’s even got made redundant by the oil major when they decided to slash their fleet by 80%, and went to P&O ferries in the wake of that, poor *******.
 
Dis86 said:
How did they enable 'this kind of practice'?
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58997916

“No 10 said it wanted new guidance for companies, rather than a law.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "Using threats of firing and rehiring is completely unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. We expect companies to treat their employees fairly.

"However, there is insufficient evidence to show legislation will stop the practice or will be effective." “
 
omnomnom said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58997916

“No 10 said it wanted new guidance for companies, rather than a law.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "Using threats of firing and rehiring is completely unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. We expect companies to treat their employees fairly.

"However, there is insufficient evidence to show legislation will stop the practice or will be effective." “
Click to expand...

That's not what they've done though :confused:
 
omnomnom said:
All well and good protesting but the Tories who enabled this kind of practice will still win the next election. Blame them.
Click to expand...

Ever thought of changing the record?
If your roses didn’t bloom you’d probably blame the Tories, or if you suddenly got a toothache.
FWIW I’ve never voted Conservative, they have very little chance where I live, I vote for any party just to keep that verdammte Labour mob out.
 
Jean-F said:
Ever thought of changing the record?
If your roses didn’t bloom you’d probably blame the Tories, or if you suddenly got a toothache.
FWIW I’ve never voted Conservative, they have very little chance where I live, I vote for any party just to keep that verdammte Labour mob out.
Click to expand...

Nah I’m ok thanks x
 
Lol, people are boycotting P&O Cruises (read comments in articles) which is a completely separate company. This is what happens when you have uninformed outrage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom