P&O Ferries - mass redundancies without consultation

[BayPaul]

One thing that nobody has mentioned is that I suspect that P&O have effectively sacked 1600 people today. Each ship would have 2 crews - one onboard, and one on leave. The crew on leave technically don't have a contract until they return, so they are presumably also out of a job, but wouldn't be included in the published numbers. I think that one report said that P&O Ferries had a total of around 4000 employees, and one of their statements said that this decision safeguarded around 2200 people, so that would add up

 

[kylemore]

This looks like a fait accompli.

The union may be able to spin it out by asking their members to occupy the vessels, however many will be reluctant to endanger future employablity by doing so knowing they are dealing with an utterly ruthless industry.

A public boycott?

Apart from the fact that they're all at it I can't see this having much effect - freight is the driver of profit in the ferry business and most big hauliers and logistics companies are even bigger union haters and cutthroats than the ferry outfits!

 

[Class800]

There is a report on Kent Online (it won’t let me link it) that says all staff have been made redundant and replacement crews are waiting at the dockside.

I thought there were restrictions on replacing people made redundant? As its the job not the person per se that is redundant - i.e. not needed. I know it can get a bit murky though

 

[yoyothehobo]

Exactly. Hit the emeratis in the pocket and sink them.

When returning to shore you would be very very under arrest.

 

[Trainbike46]

This looks like a fait accompli.

The union may be able to spin it out by asking their members to occupy the vessels, however many will be reluctant to endanger future employablity by doing so knowing they are dealing with an utterly ruthless industry.

A public boycott?

Apart from the fact that they're all at it I can't see this having much effect - freight is the driver of profit in the ferry business and most big hauliers and logistics companies are even bigger union haters and cutthroats than the ferry outfits!

The hauliers and logistics companies do care about reliability though, and at least for the time being P&O is very unreliable

 

[BayPaul]

I thought there were restrictions on replacing people made redundant? As its the job not the person per se that is redundant - i.e. not needed. I know it can get a bit murky though

See my post earlier. This is absolutely not the case under maritime law

 

[Trainbike46]

Some of the ships are currently being held by the old crew though, so they are occupying the ships

 

[LOL The Irony]

When returning to shore you would be very very under arrest.

And? Your point is? No prison sentence could possibly cover the damage scuttling just one ship would cause.

 

[BayPaul]

And? Your point is? No prison sentence could possibly cover the damage scuttling just one ship would cause.

I guess the question is which is more important to you - hurting a former employer or risking your own life and freedom. Considering the ship is insured, and so its loss wouldn't hurt the employer, personally I wouldn't be inclined to scuttle it!

 

[Class800]

TUPE isn't relevant in the maritime world.

So the Government has decided to not give sailors the same rights in British waters as any employee on British land! Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea, it seems really poor.

 

[yoyothehobo]

And? Your point is? No prison sentence could possibly cover the damage scuttling just one ship would cause.

Since this definition is restricted to the high seas, piracy in British territorial waters would today be treated as robbery, assault or attempted murder under the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, or as hijacking under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (which can also be applied to piracy on the high seas).[original research?]

In 1998 the mandatory death penalty was abolished, and the sentence is now up to life imprisonment.

Above from Wikipedia.

Not sure I would rank my chances at a decent life after any of those sentences above were applied.

Yes I would be upset at losing my job in this way. I am not sure I would be thinking "getting myself imprisoned for 10 years or more, that will show them"

 

[BayPaul]

So the Government has decided to not give sailors the same rights in British waters as any employee on British land! Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea, it seems really poor.

Correct. To be fair, it is difficult to see how TUPE in particular would work in the maritime world. Ships get sold very frequently. Should the employees be TUPE'd to the new owner of the ship, or would it be more appropriate for them to be kept by their existing employer and assigned to the ship that replaced their old one, for example.

The maritime world is difficult to regulate at a national level, as ships are mobile assets. International regulation works very well, and the IMO has some very good regulations in place. Although the P&O situation isn't really covered, in general seafarers rights are pretty well covered, certainly a lot better than they were before the MLC convention came in. Trying to add in new national laws doesn't work, as the ships can so easily reflag, recrew or move to avoid them.

 

[jamesontheroad]

I notice from social media that a lot of past, current or future customers of P&O Cruises are now directing complaints towards that (entirely separate) company.

Looking ahead, I wouldn't be surprised if Carnival Cruises seeks some kind of reparation from DP World for the reputational damage to their shared brand.

 

[mmh]

Correct. To be fair, it is difficult to see how TUPE in particular would work in the maritime world. Ships get sold very frequently. Should the employees be TUPE'd to the new owner of the ship, or would it be more appropriate for them to be kept by their existing employer and assigned to the ship that replaced their old one, for example.

The maritime world is difficult to regulate at a national level, as ships are mobile assets. International regulation works very well, and the IMO has some very good regulations in place. Although the P&O situation isn't really covered, in general seafarers rights are pretty well covered, certainly a lot better than they were before the MLC convention came in. Trying to add in new national laws doesn't work, as the ships can so easily reflag, recrew or move to avoid them.

Airlines seem to manage OK without pretending an employee in one country isn't a worker in that country, selling planes and having them registered in a different country to where they happen to be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Exactly. Hit the emeratis in the pocket and sink them.

At the expense of being permanently blacklisted, having your qualifications revoked and up to life imprisonment?

There's no reason to do that. It's simply enough to do 'preventative maintanence' which involves stripping the ship bare and making sure that it's not going anywhere. A new crew with no knowledge of the ship will have tremendous problems in putting it all back together again.

 

[AlterEgo]

Airlines seem to manage OK without pretending an employee in one country isn't a worker in that country, selling planes and having them registered in a different country to where they happen to be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Registering aircraft in a different country for tax and employment benefits is very, very common. Your Scandinavian Airlines flight from London may be operated by "SAS Ireland", for example, with Irish registered aircraft.

 

[mmh]

Registering aircraft in a different country for tax and employment benefits is very, very common. Your Scandinavian Airlines flight from London may be operated by "SAS Ireland", for example, with Irish registered aircraft.

That's entirely my point. I spent years working for a wholly owned subsidiary of a US company. They didn't pretend i was anything other than a UK employee, whichever country I happened to be working in.

 

[unlevel42]

Could all the Cal-Mac crews be sacked in the same way?
Same with the North Link crews.
No sailings to from Scrabster(to Orkney).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. Hit the emeratis in the pocket and sink them.

And end up in prison? Yeah, great idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

And? Your point is? No prison sentence could possibly cover the damage scuttling just one ship would cause.

If the crews are willing to ruin their lives over a minimum wage job (as many of them will be on), then that's their choice, but no rational person would choose that. I'm sure working on a ferry was cool, but most of the service staff will just get a job doing something else on that sort of money without any sort of difficulty, it's an employee's market at the moment, people can't get staff.

Much harder for the captains and the likes of course.

 

[adamello]

Could all the Cal-Mac crews be sacked in the same way?
Same with the North Link crews.
No sailings to Scrabster(Orkney).

There would be more 'political' influence, firstly being UK owned and registered. secondly they're considered a lifeline service in some areas

 

[unlevel42]

There would be more 'political' influence, firstly being UK owned and registered. secondly they're considered a lifeline service in some areas

PO sail Larne Cairnryan and the crews have been sacked. What is the difference?

 

[mmh]

Could all the Cal-Mac crews be sacked in the same way?

No. Regardless of legality, politics (and for once, sensibly) would never allow that to happen.

 

[A0]

If this rumour materialises then it shows how bad our unregulated free market economy has become, and why more needs doing for worker's rights. We just have to hope that the phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword" comes to being here, where the same free market allows customers to boycott the company in enough droves to bankrupt it.

Perhaps its more an indictment of a business which is struggling against spiralling costs and demands for costs to be kept down ?

Their "biggest" route will be Dover - Calais, but that traffic has been decimated ever since the Channel Tunnel opened. Their other routes are all a bit marginal in the scheme of things.

What would be worse - the company laying off people and paying them redundancy or the company entering administration and people being laid off with only access to statutory redundancy pay from the government ?

Playing Devil's Advocate - have the RMT been open or receptive to addressing the cost challenges ? I suspect not given their usual belligerent media briefing approach.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

They won't. They won't ever have been on these ships. They won't know anything about them. And what is it going to save? The sacked employees are at least entitled to payment in lieu of notice, let alone redundancy payments, and much more likely compensation for unfair dismissal, because the jobs are clearly not redundant.

There is no way you can replace all your staff with agency workers and expect it to run, let alone something technical, with catastrophic consequences if it goes wrong, such as a ferry operation

Actually the job *is* redundant - in a couple of ways, firstly the model of providing resource is different, in other words externally supplied labour and the second is the structure and roles and responsibilities will almost certainly be different to the contracts which P&O had.

 

[adamello]

PO sail Larne Cairnryan and the crews have been sacked. What is the difference?

They're not UK owned or flagged, they're not the only transport link between mainland Great Britain and Ireland.

(Not 100% of all the legalities that have been discussed throughout this thread - but the above reduces the political will)

 

[A0]

I notice from social media that a lot of past, current or future customers of P&O Cruises are now directing complaints towards that (entirely separate) company.

Looking ahead, I wouldn't be surprised if Carnival Cruises seeks some kind of reparation from DP World for the reputational damage to their shared brand.

More likely Carnival Cruises will simply drop the P&O brand - in the same way P&O dropped the Townsend Thoresen brand following the Herald of Free Enterprise accident.

 

[TheEdge]

@BayPaul you seem to know what you are talking about.

Where is the line between the crews currently on board lifting the ramps (like Pride of Hull) and refusing the rightful owner of the ship to place their official crew on board (no matter how morally reprehensible that is) and actual legal definition piracy?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

I notice from social media that a lot of past, current or future customers of P&O Cruises are now directing complaints towards that (entirely separate) company.

Looking ahead, I wouldn't be surprised if Carnival Cruises seeks some kind of reparation from DP World for the reputational damage to their shared brand.

They've already got a banner on their website stating they are a totally separate entity to and unrelated to P&O Ferries

 

[mike57]

The other question has to be is there sufficent business to support the current ferry operators, if the answer is no then P&O have either got a plan to undercut the other operators, or have misjudged it all and will ultimatlely fail. They withdrew Hull - Zeebrugge and Hull - Rotterdam as a passenger operation has been questionable even before Covid. There will still be a demand for a purely HGV/freight operation but cheap flights and the Channel Tunnel have eaten into the market to such an extent that some capacity reductions are required. (BTW I am not considering the rights and wrongs of the P&O action, just considering if the current provision is sustainable)

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't the crew (and we assume the officers) stealing the ship quality as Barratry and not Piracy?

 

[Gostav]

f the crews are willing to ruin their lives over a minimum wage job (as many of them will be on), then that's their choice, but no rational person would choose that.

Or, if they really want, they could learn what some environmentalists do such as Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion - occupying the boat, splashing paint, lock the bridge,do not cause any significant damage - will ensure they are swayed by public opinion maximum sympathy and no one is charged with a felony.

 

[BayPaul]

If the crews are willing to ruin their lives over a minimum wage job (as many of them will be on), then that's their choice, but no rational person would choose that. I'm sure working on a ferry was cool, but most of the service staff will just get a job doing something else on that sort of money without any sort of difficulty, it's an employee's market at the moment, people can't get staff.

Much harder for the captains and the likes of course.

The worst impacted crew are likely to be the RMT ratings - the deck crew who carry out the maintenance, carry out mooring operations, direct vehicles on the car decks etc, and engine crew who do the maintenance and operation of the machinery. They are well paid, but there are very few jobs available for RMT seafarers, most companies won't go near them. The officers, both deck and engine, will be mainly Nautilus members, and should easily be able to find other jobs - there is a lot of demand at present. Where they will struggle is with conditions - not many companies will be offering week on - week off or similar contracts. If they go deep sea then 3 months on, 3 months off is much more common. As you say, the catering crew should have no problem getting similar jobs ashore, but possibly not with such good wages - most seafarers do not pay income tax, which makes it expensive to come ashore - it is unlikely that many of the existing crew are on minimum wage, wages will be much higher.

@BayPaul you seem to know what you are talking about.

Where is the line between the crews currently on board lifting the ramps (like Pride of Hull) and refusing the rightful owner of the ship to place their official crew on board (no matter how morally reprehensible that is) and actual legal definition piracy?

Thanks! I know a decent amount about this area, but I must admit that one is something I am not certain about. I don't think it could count as piracy or similar, it is more in the line of not following a reasonable instruction - so an employment law kind of thing.

Historically, taking action of this kind has been common, and it has been very rare for police to try to retake the ship. Effectively it tends to develop into a siege type situation, with the company happy to sit it out, and wait for the conditions onboard to deteriorate (food running low etc). There have been some very, very long situations like this - I seem to remember the 1987 P&O Ferries (yes, they have form!) one lasted for 6 months.