P&O Ferries - mass redundancies without consultation

[Starmill]

The conversation on this thread has largely been about that. You're a little late to the event, I'm afraid.

There was some disagreement that employees were being made redundant earlier. It was being claimed by that workers were on fixed term contracts which weren't renewed.

Of course, if English (or Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish, as relevant) law is determined not to apply then I guess that's that. It would seem that on this point there is equally disagreement.

 

[Ediswan]

You'd be doing P&O a favour. Most of their fleet are outdated and not really fit for purpose.

Care to expand ? I only know the Dover-Calais route. The 'Pride' ships are showing their age, but still seem to work. I prefer the 'Spirit' ships though.

But maybe I have low standards. My first channel crossings were on Sealink Sarnia and Ceasarea from Weymouth (via tramway).

 

[Snow1964]

The video to staff leaked to the press includes the expression "employment terminated by redundancy".

If that's the case they are likely to be found in breach of English law on redundancy. A minimum 45 day consultation is a requirement.

This has damaged the brand significantly too. Why couldn't the company simply announce a consultation like everyone else? What an appalling approach.

Anyone on a fixed term contract that is ending is excluded from the consultation requirement. The 45 days is for 100 or more employees (20-99 is 30 days, upto 19 employees no requirement to consult).

The legal situation is a bit complicated, but if they pay the 45 days as well as pay in lieu of notice, accrued holiday, and redundancy pay then employee claims are going to be rather futile, as will have compensated to an equivalent level required by law.

The potential problem for P&O is there is a legal obligation to notify the Redundancy Payments Service (RPS) at start of the consultation and file form HR1. Failure to do so can result in an unlimited fine.

 

[jfollows]

The Guardian has now posted an article on the legal implications of the sacking, reiterating many of the comments here. Essentially several laws were probably broken, potentially costing P&O "hundreds of thousands" and that P&O appears to be acknowledging this by offering "enhanced compensation".

What are the legal implications of P&O Ferries sacking 800 staff?

Employment lawyers say the company could face claims for unfair dismissal

www.theguardian.com

Employment law

What are the legal implications of P&O Ferries sacking 800 staff?

Employment lawyers say the company could face claims for unfair dismissal

• P&O Ferries sacks all 800 crew members across entire fleet

Rob Davies

@ByRobDavies

Thu 17 Mar 2022 18.21 GMT

Employment lawyers reacted with surprise after P&O Ferries sacked 800 seafarers out of the blue, warning it may have broken several laws and could be hit with claims for unfair dismissal.

As staff staged sit-ins on the company’s boats, with the backing of their trade unions, experts cast doubts over the legality of P&O’s plot to replace them with cheaper agency workers.

The affair could end up costing P&O “hundreds of thousands” in unfair dismissal payouts and penalties for legal breaches, they said.

What laws is P&O accused of breaking?

Employers are legally required to consult workers during a statutory notice period before making them redundant. P&O did not do this, so trade unions believe that its actions are likely to be unlawful.

“For those staff who have been, or are about to be dismissed, they will certainly have claims for unfair dismissal,” said Rustom Tata, chairman and head of the employment group at law firm DMH Stallard, adding that elements of employment law appeared to have been “wholly ignored”.

Further, employers wishing to make more than 100 redundancies must notify the business secretary at least 45 days in advance of those dismissals. On Thursday afternoon, a No10 spokesperson said: “We weren’t given any notice to this.”

Failure to notify the secretary of state would be a breach of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the TUC said.

Unions representing P&O workers have been consulting lawyers with a view to taking legal action.

Redundancy notices are being issued, with the P&O apparently having recognised the unlawfulness of its actions with comments that enhanced compensation will be paid.

P&O’s offer of “enhanced” redundancy packages indicates that it may have “recognised the unlawfulness of its actions”, according to Tata.

Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said: “If P&O breached the law they must suffer severe consequences – with ministers increasing the legal penalties if necessary. If one employer gets away with this, every worker is at risk.”

Is this “fire and rehire”?

Fire and rehire is a hugely controversial method used by some companies, usually – but not always – when in dire financial straits. It involves sacking staff and then telling them they can apply for their old jobs on less favourable terms. Companies that have deployed the tactic include Weetabix, Tesco, British Airways, Heathrow and British Gas. Trade unions and the public support a ban on the practice but ministers last year blocked a bill that aimed to do just that.

The government would be “dismayed” if P&O were doing this, a No 10 spokesperson said. But what P&O is trying to do looks slightly different. Rather than rehiring staff to their old jobs, it is replacing them with agency workers and saying that sacked staff could, if they wanted, join those agencies.

“That is effectively seeking to avoid having to renegotiate terms with staff and their representatives,” said Tata.

The TUC said it was not yet clear if P&O was planning to rehire staff on inferior terms but warned it was a growing trend, with 9% of workers affected by such a scheme in the first year of the pandemic.

What now for P&O workers?

Some are staging sit-ins aboard the company’s ferries, with the support of unions such as the RMT and Nautilus International.

Kathryn Evans, head of employment at law firm Trethowans, reckons staff could end up being paid “hundreds of thousands of pounds in failure to consult and unfair dismissal awards.”

But Tata warned that the sit-ins could prompt a backlash from the company too.

“The question may become whether it is lawful and reasonable for the employer to require the employee to leave the vessel and what the impact will be of an employee refusing to do so,” he said.

“Might any unfair dismissal compensation be reduced to nil? Given the employer’s approach it is quite likely that the employees will find considerable sympathy in the employment tribunal – albeit when any case is finally heard.”

 

[Starmill]

The legal situation is a bit complicated, but if they pay the 45 days as well as pay in lieu of notice, accrued holiday, and redundancy pay then employee claims are going to be rather futile, as will have compensated to an equivalent level required by law.

That is true. If English law applies in this regard any employee will end up with a significant payment. If it doesn't then it's going to be very difficult for them, and I guess they won't have been required to notify the Redundancy Payments Service.

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

The Guardian has now posted an article on the legal implications of the sacking, reiterating many of the comments here. Essentially several laws were probably broken, potentially costing P&O "hundreds of thousands" and that P&O appears to be acknowledging this by offering "enhanced compensation".

What are the legal implications of P&O Ferries sacking 800 staff?

Employment lawyers say the company could face claims for unfair dismissal

www.theguardian.com

Now that is interesting.

 

[Clayton]

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

I think the law changed a little while ago. It’s scandalous, as the roles are not redundant, since they are being replaced in real terms.

 

[philosopher]

The video to staff leaked to the press includes the expression "employment terminated by redundancy".

If that's the case they are likely to be found in breach of English law on redundancy. A minimum 45 day consultation is a requirement.

This has damaged the brand significantly too. Why couldn't the company simply announce a consultation like everyone else? What an appalling approach.

Whatever the legality of what P&O are doing, given the very large amount of media attention they are getting, I think they are risking a sizeable consumer boycott. This of course will not help their financial position.

 

[jfollows]

Whatever the legality of what P&O are doing, given the very large amount of media attention they are getting, I think they are risking a sizeable consumer boycott. This of course will not help their financial position.

P&O Cruises have noticed this, as mentioned earlier, but it won't do them any good, they'll also be affected. They chose to use a similar name to get some benefits of its familiarity and history, now they'll have to live with mud being directed at them as well.

 

[BayPaul]

Care to expand ? I only know the Dover-Calais route. The 'Pride' ships are showing their age, but still seem to work. I prefer the 'Spirit' ships though.

But maybe I have low standards. My first channel crossings were on Sealink Sarnia and Ceasarea from Weymouth (via tramway).

The replacements for the Prides - double ended ferries, are already under construction in China.
The Spirits are indeed pretty good.
Pride of Hull and Rotterdam are also good ships from a passenger point of view, but their freight deck configuration isn't great, they don't really compare well with Stena Hollandica and Brittanica.
Norbank and Norbay are aging freight ferries with low capicity that are used as passenger ships.
European Causeway and Highlander are pretty basic ropaxes.

 

[Starmill]

Whatever the legality of what P&O are doing, given the very large amount of media attention they are getting, I think they are risking a sizeable consumer boycott. This of course will not help their financial position.

The difficulty is if most of the custom is freight and business-to-business service there's not really much that consumer action will do.

 

[kylemore]

European Causeway and Highlander are pretty basic ropaxes.

Indeed, in fact the Cairnryan/Larne operation must be pretty marginal with the much better Stena offering on virtually the same track.

When the time finally comes to replace these vessels will they bother or will they simply abandon yet another route?

In fact rather than securing their future might not these crass actions actually result in this miserable outfit going under? Since they'll be contributing very little to the UK and essentially will be just parasites, let's hope so!

 

[paulmch]

Shameless.

I've always wondered how high the walls will need to be on the homes of the 0.1% who own 99.9% of the wealth?

No need to build high walls if there are people with the attitudes below in sufficient number!

Though the staff freely decided to work for a Dubai-based company. If they wanted European style employment rights they should have chosen an appropriate employer.

 

[island]

Whatever the legality of what P&O are doing, given the very large amount of media attention they are getting, I think they are risking a sizeable consumer boycott. This of course will not help their financial position.

They really aren't. A small proportion of consumers will care for a short while, and then they'll go back to booking whatever option's cheapest, as they always do.

 

[JonathanH]

Hmm, they could afford to give their Dubai parent £270million in 2020 - money straight out of the business - but couldn't afford to sustain a £100M loss in 2021? How much furlough money did they take, I wonder.

Was that DP World rather than P&O Ferries? The ports part of the business is rather more lucrative than the ferries part of the business. It would be odd to cross subsidise a loss making part of a business just to keep it going. Indeed, it is a bit odd that the Ferries business and Ports business came back into common ownership after ten years of distinct operation.

 

[permarquis]

No need to build high walls if there are people with the attitudes below in sufficient number!

Completely. It never ceases to amaze me how many are quite willing not only to tolerate this kind of behaviour, but to justify it. Short of having a financial interest in P&O, it's a mystery to me why anyone would defend them, regardless of the legalities.

To state the obvious, a corporation is not a living thing. It has no feelings, memories, or experiences. So why on earth would you feel anything but empathy for all the people it is hurting, who very much do have all those things?

 

[BluePenguin]

This morning a close friend of mine found out that they had been made redundant after 8 years of service working for P&O Ferries. He has been offered significant severance pay although

Making a huge amount of people redundant on a Teams call is very harsh and nasty. These poor people had no advance warning and are now unemployed. The 800 will be shortly replaced by cheap agency workers

Considering that the ferries are responsible for conveying a huge amount of continental traffic, I am shocked that the government did not do more to prevent this from happening.

I am very sad for my friend and everybody else who was made redundant today. I am curious to hear everyone’s thoughts? Specifically, could something similar happen to the railway if the government was not so involved in its running?

Personally, my great feeling is that the quality of service offered will suffer and I believe P&O will become a very unreliable operation, leading to the public shifting to the channel tunnel and Eurostar.

Having for years watched the ferries sail across the sea from our local beach, the view will never be the same again for those of us who live locally.


Read the government response here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/po-ferries-staff-redundancies-and-suspension-of-services

 

[Starmill]

I’ve just seen that ALL P&O sailings have been suspended, and vessels instructed to return to port and discharge cargo.

Does anyone know what is going on?

Are you able to update the thread title slightly? It may help people now that the events have come to pass somewhat.

If you've not tried this before I believe it's the option called 'thread tools'. Ta!

 

[Cowley]

Are you able to update the thread title slightly? It may help people now that the events have come to pass somewhat.

If you've not tried this before I believe it's the option called 'thread tools'. Ta!

Yep, done that now.

Ok. Can we please keep this discussion sensible from here on.

Any posts about captains going down with their ships will (probably not too surprisingly) be deleted if they appear again…

 

[Austin926]

Apologies if I have missed something but, is the sit-in protest still ongoing onboard Pride of Hull? Heard mixed reports

 

[ashkeba]

Apologies if I have missed something but, is the sit-in protest still ongoing onboard Pride of Hull? Heard mixed reports

BBC report it as over: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-60784134

"The crew of a ferry docked in Hull have finally left the ship after earlier occupying the vessel in protest over being sacked by P&O."

 

[LucyP]

Well at least we know that the concept of maritime law that was being talked about earlier is wrong, as I said. The papers are now reporting lawyers warnings of unfair dismissal consequences under UK law.

It's also not correct to say that unfair dismissal compensation is limited to 90 days' pay. It is actually the Compensatory Award, which is 1 year's pay or £89,493, whichever is the lesser, plus the Basic Award.

 

[43066]

Well at least we know that the concept of maritime law that was being talked about earlier is wrong, as I said. The papers are now reporting lawyers warnings of unfair dismissal consequences under UK law.

The concept of maritime law isn’t “wrong”. Google treatment of cruise ship staff if you want to understand what people were talking about.

It does indeed appear from the reporting that U.K. law applies to this situation, which wasn’t immediately apparent.

 

[ABB125]

Has the announcement which was supposed to be made earlier today actually happened? (Assuming there actually was an announcement, rather than the redundancies being the announcement.)

 

[JonathanH]

Has the announcement which was supposed to be made earlier today actually happened? (Assuming there actually was an announcement, rather than the redundancies being the announcement.)

The redundancies were the announcement. They also warned that the operation is unviable with its current workforce.

 

[BayPaul]

The concept of maritime law isn’t “wrong”. Google treatment of cruise ship staff if you want to understand what people were talking about.

It does indeed appear from the reporting that U.K. law applies to this situation, which wasn’t immediately apparent.

Just because media are reporting that lawyers are circling doesn't necessarily mean that what P&O have done is illegal. The one thing I find odd is the use of the word redundancy in the zoom meeting announcement. As discussed earlier, it doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Deltic1961]

They really aren't. A small proportion of consumers will care for a short while, and then they'll go back to booking whatever option's cheapest, as they always do.

Yep. Seen this so many times before, especially with RyanAir. The carbon monoxide poisoning incident in Greece in 2010 may have helped with the demise of Thomas Cook though.

As you say people are up in arms then just book with them anyway as they have short memories .... and companies know this.

 

[kylemore]

As you say people are up in arms then just book with them anyway as they have short memories .... and companies know this.

You might be right.

I'm sure, as had been said previously, that P&O will have carefully planned this and have had their lawyers and insurers (and perhaps even the authorities on the quiet) onboard so to speak.

However that doesn't necessarily mean that they have not hugely miscalculated.

Business is fickle, let's hope that P&O become the Ratners of the High Seas!

 

[Towers]

You might be right.

I'm sure, as had been said previously, that P&O will have carefully planned this and have had their lawyers and insurers (and perhaps even the authorities on the quiet) onboard so to speak.

However that doesn't necessarily mean that they have not hugely miscalculated.

Business is fickle, let's hope that P&O become the Ratners of the High Seas!

To be perfectly honest, if they're really this far up a certain creek then I'd imagine there's a decent chance they'll go under regardless. This is likely just delaying the inevitable.

 

[JonathanH]

Business is fickle, let's hope that P&O become the Ratners of the High Seas!

A big risk if that happens of it taking the rest of the 'merchant navy' with it.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/dp-worlds-concerns/

MARITIME UNION RMT will be writing to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State this week demanding that the Government immediately suspends DP World’s involvement in the delivery of Freeports until it pays what it owes to the Merchant Navy Ratings Penson Fund (MNRPF) in respect of the £146m its subsidiary company P&O Ferries owes in contributions.

The MNRPF is a multi-employer pension scheme with over 100 sponsoring employers and over 19,000 members across all regions of the UK, many of whom are now retired. The MNRPF was set up to provide pensions to British Merchant Navy Ratings and their dependents. It began operating in 1978 and closed to future accrual in 2001.

RMT believe that DP Worlds failure to meet its obligations to the fund, are not only putting the future of the MNRPF in doubt, but also creating significant risk for small maritime employers in communities across the UK who could be forced to meet this debt if the deficit is not met. As well as the small businesses themselves, this would have a hugely damaging impact on current and retired merchant seafarers, the maritime sector as a whole and the very communities where Freeports are purported to be providing economic opportunities.

Over and above this, several public bodies and government agencies including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (the civilian arm of the Royal Navy) and British Antarctic Survey are also participating employers in the scheme, so the UK taxpayer could also be directly hit if DP World and P&O Ferries fail to meet their obligations.

 

[kylemore]

To be perfectly honest, if they're really this far up a certain creek then I'd imagine there's a decent chance they'll go under regardless. This is likely just delaying the inevitable.

The staff and it's cost are always good scapegoats for failing management - "if we can just get rid of these highly unionised, costly employees everything will be hunky-dory".

What's the odds these big double enders from China will ever enter service under the P&O brand?