P&O Ferries

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

I read somewhere that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) employment law might not apply to persons employed in the shipping industry?

What an appalling way to treat your staff though!  I do hope Broadgage is right in that there is a lot of damage to reputation as a result, though sadly I suspect the parent company might not be too sorry to offload it or see it go under.

I'm not sure what the employments situation is, or was under EU^» (European Union - about) law, and whether there is a difference between merchant vessel plying their trade across the globe and those vessels dapping between Dover and Calais a few times daily. Whatever the case, I can't think of a worse way of getting rid of staff that doesn't involve violence, and side with the staff dealt with in such a way.

There is no difference with regards the various UK Merchant Shipping Acts and International agreements / regulations.  These did not change with the UK leaving the EU

Those aren't the relevant acts.

The P&O vessels are Cypriot flagged to specifically stay under EU rules.

EU employment laws offer considerably more protection.

Ask yourself why it was 800 UK employees who got the boot.

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)/ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) position, driven by dinosaur ideology rather than sense, has aged like a mackerel left out in the sun.

[JayMac]

You have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, expressing his, "anger and disappointment" at the way the P&O Ferries staff have been treated, in his strongly worded letter to the CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer). Once he'd addressed it to the right person.

This is the same Grant Shapps who said this in 2013:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/we-need-to-make-it-easier-for-firms-to-sack-workers-claims-conservative-chairman-grant-shapps-8740703.html

The transport unions may well be dinosaurs, but at least they're consistent.

[WSW Frome]

P&0 Ferries operate under a variety of flags. Not all are within the EU^» (European Union - about).

[ChrisB]

You have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, expressing his, "anger and disappointment" at the way the P&O Ferries staff have been treated, in his strongly worded letter to the CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer). Once he'd addressed it to the right person.

This is the same Grant Shapps who said this in 2013:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/we-need-to-make-it-easier-for-firms-to-sack-workers-claims-conservative-chairman-grant-shapps-8740703.html

The transport unions may well be dinosaurs, but at least they're consistent.

I do feel that anyone is permitted to change one's opinion over nearly a decade.

However, that was a pile of sh1t that P&O did to their employees.

Unfortunately, P&O may not have followed the law - remember, it's civil law not criminal law, which can only result in compensation to the wronged, and reinstatement as an alternative. There is no criminal penalty.

I suspect P&O have offered redundancy terms in excess of any amount likely to be awarded in compensation & thus there be no point in going to a tribunal or case action. I understand that 6 months pay plus their standard notice period has been offered, along with enhanced (at least 3x the basic and possibly more) redundancy pay.

Should employment law become like laws on Health & Safety, where there is criminal sanctions against those responsible?

P&0 Ferries operate under a variety of flags. Not all are within the EU^» (European Union - about).

My understanding is that all their UK^▸ (United Kingdom) ferries are now Cypriot flagged

[JayMac]

Unfortunately, P&O may not have followed the law - remember, it's civil law not criminal law, which can only result in compensation to the wronged, and reinstatement as an alternative. There is no criminal penalty.

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a company is supposed to inform the Redundancy Payments Service 45 days before the first redundancy if they plan to lay off more than 100 staff. Whether this applies to the P&O staff is unclear. Breaching that Act though IS a criminal offence. Company directors and senior HR^▸ (Human Resources) staff could be prosecuted in criminal court.

[Electric train]

I read somewhere that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) employment law might not apply to persons employed in the shipping industry?

What an appalling way to treat your staff though!  I do hope Broadgage is right in that there is a lot of damage to reputation as a result, though sadly I suspect the parent company might not be too sorry to offload it or see it go under.

I'm not sure what the employments situation is, or was under EU^» (European Union - about) law, and whether there is a difference between merchant vessel plying their trade across the globe and those vessels dapping between Dover and Calais a few times daily. Whatever the case, I can't think of a worse way of getting rid of staff that doesn't involve violence, and side with the staff dealt with in such a way.

There is no difference with regards the various UK Merchant Shipping Acts and International agreements / regulations.  These did not change with the UK leaving the EU

Those aren't the relevant acts.

The P&O vessels are Cypriot flagged to specifically stay under EU rules.

EU employment laws offer considerably more protection.

Ask yourself why it was 800 UK employees who got the boot.

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)/ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) position, driven by dinosaur ideology rather than sense, has aged like a mackerel left out in the sun.

This article describes the Merchant Shipping (Marine Labour Convention) (Min Requirements for Seafarers) Regs 2014,  https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/marine/do-your-staff-have-rights-as-seafarers/

[TonyK]

This article describes the Merchant Shipping (Marine Labour Convention) (Min Requirements for Seafarers) Regs 2014,  https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/marine/do-your-staff-have-rights-as-seafarers/

That all looks pretty clear. It also looks like now is a good time to be a lawyer specialising in employment rights for seafarers.

[JayMac]

This article describes the Merchant Shipping (Marine Labour Convention) (Min Requirements for Seafarers) Regs 2014,  https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/marine/do-your-staff-have-rights-as-seafarers/

That all looks pretty clear. It also looks like now is a good time to be a lawyer specialising in employment rights for seafarers.

Indeed. It's highly unlikely the P&O staff will get any help from this government, beyond platitudes and statutory redundancy pay.

[ellendune]

To quote Oscar Wilde: "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable".

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) versus Gulf oil money..................they deserve each other !

Whatever you think of RMT the P&O workers don't deserve this.  

It is the sort of action by employers that makes unions to have the characteristics you so dislike in RMT. Look at early rail accident history and you will find ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) fighting for its members against huge injustice from employers.

Perhaps you would like to read what I actually wrote - I did not say that the "P & O workers deserve this",  I said that the RMT "deserved" the P & O management - and vice versa. Both sides in this dispute are equally stupid and pig-headed.
Just where did I imply, let alone say, that that the RMT has characteristics that I "so dislike" ?? I said no such thing ! Neither did I make any comment on what I might "think" about the RMT (or P & O). My comment was deliberately totally neutral - I did not identify either the "Unspeakable" or the "Uneatable" to requote Mr Wilde. When I see a fence I sit on it..................

Perhaps the senior management of P & O decided after watching the recent antics of the RMT on the rail network that the only way to resolve the problem was to get their retaliation in first ? Or is there only one side of this dispute that is allowed to be put forward ?

I am sorry if you took offence, but you said that P&O and RMT deserve each other to which I responded that P&O workers don't deserve this.  I fail to see any criticism of you in this response.

I am also sorry if I wrongly suggested that you disliked RMT's militancy, there is so much criticism of it on this forum that I find it difficult to work out who is criticising it.  

[ellendune]

This article describes the Merchant Shipping (Marine Labour Convention) (Min Requirements for Seafarers) Regs 2014,  https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/marine/do-your-staff-have-rights-as-seafarers/

That all looks pretty clear. It also looks like now is a good time to be a lawyer specialising in employment rights for seafarers.

Indeed. It's highly unlikely the P&O staff will get any help from this government, beyond platitudes and statutory redundancy pay.

They are more likely to get help (long after the event) from an employment tribunal who could award them significant compensation for wrongful dismissal or (I think unlkikely) reinstatement of their jobs. 

P & O on the other hand seem likely to end up on court with a potentially unlimited fine for ignoring due process. 

[broadgage]

I will be surprised if P & O are found to have broken the law. They will have had access to the best lawyers that dodgy oil money can buy, and have probably acted just within the law.

Their actions are nevertheless reprehensible in the extreme. I hope that they go out of business.

[Bob_Blakey]

Talk Radio carried an interview with an Employment Lawyer who stated that the original announcement was a breach of Contract Law because P&O did not give the defined notice period. I assume these people are invited to comment because they know their subject!

[TaplowGreen]

You have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, expressing his, "anger and disappointment" at the way the P&O Ferries staff have been treated, in his strongly worded letter to the CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer). Once he'd addressed it to the right person.

This is the same Grant Shapps who said this in 2013:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/we-need-to-make-it-easier-for-firms-to-sack-workers-claims-conservative-chairman-grant-shapps-8740703.html

The transport unions may well be dinosaurs, but at least they're consistent.

Never underestimate the importance of context when accusing people of hypocrisy.

[GBM]

Irish Ferries dismissed their European staff many years ago, and replaced with overseas crews.
However, they did go through official consultations, etc, painful though it was.

Unfortunately P&O Cruises are now being hit, even though they are part of the Carnival Group.
Prominent notices on all their web pages advising they are not part of P&O Ferries.

Several shipping companies have replaced European crews over the years, including BP^» (Beyond Petroleum (Former name - British Petroleum) - home page) Tankers, who, I believe, did this around 20 years ago.
They made all their Officers self employed, with overseas crewing.

[TonyK]

I will be surprised if P & O are found to have broken the law. They will have had access to the best lawyers that dodgy oil money can buy, and have probably acted just within the law.

Their actions are nevertheless reprehensible in the extreme. I hope that they go out of business.

I used to think that they would also haver access to the best HR^▸ (Human Resources) advice and public relations companies, but it seems I was wrong. This has the hallmarks of some of the worst practices of the 1970s, but without the original disputes.