Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

idleness, n.: Leisure gone to seed.


aus+uk / uk.railway / Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

SubjectAuthor
* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Recliner
+* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
|`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'NY
| `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Arthur Figgis
`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Recliner
 +- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
 `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Bevan Price
  `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Recliner
   `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
    `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
     `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
      `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
       `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
        `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
         +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
         |`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
         | `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
         |  `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
         |   `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
         `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
          +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
          |+* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
          ||+- OT: P&O 'redundancies'hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
          ||`- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
          |`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
          | `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
          |  `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
          |   +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
          |   |+- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
          |   |`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
          |   | `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Sam Wilson
          |   `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
          |    `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
          `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Charles Ellson
           +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Scott
           |+- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
           |+- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Recliner
           |+- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Marland
           |`- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Mark Goodge
           `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
            `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
             +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             |+* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Graeme Wall
             ||`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             || +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
             || |`- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             || `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Marland
             ||  `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             ||   `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
             ||    +* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
             ||    |+* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
             ||    ||`- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
             ||    |`- OT: P&O 'redundancies'martin.coffee
             ||    +- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             ||    `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'martin.coffee
             ||     `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Anna Noyd-Dryver
             ||      `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'martin.coffee
             |`* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Mark Goodge
             | `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'Muttley
             `* OT: P&O 'redundancies'Roland Perry
              `- OT: P&O 'redundancies'martin.coffee

Pages:123
Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25465&group=uk.railway#25465

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ce47412f51187dc1bc4621017c81e69f";
logging-data="8179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UO7HLgw/XLlIIdv9DlUEHCme8MBaVid4="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4McbgPJ+fCuj8CDP7gSgjemAqCc=
sha1:6u1YgzBMNBVdwW3BtT2FPxoUK18=
 by: Recliner - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34 UTC

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>
> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>

I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent company
may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.

There is a rail-relevancy, in that the RMT represents these seafarers, and
perhaps the employer had had enough of its constant militancy? TfL and the
DfT would probably love to be able to do the same.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25468&group=uk.railway#25468

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rai...@greywall.demon.co.uk (Graeme Wall)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:51:44 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:51:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="089c62d3f698bcca1542d6fd69190f12";
logging-data="17038"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pK8hZu7KYlQo21i296l2N8uB4MNjiiW8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QJuvdCk+RseRrdiVTC25LUJtEd4=
In-Reply-To: <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Graeme Wall - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:51 UTC

On 17/03/2022 17:34, Recliner wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>
>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>
>
> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent company
> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.

P&O Ferries ships are now registered (since 2019) in Cyprus to remain in
the EU for tax purpose. Presumably crew are hired under Cyprus
employment rules.

>
> There is a rail-relevancy, in that the RMT represents these seafarers, and
> perhaps the employer had had enough of its constant militancy? TfL and the
> DfT would probably love to be able to do the same.
>
It's possible.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25471&group=uk.railway#25471

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>
<m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ce47412f51187dc1bc4621017c81e69f";
logging-data="7848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19S2ItPNETnTKcWX1e9I7L+OM7OdmOvsh8="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xt9iddC85TN0vpBYDYf+y0Wic1Q=
sha1:Jl+64YC9a1Ub6fKaLxAi75+L9JI=
 by: Recliner - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36 UTC

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>
>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>
>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent company
>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>
> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?

Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?

>>
>> There is a rail-relevancy, in that the RMT represents these seafarers, and
>> perhaps the employer had had enough of its constant militancy? TfL and the
>> DfT would probably love to be able to do the same.
>
> They do indeed. The rail industry has always operated on the basis
> existing staff are TUPE'd where there is a change of franchise.
>

They're effectively on UK public sector contracts.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<Y0jjrajuX4MiFADO@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25474&group=uk.railway#25474

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:03:10 +0000
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <Y0jjrajuX4MiFADO@perry.uk>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net hn/rW5AEfvUs+SUmFPboyABWYqOLGB/nyuz1OaAYz72TaxnsMr
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LePdowyr45H6qwZkZ8RdBXctcfo=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Rm5fFb1$jxxR1U9dxW62mVbUT>)
 by: Roland Perry - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:03 UTC

In message <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>, at 18:46:15 on
Thu, 17 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:

>If the shipowner is non-UK this would raise a number of interesting
>questions. Do the seamen pay Income Tax?

And if they pay only Cyprus income tax, are they entitled to be treated
on the NHS, or now receive UK unemployment benefits?

Maybe we now know one reason why Boris paid a visit to UAE yesterday?
--
Roland Perry

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t109vm$4it$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25482&group=uk.railway#25482

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 21:38:15 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <t109vm$4it$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="utf-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 21:42:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b539f27646e630ac40a74531edbd13b1";
logging-data="4701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lbbGXGBcUZBjNLNea67BVdHYbigE+uzA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hFkl1GiHDAurUroAoJNr/6uqQjo=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220317-8, 17/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 21:38 UTC

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me...
> On 17/03/2022 17:34, Recliner wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>
>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>
>>
>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent
>> company
>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>
> P&O Ferries ships are now registered (since 2019) in Cyprus to remain in
> the EU for tax purpose. Presumably crew are hired under Cyprus employment
> rules.

Does Cyprus have its own employment rules or are there blanket employment
for all EU members? Are our rules not the same as the EU's, probably
harmonised while UK was part of EU?

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<MtKdnejekK4YJa7_nZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25490&group=uk.railway#25490

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:39:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:39:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Newsgroups: uk.railway
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <t0vsfg$gke$2@dont-email.me>
<t109vm$4it$1@dont-email.me>
From: afig...@example.invalid (Arthur Figgis)
In-Reply-To: <t109vm$4it$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <MtKdnejekK4YJa7_nZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 11
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e7Iv9EbOIuMXHZBdkpAYDCMMksic+L09YEJdTBdhYoSisfljN3zJlHuVR9zn4fV5/pOOvtR0OAJsshr!LXJSmk0IraNp8DGAf19lb1GUz575ZJCTVNlpj2WOmKuVlOGQYil0OQE9V5H7vkVZgNbp1rVwvGbQ!xHd/lrFn2zqCQvMQ4C2tEjdE
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1528
 by: Arthur Figgis - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:39 UTC

On 17/03/2022 21:38, NY wrote:

> Are our rules not the same as the EU's,
> probably harmonised while UK was part of EU?

Compare railway operating contracts, where in Britain the staff get a
new uniform each time the contract is awarded, while in Germany AIUI
they aren't guaranteed to transfer.

--
Arthur Figgis

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25492&group=uk.railway#25492

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bevanpri...@gmail.com (Bevan Price)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:57:07 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
Reply-To: wehatespam@boris.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:57:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="245a2aa94373101901f92e6723ed6e40";
logging-data="31641"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dAT1uAdHAxXNGk7FQWu9Ri4m0w4Y2GEs="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:skVzhLOI2eQhp3DtWwT8lXuSRWw=
In-Reply-To: <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
 by: Bevan Price - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:57 UTC

On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>
>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>
>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent company
>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>
>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>
>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>
> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
> Income Tax?
>

Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25493&group=uk.railway#25493

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:07:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me>
<m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me>
<5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:07:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bdeeeb36888288a2874658e7f6c37047";
logging-data="11993"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fhxzAV9ZsZAsqPkPUdyKMRsgiqE3IiWQ="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7CYkY30XmpACPOiSfrJsIShvWSo=
sha1:pKNHqyyfRfHCPYuzd18Z/3kTvSg=
 by: Recliner - Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:07 UTC

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The parent company
>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>
>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>
>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>
>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>> Income Tax?
>>
>
> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>
>

Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25531&group=uk.railway#25531

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!newsfeed.xs3.de!callisto.xs3.de!news.nnrp.de!akk.uni-karlsruhe.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net rQvae4Vm75IlJIQKMxC7FgJZrsRh/SQrPAkN1R8kvjtxg5veqD
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N7GFXXVWD8ZIUW8sjelhF7rchFM=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52l5fZdV$jhVf1U93hT62mJV+y>)
 by: Roland Perry - Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12 UTC

In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>
>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>
>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>> Income Tax?
>>
>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>
>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.

We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.

As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
definition of "resides" has many wrinkles, and isn't consistent between
different bodies of UK law.
--
Roland Perry

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25585&group=uk.railway#25585

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net L5K6beht3euppv1CkNu51QR5EPZp8c4VRcqZw/Sh0R10tkUtoy
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vHJF5lplL6MLCnjhcFr0NXHZmcc=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220318-2, 18/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36 UTC

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>> Income Tax?
>>>
>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>
>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>
>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>
>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>
"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.

>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>
There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
greatly.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25708&group=uk.railway#25708

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net oG2tEIhr2LMtRMhLah6yHAAYZsmY7g2rbL51bB/UVeWw94idrR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NjD0mAwgmXX9QHxO4SJ27A7zrR4=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41 UTC

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>
>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>
>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>
>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>
>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>
>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>
>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>greatly.

And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25742&group=uk.railway#25742

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net opz+YcZR4enKqz+Fi8R9gwm7yI8DTtn0Ab6jQm7deK/uk1sr1k
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EtNjwaNE9JgBEk35QVXD78K1ZGc=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220320-4, 20/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39 UTC

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>
>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>
>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>
>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>
>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>
>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>greatly.
>
>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>
The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25754&group=uk.railway#25754

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net lUZR6WRSEhFhu2vWB2/0AAm9qIL0MUJtpOKXV2LCEbWiBhQAAU
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DSmnCTOgiv3mW5N+2qw0aJLr7VE=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14 UTC

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>
>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>
>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>
>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>
>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>
>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>greatly.
>>
>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>
>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/

Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
contract law may have an impact .

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25848&group=uk.railway#25848

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56:52 +0000
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com> <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net qOW/D5h61aieqcqJvAHe1wm0x++R2aDzGqDznqCO9ptIFFTbaM
Cancel-Lock: sha1:++tZkQOWw3NnxQfCzlyVMr5hioE=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220321-6, 21/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56 UTC

4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>
>>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>
>>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>
>>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>greatly.
>>>
>>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>
>>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>
>Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>contract law may have an impact .
>
Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<964j3httl2q7bfdo3jfa4olgh9hv6fhaoc@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25860&group=uk.railway#25860

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:05:40 +0000
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <964j3httl2q7bfdo3jfa4olgh9hv6fhaoc@4ax.com>
References: <t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Ta5UQKTvPBXrOpf3iuEvIgk1J47kAmVH+gTVBC+IOOnhT1z1AP
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RLuSt+/7hIkjSOTnSCA8TXAj8z4=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:05 UTC

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56:52 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>
>>>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>greatly.
>>>>
>>>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>
>>>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>
>>Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>contract law may have an impact .
>>
>Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.

I agree. I'm not saying application of the law is identical, just
that it's the same law. Likewise, Scotland created a slightly
different definition of dangerous driving (Allan v Paterson) that was
subsequently adopted in road traffic legislation.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<g4fk3hlf0tp062stjjeub3mguljamn7f04@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25919&group=uk.railway#25919

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:28:18 +0000
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <g4fk3hlf0tp062stjjeub3mguljamn7f04@4ax.com>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <964j3httl2q7bfdo3jfa4olgh9hv6fhaoc@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Y5e0wbtE8D4U7PGGx8+BjQmPl8+XxpdXKnza3I4AYJ77XctMP/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rWuguFhWeUA5Q2QWqWfhdvI1RRQ=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220322-2, 22/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:28 UTC

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:05:40 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56:52 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>
>>>>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>
>>>Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>contract law may have an impact .
>>>
>>Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>
>I agree. I'm not saying application of the law is identical, just
>that it's the same law.
>
Same statute (if the case depends only on statute) but different law
(i.e. statute plus case law).

>Likewise, Scotland created a slightly
>different definition of dangerous driving (Allan v Paterson) that was
>subsequently adopted in road traffic legislation.
>
There are IIRC still some other subtle effects where it makes a
difference how road/highway/similar are interpreted. Some years ago
there was a drink-driving case which turned on there being a "road"
through a car park in Scotland with opposing ungated entrances. Since
then the legislation has caught up by adding public places to where
you can't be over the limit.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<g2rl3hpkjbkfcadbs69vkh7j5m0i906h97@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=25952&group=uk.railway#25952

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:49:00 +0000
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <g2rl3hpkjbkfcadbs69vkh7j5m0i906h97@4ax.com>
References: <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <964j3httl2q7bfdo3jfa4olgh9hv6fhaoc@4ax.com> <g4fk3hlf0tp062stjjeub3mguljamn7f04@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZP0qp15ZIpZ8U7gt4Fltxgc0P7xQX90O12mfLRiQv2xmtGaJVo
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jnCNYoqnHXFGFU0x4EP0CO6/r+4=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:49 UTC

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:28:18 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:05:40 +0000, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56:52 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>>greatly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>>>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>>
>>>>Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>>contract law may have an impact .
>>>>
>>>Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>>of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>>protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>>
>>I agree. I'm not saying application of the law is identical, just
>>that it's the same law.
>>
>Same statute (if the case depends only on statute) but different law
>(i.e. statute plus case law).

Yes I agree but with the proviso that an English case will be
persuasive but not binding on the Scottish Court.
>
>>Likewise, Scotland created a slightly
>>different definition of dangerous driving (Allan v Paterson) that was
>>subsequently adopted in road traffic legislation.
>>
>There are IIRC still some other subtle effects where it makes a
>difference how road/highway/similar are interpreted. Some years ago
>there was a drink-driving case which turned on there being a "road"
>through a car park in Scotland with opposing ungated entrances. Since
>then the legislation has caught up by adding public places to where
>you can't be over the limit.

Yes I agree. Good example as there is a distinct Roads (Scotland) Act
1984. Indeed, the term 'highway' should be avoided in Scotland in
favour of 'road'.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26055&group=uk.railway#26055

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!j/KTFQD4LKzXEidPGBcBbg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk (hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <vho63htdqmukrjqifq8nm073v5mft6fr9r@4ax.com>
<t0vrfg$7vj$1@dont-email.me> <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>
Reply-To: hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="36538"; posting-host="j/KTFQD4LKzXEidPGBcBbg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: hounslow3@yahoo.co.u - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58 UTC

On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>> greatly.
>>>>
>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>
>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>
>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>> contract law may have an impact .
>>
> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.

I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.

That's gotta be actionable.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26063&group=uk.railway#26063

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk (Scott)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:14:20 +0000
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net TAf2cJWPnIk3tZ5Ifz625gIXgKsQisApPdQclzGQz0B4+qtAFo
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qgKjru02gQSyWRNlxT6YsoF14Mo=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
 by: Scott - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:14 UTC

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>> greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>
>>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>
>>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>> contract law may have an impact .
>>>
>> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>
>I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>
>That's gotta be actionable.

Maybe it was to play the role of an Irish woman in a play? Maybe it
was for a German translator? More details needed.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<o3tm3hh5apam5hstsfn1en5268t9hkpr0u@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26065&group=uk.railway#26065

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:43:52 +0000
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <o3tm3hh5apam5hstsfn1en5268t9hkpr0u@4ax.com>
References: <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <964j3httl2q7bfdo3jfa4olgh9hv6fhaoc@4ax.com> <g4fk3hlf0tp062stjjeub3mguljamn7f04@4ax.com> <g2rl3hpkjbkfcadbs69vkh7j5m0i906h97@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net mscYuXgMvFuJrXg6g5ZyNQIIzCRU8JH/4GVhZVnguiVIL7JQsb
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Wzl1OuQ03OEVzRzglNJagPPfuY=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220323-0, 23/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:43 UTC

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:49:00 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:28:18 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:05:40 +0000, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:56:52 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>>>years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>>>to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>>>>foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>>>UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>>>ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>>>definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>>>match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>>>greatly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>>>>matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>>>https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>>>
>>>>>Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>>>contract law may have an impact .
>>>>>
>>>>Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>>>of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>>>protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>>>
>>>I agree. I'm not saying application of the law is identical, just
>>>that it's the same law.
>>>
>>Same statute (if the case depends only on statute) but different law
>>(i.e. statute plus case law).
>
>Yes I agree but with the proviso that an English case will be
>persuasive but not binding on the Scottish Court.
>>
Yes, unless a point is already established thus leaving no need to
borrow. English cases generally have no special importance unless they
are the only relevant comparison or it involves a shared statute.
Otherwise on both sides of the border a lack of domestic material can
lead to a legal "trawl" around the Commonwealth (most basically
English Law but sometimes with varying amounts of Scots Law thrown
in), the USA (still basically English Law with post-1776 deviation,
ignoring Louisiana) and sometimes further.

>>>Likewise, Scotland created a slightly
>>>different definition of dangerous driving (Allan v Paterson) that was
>>>subsequently adopted in road traffic legislation.
>>>
>>There are IIRC still some other subtle effects where it makes a
>>difference how road/highway/similar are interpreted. Some years ago
>>there was a drink-driving case which turned on there being a "road"
>>through a car park in Scotland with opposing ungated entrances. Since
>>then the legislation has caught up by adding public places to where
>>you can't be over the limit.
>
>Yes I agree. Good example as there is a distinct Roads (Scotland) Act
>1984. Indeed, the term 'highway' should be avoided in Scotland in
>favour of 'road'.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<l4um3h9e20frip9pkjoihrt8eb2tn4kup1@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26066&group=uk.railway#26066

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:02:30 +0000
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <l4um3h9e20frip9pkjoihrt8eb2tn4kup1@4ax.com>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com> <t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com> <t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me> <rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com> <unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com> <u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com> <i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com> <1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net oBXz0DtZTwA3HVJNZd6cwA12r4neY5sJOdVovFTaNrA2po9KUP
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lJveNr5u1mTFEA8ZLwx1lDif7qA=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220323-0, 23/3/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:02 UTC

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>> greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>
>>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>
>>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>> contract law may have an impact .
>>>
>> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>
>I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>
>That's gotta be actionable.
>
There can be exceptions if in the particular circumstances the
discrimination can be justified. Usually that would be male v. female
but there can be various other special cases where e.g. you need a
close match between the interviewee and the people they will be
potentially dealing with. You could anticipate difficulty with e.g.
border staff dealing with a mixture of foreign visitors who might have
little/no difficulty communicating with a speaker of "BBC" English but
could be totally bamboozled by various dialects or versions of English
from around the British Isles.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t1futv$mk9$4@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26069&group=uk.railway#26069

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rai...@greywall.demon.co.uk (Graeme Wall)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:11:43 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <t1futv$mk9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:11:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b0464c57876421a39657bd523038997a";
logging-data="23177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/t0aWET7EWcpGQUWeKcmxutvVRaUL4mvw="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qj5wqnnw8vEKUuAe7lCvEgRp+Nw=
In-Reply-To: <89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Graeme Wall - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:11 UTC

On 23/03/2022 19:14, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>> greatly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>> contract law may have an impact .
>>>>
>>> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>>
>> I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>> though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>>
>> That's gotta be actionable.
>
> Maybe it was to play the role of an Irish woman in a play? Maybe it
> was for a German translator? More details needed.

And was it really her accent or was that her assumption? In this day and
age I can't see an employer admitting to that sort of discrimination
quite so blatantly.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t1g1i2$da2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26075&group=uk.railway#26075

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!gWQcxKJCpRW8LAVJnUJvnw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk (hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:56:33 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t1g1i2$da2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me> <5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me> <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk> <vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com> <t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com> <t1futv$mk9$4@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="13634"; posting-host="gWQcxKJCpRW8LAVJnUJvnw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: hounslow3@yahoo.co.u - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:56 UTC

On 23/03/2022 20:11, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 19:14, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17
>>>>>>>>> Mar
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy.  I thought redundancy only applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed.  If P&O appoint replacement staff, does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair?  Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line?  The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE?  Would existing employees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK
>>>>>>>>>>>>> registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer.  If the shipowner is
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions.  Do the
>>>>>>>>>>>> seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant
>>>>>>>> Test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>>> greatly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>>> contract law may have an impact .
>>>>>
>>>> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>>> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>>> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>>>
>>> I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>>> though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>>>
>>> That's gotta be actionable.
>>
>> Maybe it was to play the role of an Irish woman in a play?  Maybe it
>> was for a German translator?  More details needed.
>
> And was it really her accent or was that her assumption? In this day and
> age I can't see an employer admitting to that sort of discrimination
> quite so blatantly.
>

They blatantly did admit to her accent as being a reason not to employ her.

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t1g8ei$2ns$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26106&group=uk.railway#26106

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ann...@noyd-dryver.com (Anna Noyd-Dryver)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <t1g8ei$2ns$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me>
<5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me>
<t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk>
<vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>
<t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="20bcea12f882135f65897068609bf426";
logging-data="2812"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183Uf7yu+nJjHU55S8TdNDFYR676xeFsBo="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mbcZXf8eFQu76XgH6oN7u6Slvfs=
sha1:RU5cxOqdFZpI/rDTPYafH3nMF3A=
 by: Anna Noyd-Dryver - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54 UTC

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>> though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>>
>> That's gotta be actionable.
>
> Maybe it was to play the role of an Irish woman in a play? Maybe it
> was for a German translator? More details needed.
>

Why would a Welsh accent be a problem for a translator?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'

<t1g8ej$2ns$3@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=26108&group=uk.railway#26108

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ann...@noyd-dryver.com (Anna Noyd-Dryver)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: OT: P&O 'redundancies'
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <t1g8ej$2ns$3@dont-email.me>
References: <m5u63h1m5h8os809mkgv9qur312fftf0au@4ax.com>
<t0vv39$7l8$1@dont-email.me>
<5c073h91a1k8rci0ohto3jh21nqhvl7vkf@4ax.com>
<t10ec1$usp$2@dont-email.me>
<t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>
<rIev05nesFNiFA$w@perry.uk>
<vfn93ht458v0pgelqfc48fml95nruagh0k@4ax.com>
<unbe3hpbl459jm9ev2nmgu9rl5m2lt564i@4ax.com>
<u47g3htpnb2r4okhdf5it1bd8g4bqctmhu@4ax.com>
<i8gg3h5hi0mchufqcmffibd6l8sadv8fva@4ax.com>
<1v3i3hdo2fkgoupu64n4ls8nit5d133vg3@4ax.com>
<t1fqk3$13lq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<89sm3h1ucfrnl3hm3c09e1dla9dq7lghl3@4ax.com>
<t1futv$mk9$4@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="20bcea12f882135f65897068609bf426";
logging-data="2812"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cPCh75uOj8OdfczJu2eqJfHJ2lOvVlVU="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:owDbAt/C2LSrxZ6boaeEX8jVFFc=
sha1:/zURny+mgwHClmU3iXfk/zKxeVE=
 by: Anna Noyd-Dryver - Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:54 UTC

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 19:14, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:58:11 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 23:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> 4On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:14:38 +0000, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:39:33 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:41:43 +0000, Scott
>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:36:49 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:12:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <t10evp$bmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:07:37 on Thu, 17 Mar
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 18:46, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:36:25 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:40 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b) unfair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy. I thought redundancy only applied where the job no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer existed. If P&O appoint replacement staff, does this not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the job role continues to exist thereby making all the dismissals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair? Will P&O not be tied up in litigation for years to come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose there's some complex web of ownership. P&O is a Dubai-owned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> company, and the crew are probably employed by a non-UK company that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps lost its contract to supply staff to the line? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may simply have awarded the crew supply contract to a different agency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case. what about TUPE? Would existing employees not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled to remain on existing their terms and conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that apply to a foreign-owned ship not on the UK registry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the ship is the employer. If the shipowner is non-UK
>>>>>>>>>>>> this would raise a number of interesting questions. Do the seamen pay
>>>>>>>>>>>> Income Tax?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who resides in UK is normally supposed to pay UK taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, regardless of where their employer or customer is based.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are getting into tax law a bit over our heads I think. Over the
>>>>>>>>> years I have known many (mainly IT) contractors who have lived in
>>>>>>>>> to UK and worked for firms based overseas. It's most unlikely their
>>>>>>>>> foreign employer was running a UK PAYE scheme for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As well as mutual double tax conventions/treaties (and one exists
>>>>>>>>> UK-Cyprus for example), there's a whole load of special rules for
>>>>>>>>> ex-pats working in the UK but paid from abroad. In any event, the
>>>>>>>>> definition of "resides" has many wrinkles,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ordinarily resident" can often be a candidate for the Elephant Test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and isn't consistent between different bodies of UK law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no UK Law, there are three legal systems not guaranteed to
>>>>>>>> match each other although matters of Civil Law tend not to vary
>>>>>>>> greatly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And matters of employment law I suggest even less so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The differences can be made where employment law runs along with other
>>>>>> matters such as discrimination or contract law :-
>>>>>> https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/scottish-employment-law-small-but-significant-differences-can-be-a-trap-for-the-unwary/
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure about discrimination (Equalities Act 2010) but I agree
>>>>> contract law may have an impact .
>>>>>
>>>> Not related to the P&O case but different interpretation in the past
>>>> of what constituted "race" or similar led to e.g. English people being
>>>> protected from discrimination in Scotland but not Scots in England.
>>>
>>> I read an article the other day that some woman was denied a job, even
>>> though doing very well in interviews, based on her Welsh accent.
>>>
>>> That's gotta be actionable.
>>
>> Maybe it was to play the role of an Irish woman in a play? Maybe it
>> was for a German translator? More details needed.
>
> And was it really her accent or was that her assumption? In this day and
> age I can't see an employer admitting to that sort of discrimination
> quite so blatantly.
>

Here's the tweet…
<https://twitter.com/elunedanderson/status/1506015005027807237?s=21>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor