On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?

If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
role technically no longer exists?

--
Arthur Figgis

Scott wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
><afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?
>>
>>If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
>>role technically no longer exists?
>
>Why? Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>of employment, nature of work, working hours etc? I thought if the
>'redundancy' was a sham [because substantially the same job remained
>in existence] then it amounted to unfair dismissal. Could this be PPI
>all over again for the lawyers?

It all sounds pretty dodgy, but which country's employment law
applies here?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?
>>
>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
>> role technically no longer exists?
>
> Why? Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?

I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
needs being doing is being done by other people.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 18/03/2022 09:40, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?
>>>>
>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>
>>> Why? Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>
>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>
> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
> reason and bring in their cousin instead.

I was thinking in terms of their cousin's outsourcing company, rather
than just their cousin.

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27 on
Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
><afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?
>>>>
>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>
>>> Why? Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>
>>I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
>>needs being doing is being done by other people.
>
>Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>reason and bring in their cousin instead.

A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.

It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous
24hrs.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27 on
> Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>> original
>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>
>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>
>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>
>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>
> A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>
> It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
> yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
> clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
> plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous 24hrs.

Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27
>>on Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>original
>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>
>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.

>> A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>> It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
>>yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
>>clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
>>plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous 24hrs.
>
>Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.

Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for which
that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential penalty is
disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive such a penalty.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/03/2022 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27
>>> on  Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing
>>>>> that
>>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>>
>>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>
>>>  A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>>>  It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
>>> yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
>>> clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
>>> plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous
>>> 24hrs.
>>
>> Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.
>
> Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for which
> that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential penalty is
> disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive such a penalty.

It's also from a member of a government that is long on slogans and
short on action.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t145na$rfs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:02 on Sat, 19 Mar
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/03/2022 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at
>>>>09:40:27 on  Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott
>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy.  I thought redundancy only applied where the
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>>>original
>>>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the
>>>>>>thing that
>>>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>>
>>>>  A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>>>>  It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the
>>>>news yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his
>>>>brief clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And
>>>>they'd had plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers
>>>>the previous 24hrs.
>>>
>>> Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.
>> Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for
>>which that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential
>>penalty is disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive
>>such a penalty.
>
>It's also from a member of a government that is long on slogans and
>short on action.

But they are "working at pace". What's not to like (other than snail's
pace would qualify).
--
Roland Perry

On 19/03/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t145na$rfs$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:02 on Sat, 19 Mar
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 19/03/2022 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at
>>>>> 09:40:27  on  Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How can P&O dismiss 800 staff and replace them with overseas
>>>>>>>>>> I thought any dismissal was either (a) due to misconduct, (b)
>>>>>>>>>> or (c) redundancy.  I thought redundancy only applied where the
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties,
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the
>>>>>>> thing  that
>>>>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>>>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>>>
>>>>>  A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>>>>>  It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the
>>>>> news  yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby",
>>>>> his brief  clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness.
>>>>> And they'd had  plenty of time to consult with some employment
>>>>> lawyers the previous  24hrs.
>>>>
>>>> Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.
>>>  Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for
>>> which  that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential
>>> penalty is  disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive
>>> such a penalty.
>>
>> It's also from a member of a government that is long on slogans and
>> short on action.
>
> But they are "working at pace". What's not to like (other than snail's
> pace would qualify).

A totally meaningless and ungrammatical slogan. Must be from a politician.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <3QZoC0MCDXNiFA99@perry.uk>, at 05:57:22 on Sat, 19 Mar 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the original
>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>
>>>> Why? Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>
>>>I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing that
>>>needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>
>>Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>
>A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>
>It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
>yyesterday

[Fridy]

>morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief clearly
>didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had plenty of
>time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous 24hrs.

Now some of the fog of war is clearing, it emerges they knew about this
Wednesday.

--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27
>>>> on  Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>>
>>>>  A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>>>>  It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
>>>> yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
>>>> clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
>>>> plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous
>>>> 24hrs.
>>>
>>> Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.
>>
>> Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for which
>> that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential penalty is
>> disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive such a penalty.
>
> It's also from a member of a government that is long on slogans and
> short on action.
>

It’s time we had a real Kwa(r)teng instead of this quasi-Kwa(r)teng they
keep mentioning on the radio.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 20/03/2022 20:34, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t143gu$e17$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:29 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 19/03/2022 05:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <vpk83hhq7m5gat3b546f95icidi1ctq4u8@4ax.com>, at 09:40:27
>>>>> on  Fri, 18 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:31:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 20:16, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:32:35 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2022 16:39, Scott 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the new staff are all from a third party, does that mean the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> role technically no longer exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why?  Surely the 'role' is defined by job description, duties, place
>>>>>>>> of employment, nature of work, working hours etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know, IANAL etc. But I would imagine its not impossible that
>>>>>>> someone might try to argue that the role is not needed if the thing
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> needs being doing is being done by other people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which would mean that any employer can dismiss any employee for no
>>>>>> reason and bring in their cousin instead.
>>>
>>>>>  A loophole as obvious as that would be well known about.
>>>>>  It's noticeable, however, that even though a UK Minister on the news
>>>>> yyesterday morning described the process here as "grubby", his brief
>>>>> clearly didn't include any suggestion of unlawfulness. And they'd had
>>>>> plenty of time to consult with some employment lawyers the previous
>>>>> 24hrs.
>>>>
>>>> Kwateng is now threatening P&O with unlimited fines apparently.
>>>
>>> Some sabre rattling, I presume. There are numerous offences for which
>>> that might be the penalty; and pointing out the potential penalty is
>>> disjoint from whether anyone might be likely to receive such a penalty.
>>
>> It's also from a member of a government that is long on slogans and
>> short on action.
>>
>
> It’s time we had a real Kwa(r)teng instead of this quasi-Kwa(r)teng they
> keep mentioning on the radio.
>

There goes the coffee!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.