On 19/03/2022 07:23, sweller wrote:
> YTC#1 wrote:
>
>>> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
>>> should
>>
>> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>
> No, they can't. There has been some confusing case law on this but
> it's mostly based on the overall structure of the business. In this
> case that's 800.
>
> In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm fairly
> sure a ships crew is over 20.
>
> There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> dismissal).
>
> I have absolutely no idea what P&O are thinking. The reputational
> damage alone is enormous let alone the forthcoming legal costs.
>

A cartoon on one of the newspaper front pages summed it up nicely by
showing a couple about to go into a dinner-dance with the wife pulling
the husband back and whispering "Don't tell them you're a P&O executive,
tell them you're a Russian oligarch."

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On 18/03/2022 09:27, Dave Brown wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:23:06 AM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 01:21, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>> [schnip]
>>> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government should
>> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
>>> the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
>>> reduction in bookings.
>> Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to France.
>
> Don't they only run Dover to Calais ?
>
AFAIAW, yes.
But it is Jean's favoured route (short)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 18/03/2022 11:04, wessie wrote:
> YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote in news:t11j1o$f0f$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18/03/2022 01:21, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC,
>>>>>> browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need
>>>>>>> ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring
>>>>>>> law like that !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>>>>>> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a
>>>>>> collapse or sale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across
>>>>>> its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-
> sa
>>>>>> ilings-before-major-announcement
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can
>>>>> ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I
>>>>> was made redundant.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, not so sure. Probably more to do with where wages are paid.
>>>>
>>>> When Sun (UK) made redundancies they had to comply with UK law.
>>>> But IIRC (from my union rep days), as long as an "affected group" is
>>>> less than 100 then the rules change.
>>>
>>> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
>>> should
>>
>> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>>> and the reduction in bookings.
>> Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to
>> France.
>>
>> However Jean is so appalled she has said she will take the longer
>> Brittany Ferries routes (and belive me, that is a big thing for her to
>> do with her seasickness)
>>
>
> DFDS run services from Dover to Calais and Dunkirk plus there is that
> new fangled tunnel thing...
>

If man was meant to go underground, he would have diggers for hands!

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:14:16 +0000, YTC#1 wrote:

> On 18/03/2022 09:27, Dave Brown wrote:
>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:23:06 AM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:

>>> Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to
>>> France.
>>
>> Don't they only run Dover to Calais ?
>>
> AFAIAW, yes.
> But it is Jean's favoured route (short)

We booked our return trip yesterday, DFDS, Calais-Dover, £41, bike +2.

sweller wrote:

> YTC#1 wrote:
>
> > > The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
> > > should
> >
> > This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>
> No, they can't. There has been some confusing case law on this but
> it's mostly based on the overall structure of the business. In this
> case that's 800.
>
> In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
>
> There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> dismissal).

Or maybe not.
https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

--
Krusty

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:49:59 PM UTC, Krusty wrote:
> sweller wrote:
>
> > YTC#1 wrote:
> >
> > > > The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
> > > > should
> > >
> > > This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
> >
> > No, they can't. There has been some confusing case law on this but
> > it's mostly based on the overall structure of the business. In this
> > case that's 800.
> >
> > In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> > fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
> >
> > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > dismissal).
> Or maybe not.
> https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
>

Conservatives not knowing about rules changes other conservatives have made, surely they're not that disorganised.....

Dave Brown wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:49:59 PM UTC, Krusty wrote:
> > sweller wrote:
> > >
> > > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > > dismissal).
> > Or maybe not.
> > https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-
> > of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawye
> > r-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
> >
>
> Conservatives not knowing about rules changes other conservatives
> have made, surely they're not that disorganised.....

The same Conservatives who wrote to the wrong person at P&O because
they didn't know he'd left the job a year ago? Nah, not remotely
disorganised.

--
Krusty

Krusty wrote:

> > In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> > fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
> >
> > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > dismissal).
>
> Or maybe not.
>
https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
consult with the individual or recognised trade union.

Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
"enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.

--
Simon

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:52:37 AM UTC, sweller wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > > In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> > > fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
> > >
> > > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > > dismissal).
> >
> > Or maybe not.
> >
> https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>
> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
>

Hey ho old red haired sailor......

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:19:46 AM UTC, Dave Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:52:37 AM UTC, sweller wrote:
> > Krusty wrote:
> >
> > > > In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> > > > fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
> > > >
> > > > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > > > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > > > dismissal).
> > >
> > > Or maybe not.
> > >
> > https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
> > That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
> > consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
> >
> > Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
> > "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
> >
> Hey ho old red haired sailor......

Oh, I see what you have done..... half ginge.

sweller wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
> > > In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
> > > fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
> > >
> > > There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
> > > automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
> > > dismissal).
> >
> > Or maybe not.
> >
> https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
>
> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>
> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult

What's staggering is the reason they gave at the select committee for not consulting: "no union would accept what was being proposed". I mean, I get the logic, but jesus...

ogden wrote:
> sweller wrote:
>> Krusty wrote:
>>>> In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
>>>> fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
>>>>
>>>> There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
>>>> automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
>>>> dismissal).
>>> Or maybe not.
>>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
>>
>> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
>> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>>
>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult
>
> What's staggering is the reason they gave at the select committee for not consulting: "no union would accept what was being proposed". I mean, I get the logic, but jesus...

Admiral Grace Hopper would (probably) not be proud.

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:52:37 UTC, sweller wrote:

> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.

I suspect in most cases the enhanced package is above what could be
awarded by a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

I seem to remember those awards were capped in the recent-ish past, so in
some cases (well paid employees, long service) even in the case of a clearly
unfair dismissal from a financial POV it's best to grin, bear it and take the money.

On 24 Mar 2022 10:52:33 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
>consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>
>Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>"enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.

Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
erode their employment protections".

That aged well.
--
Salad Dodger
1690 FLHTK;GL1800D
Previously ...
CB1300SA8;GL1800A6;GL1500SEV;CBR1100XXX;
CBR1000FL;CBX1000Z;GPz750R;Z750E1;Z650C2;
KH500A8;KH250B3;TS250c;TS185c.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Packer
<stephen.packer@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:52:37 UTC, sweller wrote:
>
>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.

>I suspect in most cases the enhanced package is above what could be
>awarded by a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
>
>I seem to remember those awards were capped in the recent-ish past, so in
>some cases (well paid employees, long service) even in the case of a clearly
>unfair dismissal from a financial POV it's best to grin, bear it and take the money.

ISTR that max award from a tribunal is something like £25k, which in
redundancy terms isn't really that much
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote in
news:ok7p3h556m2feupl27t6qgbie1es3f3dol@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Packer
> <stephen.packer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 10:52:37 UTC, sweller wrote:
>>
>>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>>> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to
>>> tribunal.
>
>>I suspect in most cases the enhanced package is above what could be
>>awarded by a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
>>
>>I seem to remember those awards were capped in the recent-ish past, so
>>in some cases (well paid employees, long service) even in the case of
>>a clearly unfair dismissal from a financial POV it's best to grin,
>>bear it and take the money.
>
> ISTR that max award from a tribunal is something like �25k, which in
> redundancy terms isn't really that much

that limit applies to breach of contract but the award for unfair dismissal
can be higher https://tinyurl.com/3wp95m9r

as that article says, claims can also be made in other courts and I guess a
union could consider some sort of Group Litigation Order by its members

On 24/03/2022 16:25, Salad Dodger wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2022 10:52:33 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
>> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>>
>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
>
> Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
> erode their employment protections".
>
> That aged well.

The affected ships are registered in Cyprus so they currently enjoy the
full benefits of EU employment protection.

So maybe the union had a point?
--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:03:44 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>On 24/03/2022 16:25, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2022 10:52:33 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
>>> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>>>
>>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>>> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
>>
>> Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
>> erode their employment protections".
>>
>> That aged well.
>
>The affected ships are registered in Cyprus so they currently enjoy the
>full benefits of EU employment protection.

Re-flagged post-Brexit.
>
>So maybe the union had a point?

The crew's employment contracts were via Jersey, aiui.

The Dutch and French crew members are still employed.
--
Salad Dodger
1690 FLHTK;GL1800D
Previously ...
CB1300SA8;GL1800A6;GL1500SEV;CBR1100XXX;
CBR1000FL;CBX1000Z;GPz750R;Z750E1;Z650C2;
KH500A8;KH250B3;TS250c;TS185c.

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote in news:51925000-1ad1-f805-
07cc-bcde0b1f249c@scorecrow.com:

> On 24/03/2022 16:25, Salad Dodger wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2022 10:52:33 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
>>> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>>>
>>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>>> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
>>
>> Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
>> erode their employment protections".
>>
>> That aged well.
>
> The affected ships are registered in Cyprus so they currently enjoy the
> full benefits of EU employment protection.
>
> So maybe the union had a point?

I think you miss the point.

It seems P&O employees who are residents of the EU have not had their
contracts ended in the same manner as those from the UK.

Salad Dodger wrote:

> > Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
> > "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to
> > tribunal.
>
> Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
> erode their employment protections".

I'm not sure where the EU aspect has come in to this (genuinely) - in
or out, makes no difference to legality or otherwise of what P&O did.

On a personal note, I always though the Lexit argument slightly
self-indulgent.

--
Simon

ogden wrote:

> > Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult
>
> What's staggering is the reason they gave at the select committee for
> not consulting: "no union would accept what was being proposed". I
> mean, I get the logic, but jesus...

Dispiriting but not really surprising. I'd like to see Parliament
sanction P&O for the law breaking - and the contempt in which it holds
the law (and by extension Parliament). Something like the withdrawal
of their licence to operate...

--
Simon

On 24/03/2022 10:52, sweller wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
>>> In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm
>>> fairly sure a ships crew is over 20.
>>>
>>> There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
>>> automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
>>> dismissal).
>>
>> Or maybe not.
>>
> https://news.sky.com/story/po-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-po-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
>
> That negates the need to tell the Gov't but does not negate the need to
> consult with the individual or recognised trade union.
>
> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
> "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to tribunal.
>

So, they broke the law in a limited and specific way?
Nothing to see here, move along.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 25 Mar 2022 08:33:28 GMT, "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Salad Dodger wrote:
>
>> > Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult and offering an
>> > "enhanced" severance package - with an agreement to not go to
>> > tribunal.
>>
>> Good job their union campaigned for Leave to stop the EU "seeking to
>> erode their employment protections".
>
>I'm not sure where the EU aspect has come in to this (genuinely) - in
>or out, makes no difference to legality or otherwise of what P&O did.

I included it because the Dutch/French employees seem perfectly
secure. (so far)

Presumably P&O are prepared to break the law in UK, given the openly
cavalier attitude to such behaviour by our elected betters,

Challenging the EU on such matters might prove less immediately
rewarding.
>
>On a personal note, I always though the Lexit argument slightly
>self-indulgent.

It wasn't a personal dig, you've always struck me as a jolly decent
chap.
--
Salad Dodger
1690 FLHTK;GL1800D
Previously ...
CB1300SA8;GL1800A6;GL1500SEV;CBR1100XXX;
CBR1000FL;CBX1000Z;GPz750R;Z750E1;Z650C2;
KH500A8;KH250B3;TS250c;TS185c.

On 25/03/2022 09:23, sweller wrote:
> ogden wrote:
>
>>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult
>>
>> What's staggering is the reason they gave at the select committee for
>> not consulting: "no union would accept what was being proposed". I
>> mean, I get the logic, but jesus...
>
> Dispiriting but not really surprising. I'd like to see Parliament
> sanction P&O for the law breaking - and the contempt in which it holds
> the law (and by extension Parliament). Something like the withdrawal
> of their licence to operate...

Stopping them operating a freeport.

Clawing back the Covid aid they received.

On Friday, 25 March 2022 at 13:50:54 UTC, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 25/03/2022 09:23, sweller wrote:
> > ogden wrote:
> >
> >>> Which is why P&O have admitted a failure to consult
> >>
> >> What's staggering is the reason they gave at the select committee for
> >> not consulting: "no union would accept what was being proposed". I
> >> mean, I get the logic, but jesus...
> >
> > Dispiriting but not really surprising. I'd like to see Parliament
> > sanction P&O for the law breaking - and the contempt in which it holds
> > the law (and by extension Parliament). Something like the withdrawal
> > of their licence to operate...
> Stopping them operating a freeport.
>
> Clawing back the Covid aid they received.

- Sanction Peter Hebblethwaite and all of P&O's directors as 'unfit persons to be a director'
since if they can sit on the board of a company that deliberately broke employment law
then they aren't fit to be directors. (presuming, of course, that P&O ferries is a UK
business with directors under the 'control' of UK legislation). Otherwise fine them
to the highest extent possible for their crime.

- Remove DP World (P&O Owners) from the UK Government's 'Transport Advisory
Group'.

I wouldn't remove P&O's license to operate mostly because of the further impact
on jobs.