On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:46:03 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:07:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t1k7r9$6lh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:25 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t1ipio$ggb$3@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:48 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:29, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:57, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1hoc4$tjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:04 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when what he did was avoid the company going into receivership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increase the bonus!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the former employees could claim damages for
>>>>>>>>>>>>the lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> of consultation in the civil courts in addition to what they
>>>>>>>>>>>> could claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> in an industrial tribunal?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That way they would lose the, allegedly, generous redundancy
>>>>>>>>>>>terms that
>>>>>>>>>>> P&O Ferries are currently offering, with no guarantee that the courts
>>>>>>>>>>> would award any more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There
>>>>>>>>>>should be
>>>>>>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick
>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>>>>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok you can go to a tribunal and they will agree he broke the law. You
>>>>>>>>> get the legal minimum redundancy pay - eventually, less costs. Your
>>>>>>>>> colleagues who kept schtum walk away with 50 grand or more. And the CEO
>>>>>>>>> gets an enhanced bonus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends if he’s broken the criminal law. Then it’s up to the CPS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to inform the government would be criminal law but apparently
>>>>>>> doesn't apply.
>>>>>> It does apply, and they say they did inform the governments
>>>>>> concerned
>>>>>> (Cyprus, Bahamas, Bermuda) on 17 March, who probably weren't terribly
>>>>>> bothered. There was no requirement to inform the UK government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I inadvertently inserted one of Roland's invisible words there,
>>>>> should have read Faiure to inform the UK government…
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad we've now been informed *which* governments were told, and also
>>>> that (contrary to what a <<UK>> government minister implied earlier)
>>>> that there *was* a requirement to inform our government.
>>>
>>>No, there was no such requirement.
>>
>>Which made it peculiar they sent a minister onto the prime time news to
>>imply there might have been.
>>
>>It wasn't necessarily an employment law thing, rather than the
>>withdrawal of critical national infrastructure. How are the lorry
>>drivers coping, I've heard no reports.
>>
>>>What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>>>with the trade unions.
>>
>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>be consulted too?
>>
>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.

The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current crews from there. As we know, the ships are
registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda and Cyprus, and operate under those countries' maritime regulations.

Conceivably, some members of the future crews may be recruited in Asia, but the ships won't be re-registered there.

> There was some
>suggestion the staff were employed out of Jersey. It would be good to
>have some more facts.

Google is your friend:
<https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/watch-sacked-po-staff-were-contracted-through-jersey/#.Yj287zWny7A>

<https://www.ft.com/content/707d708a-bf0d-494f-b54a-ffd754152bca>

P&O Ferries scandal: was sacking 800 staff legal?

Move to replace UK-based crew has led to outrage and request for Insolvency Service to investigate

UK ministers have asked the government’s Insolvency Service to investigate whether P&O Ferries breached employment law
by firing 800 UK-based sailors and replacing them with agency staff.

The operator, owned by Dubai-based DP World, provoked a furious backlash from ministers and trade union leaders with its
decision on Thursday to abruptly sack the crew without notice.

Peter Hebblethwaite, chief executive of P&O Ferries, said in a letter to remaining employees seen by the Financial Times
that the radical decision was taken “to reduce our crewing costs by 50 per cent, secure the future of our business and
set it up for growth”.

But in a separate letter to P&O Ferries on Friday, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said the company appeared not to
have followed the proper legal process and that he had asked the Insolvency Service to investigate. In the meantime, he
asked the company to explain “why you think these rules do not apply to you”.

Are P&O’s actions legal?

Nautilus International, a trade union for British, Dutch and Swiss seafarers, said it believed P&O had acted illegally
by failing to launch a consultation process before making the redundancies or to notify the business secretary.

Alan Bogg, professor of labour law at Bristol university, said P&O’s action appeared to be a “clear breach” of its
obligations under collective redundancy law.

A company making 20 or more staff redundant within 90 days is required by UK law to run a consultation before dismissing
the staff. Eight hundred P&O crew were told on Thursday their employment would end that evening. A company dismissing
more than 100 people must also notify the business secretary in writing of the proposed redundancies before it gives
notice to the employees that their contracts will be terminated, and at least 45 days before the dismissals begin.

P&O declined to comment on whether it had complied with its legal obligations.

The workers dismissed on Thursday were employed by a hiring agency in Jersey. But Nautilus claimed their jobs still fell
under UK-based law and protections since it was the jurisdiction specified in their contracts.

Does it matter that P&O is paying compensation?

Hebblethwaite told staff on Thursday that the company would be giving “enhanced severance packages” to redundant
employees to compensate them for lack of notice.

Neil Todd, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, which is advising the RMT union, said P&O was effectively “buying out its
obligations under UK law” by offering staff 13 weeks pay on top of a redundancy package — equivalent to the penalty it
would have to pay if an employment tribunal found it had breached the requirement to hold a collective consultation.

In an “extreme scenario, like the company’s going bust or . . . some crisis which could not have been foreseen” an
employer might have a defence for failing to use the proper process, said Richard Fox, employment law partner at
Kingsley Napley.

But firing people to replace them with cheaper agency workers “doesn’t sound to me like the kind of emergency situation
that the tribunal would be looking for”, he said. “My guess is they priced in what’s the worst that can happen and then
just offered that payment.”

Could this end up in the courts?

It was possible that trade unions would seek an injunction to force P&O to consult workers, said employment barrister
Alex Mellis.

Darren Procter, RMT national secretary, said the union was advising workers not to sign severance agreements yet while
it considered legal action.

However, winning an unfair dismissal claim would achieve little for workers, given they had been offered enhanced
redundancy terms, said Nautilus.

Jo Mackie, head of employment law at Slater and Gordon, which is representing Nautilus, said that there could be value
in making an example of P&O by taking it to court.

P&O could also face separate action by the government if it was found to have failed to notify it properly about the
redundancy plans. Failure to do so is a criminal offence for which both a company and its directors or managers can be
prosecuted. Kwarteng said in his letter to P&O that a breach could result in an unlimited fine.

Is UK employment protection strong enough?

P&O retained staff employed under Dutch and French contracts because these countries’ employment law protections were
stronger than those of the UK, said Procter at the RMT.

The company’s action exposed the weakness of the UK’s labour market enforcement regime, given “a situation where you
have very large, well-resourced employers that make decisions to deliberately flout the law”, said Bogg at Bristol
university.

The Trades Union Congress called on the government to urgently bring forward an employment bill to strengthen workplace
protections and impose strong penalties on employers who break the law.

“What happened at P&O is a national scandal — it can’t ever be allowed to happen again,” said Frances O’Grady, general
secretary of the TUC. “This must be a turning point for workers’ rights in the UK.”

_________

We can assume that the company took lots of expensive legal advice before proceeding with this action. Unlike the
government and the unions, it was well-prepared, and reckons that this calculated risk was worth it.