Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36117395)

BBC News - P&O Ferries: Not consulting on job cuts broke law, boss admits

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36117398)

Cue, 800 cases of unfair dismissal. Could be expensive.

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Considering they paid out a 270 million dividend in 2020 whilst claiming 10 million furlough, I'd happily see them go to the wall. They'll leave a gap in the Ferry market that will be filled by others.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36117395)

BBC News - P&O Ferries: Not consulting on job cuts broke law, boss admits

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36117409)

Lets see how the smug gits feels when he's inside for breaking employment law

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36117428)

I don’t know the ins and outs of the law, but it would certainly send a message to other CEOs if he did serve a custodial period if he was found guilty.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36117429)

Custodial?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36117435)

That’s what I said, yes.


breaking U.K. employment law on a scale, possibly never seen before. Potentially jeopardising the security of 800 families, especially during these trying times.




I caveated my post by saying, I don’t know what potential penalties are available to the judiciary in the act. Given the scale of the issue and the seemingly calculated decision to break the law. I hope he gets the harshest possible penalty, whatever that is.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36117409)

Lets see how the smug gits feels when he's inside for breaking employment law

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36117442)

I'm sure P&O has done its homework. All the courts would say is pay the ex-workers an enhanced redundancy and this is what P&O has done.

I suspect Johnson's talk of taking the company to court was just to get him off the hook in PMQs in the expectation that people would forget about it.

Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36117444)

How was he on the hook? out of interest.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36117446)

It happened under his watch.

Some may think that's unfair but that's the responsibility that comes with the job. The same would be true if it happened under another Prime Minister.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36117449)

That’s a bit desperate, even for you.

‘On his watch’ generally is used in discussion of failures the one on watch (or their subordinates) should have seen and taken action on.

It is very hard to see how the government could or should have done anything here, especially as P&O has now admitted it knowingly broke the law in the whole area of *not* telling people what it was planning.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36117455)

Johnson was under pressure on the issue and bought time by saying the government would take action against the company.

The underlying issue here is that UK law is weaker here than some of its European peers which have prevented mass sackings and P&O has exploited this weakness. I'm not sure the finger can be pointed at anyone but the Government with regard to the UK's weaker legislation.