Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
|
There’s no ‘potentially’ about it Mick. For a start, they are meant to consult with their employees (through the trade unions) before making anyone redundant. Given the number of redundancies involved, at least 3 months’ notice of the intention to declare redundancies should be provided. During that time, companies are meant to carry out meaningful consultation and consider alternatives.
All employees are also entitled to statutory notice pay or more if contracts are more generous.
As for replacing permanent staff with agency staff, well good luck with that one. That certainly doesn’t indicate that dismissal is by reason of redundancy as the jobs are still there.
If the company do not withdraw this threat of redundancies, they will stand liable to pay out a huge amount of compensation to these employees. They have already done tremendous damage, because even if the proposals were withdrawn, employees would be able to leave the company and sue for constructive dismissal on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence based on the company’s actions.
What they should have done was consult the unions about proposed changes in terms and conditions, citing the financial position of the company and the preference to avoid redundancies. This should lead again to meaningful discussions on how to ensure that jobs could be retained in the harsher economic climate.
If negotiations on changes to contracts do not result in agreement, the company should then give everyone notice of termination under their existing contracts and an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions of employment with no break in service. As an inducement to accept, the company could give those accepting the new contracts within a specified time limit six months’ protection on their existing terms and conditions before the new contracts kick in.
Does P&O not have an HR Department?!! This ineptitude will cost them a fortune.