P&O Ferries make 800 British Workers Redundant

And with immediate effect. (Potentially breaching UK employment law)

It was later confirmed that all 800 crew, including officers, had been laid off with immediate effect via a video message while agency workers were in position to take over the running of ships.

Why have all services effectively been cancelled?

All P&O Ferries services have been suspended "for the next few days", according to P&O, with disruption perhaps lasting to the "end of next week".

That was a change from the company's initial position that had signalled services would face minimal delays.

The shift in its stance reflects the backlash that P&O is now facing.

Workers who have had their contracts terminated are now involved in a series of angry protests, some on board P&O ships, including at Dover which is the busiest route for P&O.

https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferri...kings-12568494

Hopefully people boycott them. Pathetic action.

[1andrew1]

Desperate stuff from P&O.

It's a good job market at the moment so I'm sure they could have restructured the company in a less aggressive way which does not disrupts everyone's lives - both staff and customers. This has damaged their reputation badly.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mick

And with immediate effect. (Potentially breaching UK employment law)



https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferri...kings-12568494

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 They have already done tremendous damage, because even if the proposals were withdrawn, employees would be able to leave the company and sue for constructive dismissal on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence based on the company’s actions.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.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Red OB. I like it

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Red OB. I like it

Yeah, except he's proposing the old management trick of fire and rehire (probably on substantially reduced money and conditions).

We're under the threat of a Section 188 notice despite the council saying next financial year they intend to increase the FTE job count by some 200 It's wrong to treat your staff like that.

[1andrew1]

Just a point of clarity. The company that has made the staff redundant is P&O Ferries, part of DP World. P&O Cruises is a separate company and a brand of the Carnival cruise company.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Just a point of clarity. The company that has made the staff redundant is P&O Ferries, part of DP World. P&O Cruises is a separate company and a brand of the Carnival cruise company.

Title amended.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Yeah, except he's proposing the old management trick of fire and rehire (probably on substantially reduced money and conditions).

We're under the threat of a Section 188 notice despite the council saying next financial year they intend to increase the FTE job count by some 200 It's wrong to treat your staff like that.

I’m not proposing that at all, Grim. I’m just telling you how it should be done if that’s what an employer wants to do. The way P&O is going about it is amateurish and unbecoming of such a large company.

[RichardCoulter]

Apparently, they are able to get away with doing this because, following Brexit, the Government repealed the EU Port Regulations.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers campaigned for a yes vote to leave the EU. There have been claims that this union has links to Putin.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Apparently, they are able to get away with doing this because, following Brexit, the Government repealed the EU Port Services regulations..

Their union campaigned for a yes vote to leave the EU.

I don't think the EU Port Services Regulations had anything to do with what P&O Ferries have done here. The Regulations are not primarily concerned with employment matters, although Article 9 does provide that ports must require the designated provider of port services to grant staff working conditions in accordance with applicable obligations in social and labour law and to comply with social standards as set out in Union law, national law or collective agreements.

What P&O Ferries has done is breach the UK's employment law, and so however you look at this, it was unlawful before Brexit and it remains unlawful now.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mick

And with immediate effect. (Potentially breaching UK employment law)



https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferri...kings-12568494

But they're not contracted in the UK, they're on Jersey contracts apparently.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

They're not employed under UK law.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Apparently, they are able to get away with doing this because, following Brexit, the Government repealed the EU Port Regulations.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers campaigned for a yes vote to leave the EU. There have been claims that this union has links to Putin.

It's nothing to do with BREXIT (the employment bit, there's an argument the dip in cross channel freight may be an issue)

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But they're not contracted in the UK, they're on Jersey contracts apparently.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------


They're not employed under UK law.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------



It's nothing to do with BREXIT (the employment bit, there's an argument the dip in cross channel freight may be an issue)

Jersey law still has consultation requirements

https://www.jacs.org.je/media/1105/r...-sept-2020.pdf

Collective Consultation: While employers were already required to consult employees individually about redundancies to avoid claims of unfair dismissal and associated penalties, employers are now required to consult with elected representatives when a larger number of employees are to be made redundant in a specified period. When an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant 12 or more employees (whether unionised or non-unionised) at one establishment within a capture period of 30 days then the employer is required to consult with elected representatives on behalf of employees.

Notifying the Minister: An is required to notify the Social Security Minister when proposing 12 or more redundancies at one establishment in a 30 day capture period. The Minister must be advised before any notice is given to employees and/or at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes place, whichever is the earlier date.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Jersey law still has consultation requirements

https://www.jacs.org.je/media/1105/r...-sept-2020.pdf

Well hopefully Jersey (or whatever jurisdiction, they are under) throw the book at them.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Apparently, they are able to get away with doing this because, following Brexit, the Government repealed the EU Port Regulations.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers campaigned for a yes vote to leave the EU. There have been claims that this union has links to Putin.

Eeh by jolly, don’t repeat this mantra, it will give Re-joiners something else to froth at the mouth, where it doesn’t apply.

Where companies often slip up, because they invest very little in a Human Resources Dept. Whether under UK, or Jersey jurisdictions, in redundancy, the role(s) being made redundant, have to cease to exist, the same responsibilities cannot be passed on to other workers.

As BenMcr above points out, there has to be a consultancy period, each employee has to be offered alternative opportunities, if they exist within the company, redundancy is or has to be last resort.

Under UK law and I expect it to be same under Jersey law, there has to be notice periods, if employees are not expected to be at work in their notice period, then they are legally entitled to payment in lieu of notice. Usually 90 days under UK law.

Just seen this though under Jersey law:

Protective awards : Employers who fail to consult properly may face a claim for additional compensation, called a "protective award". The claim for such an award, which could be up to an additional 9 weeks' pay to each affected employee, must be made to the Tribunal by the representative(s), or by individual employees if no representatives were appointed.

9 weeks additional compensation pay for failure to adequately notify or warn of redundancy x 800 on top of Statutory redundancy payment requirements, P&O Ferries may have dropped a very large bollock here and it now serves them right, not only the public backlash but the sting in the tail, financial stings they’re about to face.