P&O Ferries make 800 British Workers Redundant

Originally Posted by nomadking

And many of them were shoreside workers? IE resident in Ireland or France.
So what are these valid, workable alternatives?

The irony is, P&O has shut down discussion of alternative ways of saving money by illegally circumventing the usual process of notifying large scale redundancies well in advance and then running a consultation. While the applicable laws are those of Jersey, we have come to understand that in this area they are comparable to the UK. Notification and consultation should have happened. This isn’t the 1970s and the trade union could have been expected to engage constructively with the issues at hand. Workable alternatives could then have emerged through detailed examination of the company’s predicament over the next several months.

(Edit)

Further to the above, there’s some suggestion that UK law applies here because the workers work ‘from’ the UK. That appears to over-ride foreign contracts or ownership of the business.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60792039

BREAKING: From ITV News Joel Hill:

The @RMTunion says P&O plans to restart its ferry service in Dover using agency crew from India + will pay them the equivalent of $2.38 (£1.80) an hour.

RMT doesn’t offer proof but this is plausible and - while some may find this shocking - it would be legal. I’ll explain…

P&O trades internationally and its ships aren’t registered in UK so it is not subject to UK employment law and requirement to pay the UK minimum wage.

P&O does have to comply with rates of pay set out by International Transport Federation/International Labour Organisation

The ITF/ILO minimum recommended rate for an Ordinary Seaman (OS) - usually the lowest rank on a ship - is $15.9/day - or $1.99/hour for an 8 hour shift.

P&O reportedly wants to cut its wage bill in half.

Offering agency crew from India £1.80/hour (well below UK min wage of £8.91/hour) would be legal and, I’m told, competitive.

Other ferry operators also use non-UK crews - from countries like Poland and the Philippines.

[Carth]

So it boils down to:

The company isn't British
The ships aren't British
The crew aren't (now) British


I guess it's similar to large companies closing call centers in Manchester and Glasgow then opening call centers in Mumbai and Delhi

Not very nice, but what can you do in this age of globalization

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: From ITV News Joel Hill:

This is possible because the UK has no Cabotage rules, it is possible to prevent this from happening if they change this.

I doubt something similar could happen in the US or other countries that have Cabotage rules

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

So it boils down to:

The company isn't British
The ships aren't British
The crew aren't (now) British

I guess it's similar to large companies closing call centers in Manchester and Glasgow then opening call centers in Mumbai and Delhi

Not very nice, but what can you do in this age of globalization

It didn't happen to P&O's Irish, Dutch and French crews so presumably it can be prevented if the Government enacted similar legislation to those countries.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Carth

So it boils down to:

The company isn't British
The ships aren't British
The crew aren't (now) British


I guess it's similar to large companies closing call centers in Manchester and Glasgow then opening call centers in Mumbai and Delhi

Not very nice, but what can you do in this age of globalization

Soon there will be nothing left that is British.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is possible because the UK has no Cabotage rules, it is possible to prevent this from happening if they change this.

I doubt something similar could happen in the US or other countries that have Cabotage rules

Sounds to me like - in that respect - they may be taking somewhat advantage of the government allowing an exception for foreign truckers to transport in the UK to cover the shortfall in domestic workers being available.


Considering the alternative would have meant we didn't have anything to transport goods, that is obviously something they had to do.


But at the same time, doing this would allow other companies to use foreign workers to do similar transports.


It's an utter disgrace for P&O to do this and then rehire the British jobs using presumably foreign agency workers, based out of the UK, but it does appear if they aren't replacing directly, say they were using Indian workers instead of UK ones, then it seems to be possible these can be classed as genuine redundancies. Guess as their operation is global, unless there's some kind of licence consideration with sailing or docking on UK waters, then their staff could come from anywhere in the world.


I guess the situation is different if they are rehiring from a UK agency as that's closer to the roles they originally had but it is definite cost cutting exercise due to pandemic travel restrictions...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It didn't happen to P&O's Irish, Dutch and French crews so presumably it can be prevented if the Government enacted similar legislation to those countries.

Are you sure, Andrew? Didn't P&O Ferries fire ALL their ferry staff?

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

t 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.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Are you sure, Andrew? Didn't P&O Ferries fire ALL their ferry staff?

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

https://www.thelocal.fr/20220318/why...rench-workers/

Cross-Channel ferry company P&O made a shocking announcement on Thursday - 800 of its UK staff have been dismissed with immediate effect. But the company's French employees are apparently not affected.

[Sephiroth]

In which case, if these British workers were hired under Jersey Law, would not any enacted British laws have no effect?

[1andrew1]

In 2005, Irish Ferries replaced its workers with Eastern European agency labour that was considerably cheaper. This template has now been used by competitor P&O.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...0/transport.uk

[1andrew1]

Another twist in the tale.

Change in law signed off by Chris Grayling meant P&O didn't need to tell govt, maritime lawyer says

While senior government officials have claimed that the sacking of 800 workers by P&O Ferries was illegal, a specialist in maritime law argues that is incorrect.

But Kevin Barnett, head of employment at marine law specialists Lester Aldridge LLP, told Sky News that Mr Grayling's amendment removed the need to notify the government.

"The amendment states the notification must be made to the competent authority of the state where the ship is registered, instead of the secretary of state," he said.

He said Mr Kwarteng's insistence that he should have been notified of the sackings in advance is "incorrect."

A letter to Mr Kwarteng from P&O's chief executive Peter Hebblethwaite written after the sackings says: "The very clear statutory obligation in the particular circumstances that applied was for each company to notify the competent authority of the state where the vessel is registered.

"All relevant vessels are registered outside the UK. Notification was made to the relevant authorities on March 17."...

The change signed off by Mr Grayling states: "[If] the employees concerned are members of the crew of a seagoing vessel which is registered at a port outside Great Britain .. the employer shall give the notification required .. to the competent authority of the state where the vessel is registered (instead of to the Secretary of State)."

The amendment is the only change to the 1992 act relating specifically to foreign-registered ships.

According to an explanatory memorandum published by the Department for Transport, the amendment, part of a package called the Seafarers Directive, was supposed to improve seafarers' employment rights.

"The purpose [is to] address an anomaly where land-based workers may enjoy greater employment rights than those at sea," it said.

The memorandum claimed the amendment had been supported by the unions who have led protests against P&O's actions...
The memorandum states no formal consultation was carried out before the change was made, and no impact assessment was carried out.

https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferri...-says-12572920

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60840467

P&O Ferries has denied suggestions that it broke the law when it sacked 800 workers without warning last week.

Ministers had questioned whether the move was legal under British law - but in a letter, the firm said those affected were employed outside the UK.

It also said staff would benefit from a £36.5m redundancy pot - with around 40 getting more than £100,000 each.

Even if the "pot" were divided equally between all 800, thats over £45,000 each.

[nashville]

This must be against the law , sacking people without notice

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

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