P&O

[Mudball]

As it will do. Most of the lorries are continental fleets and drivers. Their bosses will take the cheapest crossing available which is quite understandable given it's another country's issue.

I agree. and the reason that happens is because the consumer wants everything cheap. it has a knockon down the supply chain..

 

[chrisd]

I agree. and the reason that happens is because the consumer wants everything cheap. it has a knockon down the supply chain..

Yes it does, but its understandable that consumers want stuff as cheap as is reasonable. P&O will have struggled during Brexit and Covid though but I've no time for them.

When the Icelandic volcano erupted we were in Portugal and couldn't fly home and eventually made our way to Calais, P&O had been doing dirt cheap crossings for foot passengers for years, but as soon as this happened they bumped the crossing price to Dover right up and shafted thousands of returning people - they haven't had a penny from me since!

 

[SocketRocket]

Not supporting P&O at all but technically they are not making anyone redundant. If the job still exists to be given to an agency worked then the position has not been made redundant. From what I read, they have simply sacked everyone. If they have givne the correct contractual notice, they may not have done anything wrong so far as emplyment law is concerned.

Employment law doesn't allow people to be sacked unless it's for disciplinary reasons that can be shown as gross misconduct. An employment Tribunal would find the Employer guilty of unfair dismissal in this case and award compensation to the Employees and could also insist they were given their jobs back.

 

[rudebhoy]

Employment law doesn't allow people to be sacked unless it's for disciplinary reasons that can be shown as gross misconduct. An employment Tribunal would find the Employer guilty of unfair dismissal in this case and award compensation to the Employees and could also insist they were given their jobs back.

If they were bound by UK law. My understanding is the ships are registered in Cyprus, and governed by Cypriot employment law.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

One of the bosses was in front of a commons committee this morning. He pretty much accepted the company broke the law. Their thinking was that the unions would never accept what was happening so why go through the consultation period. I think they just saw strikes and problems and went for the nuclear option.

The above is no defence incidentally, you can't pick and choose the laws to follow.

What this has highlighted though is the scandalously low wages in the shipping industry. Long haul, freight boats pay these wages, have done for many years. People ignore it because it is not as visible as a passenger vessel, until now......The concept of flags of convenience / registration allows too many workers to be trodden on.

 

[Foxholer]

If they were bound by UK law. My understanding is the ships are registered in Cyprus, and governed by Cypriot employment law.

Cypriot employment law isn't all that much different to UK law for much of the areas relevant to this case.

 

[Voyager EMH]

One of the bosses was in front of a commons committee this morning. He pretty much accepted the company broke the law. Their thinking was that the unions would never accept what was happening so why go through the consultation period. I think they just saw strikes and problems and went for the nuclear option.

The above is no defence incidentally, you can't pick and choose the laws to follow.

What this has highlighted though is the scandalously low wages in the shipping industry. Long haul, freight boats pay these wages, have done for many years. People ignore it because it is not as visible as a passenger vessel, until now......The concept of flags of convenience / registration allows too many workers to be trodden on.

Exactly correct.
An appropriate consultation and negotiation period would have cost P&O in man-hours of non-profit-making work.
They weighed up their options and went for the quickest cheapest strategy.
Makes no difference to the employer if they broke the law, they suffer no penalty.
The sacked employees will get what they are due, I hope.

 

[Robster59]

Exactly correct.
An appropriate consultation and negotiation period would have cost P&O in man-hours of non-profit-making work.
They weighed up their options and went for the quickest cheapest strategy.
Makes no difference to the employer if they broke the law, they suffer no penalty.
The sacked employees will get what they are due, I hope.

The concern on this is precedent. If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same? They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.

 

[phillarrow]

The concern on this is precedent. If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same? They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.

I'm going to self-report this post because I think it might be a bit close to the knuckle with respect to the 'no politics' rule but...

Why would P&O, or any other company, feel they shouldn't put two fingers up to the establishment and the law, when the 'establishment' themselves so flagrantly break the very laws and rules they introduce? We have seen so many examples in recent years, from politicians, to the police, to unelected councillors and Lords, it is just totally normal for powerful people to know they can do whatever they want with total impunity.

I'm not saying this to score points against any particular party, but I do think it is evidence of the importance of having an establishment (be it the Police, the judiciary, or the sitting government) who lead by example and abide by their very own laws. Without this, they simply empower others who also wish to believe they are above the law!

 

[IanM]

Really? I guess that excuse will stand up well in court. About as well as "I wasn't actually at the funeral, I was just carrying the wreath!"

 

[Foxholer]

The concern on this is precedent. If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same? They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.

Indeed, there has to be sufficient penalties to ensure the proper procedures are followed.
In this case, however, I can understand how the employers might be worried about what might happen to their assets, or the freight they are carrying, during the notification period. All sort of potentially disastrous 'accidents' could happen. That may indicate a horrible lack of trust/integrity, but the potential and consequences would be enormous.
Some sort of 'in lieu of notice' clause needs to be part of the contract of employment - and it needs to be adequate, at least better than might be expected if the existing procedures were followed.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The concern on this is precedent. If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same? They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.

Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it. That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against. Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law, then maybe that is all that is left to them, and in a way they are legally obliged to break the law…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Some interesting points raised recently.
There is no such thing as "contract of employment" anymore. The employer is required to set out "terms and conditions of employment" within 13 weeks of engagement. They might have "contract of employment" written at the top of the page, but there is no "contract" other than a mutual obligation to work and to pay for work.
In such a case as a mass sacking as has happened here, the employer is obliged to pay only the statutory requirement and no more.
The only deterrent for an employer who contravenes employment regulations is the very clunky Employment Tribunal system.
I see many here as indignant as I am with regards to possible enforcement of employment regulations and possible penalties for erring employers, but we have no system for this at present in this type of situation.

 

[IanM]

Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it. That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against. Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law, then maybe that is all that is left to them, and in a way they are legally obliged to break the law…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.

Utter nonsense.

If they break the law they are personally liable for many things even outside the scope of their own role. Their role is indeed to maximise shareholder value, but always within the law. You need to go away and read about the obligations of directors and NEDs. Apologies for being blunt, your remark "in a way they are legally obliged to break the law!" Got to be the silliest thing I have read in a while.

P&O's timing wasn't accidental, and says more about their attitude than anything else.

Some of the stuff on here is getting hysterically funny..

 

[Robster59]

I'm going to self-report this post because I think it might be a bit close to the knuckle with respect to the 'no politics' rule but...

Why would P&O, or any other company, feel they shouldn't put two fingers up to the establishment and the law, when the 'establishment' themselves so flagrantly break the very laws and rules they introduce? We have seen so many examples in recent years, from politicians, to the police, to unelected councillors and Lords, it is just totally normal for powerful people to know they can do whatever they want with total impunity.

I'm not saying this to score points against any particular party, but I do think it is evidence of the importance of having an establishment (be it the Police, the judiciary, or the sitting government) who lead by example and abide by their very own laws. Without this, they simply empower others who also wish to believe they are above the law!

"Everybody else is doing it" is not an excuse in law.

 

[phillarrow]

"Everybody else is doing it" is not an excuse in law.

I couldn't agree more and, just in case there is any confusion, I think what P&O have done is utterly disgusting. I just don't think there's any mileage in asking them to care about the establishment or the law, given recent events regarding those that represent both.

 

[Mudball]

Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it. That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against. Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law, then maybe that is all that is left to them, and in a way they are legally obliged to break the law…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.

Legally obliged to break the law… really?? Maximising shareholder wealth is a requirement but not a legal one. There are performance KPIs but that does not make it legal.

the basic principle of law says Ignorantia juris non excusat.
"ignorance of the law excuses no one" so you may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content. But in this case they say they willing broke it.

On another Boris says the boss should quit because he broke the law… ah the irony

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Utter nonsense.

If they break the law they are personally liable for many things even outside the scope of their own role. Their role is indeed to maximise shareholder value, but always within the law. You need to go away and read about the obligations of directors and NEDs. Apologies for being blunt, your remark "in a way they are legally obliged to break the law!" Got to be the silliest thing I have read in a while.

P&O's timing wasn't accidental, and says more about their attitude than anything else.

Some of the stuff on here is getting hysterically funny..

Just suggesting that they may have felt it was their only recourse to stop the business going bust. As clearly they did. CEO would say that the business has been saved and so it was worth it, but I would expect the CEO to resign regardless of what he felt his responsibilities to the business were when he was faced with its collapse. He directed his company to break the law, or he was at least aware of what would be done would break the law, and therefore as the boss he takes the hit and should resign.

 

[IanM]

Just suggesting that they may have felt it was their only recourse to stop the business going bust.

Not a blooming chance.

The HR Director would have waved a red flag and I cannot believe they continued.

Maybe he thought the war in Ukraine would provide a news blackout for this.

 

[Mudball]

Sums it up … don’t blame him..