P&O Ferries sackings: 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.
P&O Ferries has said 800 redundant staff will be offered £36.5m in total - with around 40 getting more than £100,000 each.
The firm has also denied that it broke the law when it sacked the workers without warning last week.
However, unions said the compensation package being offered was "pure blackmail and threats".
Ministers had questioned whether the move was legal - but P&O said those affected were employed outside the UK.
The company said some employees are set to get 91 weeks' pay and the chance of new employment, and no employee would receive less than £15,000.
The video message in which the company sacked workers last Thursday prompted widespread outrage, with unions claiming some staff would be replaced by Indian seafarers on £1.81 an hour.
Ministers had threatened the firm with "unlimited fines" but in a letter to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, its chief executive Peter Hebblethwaite said the 786 sacked workers were employed by three Jersey-based arms of P&O Ferries.
The eight ships they worked on, which service routes including Dover-Calais and Larne-Ciarnryan, are all registered in Cyprus, the Bahamas or Bermuda.
P&O Ferries has said 800 redundant staff will be offered £36.5m in total - with around 40 getting more than £100,000 each.
The firm has also denied that it broke the law when it sacked the workers without warning last week.
However, unions said the compensation package being offered was "pure blackmail and threats".
Ministers had questioned whether the move was legal - but P&O said those affected were employed outside the UK.
The company said some employees are set to get 91 weeks' pay and the chance of new employment, and no employee would receive less than £15,000.
The video message in which the company sacked workers last Thursday prompted widespread outrage, with unions claiming some staff would be replaced by Indian seafarers on £1.81 an hour.
Ministers had threatened the firm with "unlimited fines" but in a letter to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, its chief executive Peter Hebblethwaite said the 786 sacked workers were employed by three Jersey-based arms of P&O Ferries.
The eight ships they worked on, which service routes including Dover-Calais and Larne-Ciarnryan, are all registered in Cyprus, the Bahamas or Bermuda.
The key issue is not where the Employer is based. It is (unsurprisingly) the Contract of Employment itself.
Instead of people spouting theory, they need to look at the Contract. That is always a good place to start in contractual disputes
I have not seen a P&O Contract of Employment for many years. The last 1 I did see was a UK Contract of Employment. If that is still the case, then I am going to respectfully disagree with these articles. This sort of dispute has been to Employment Tribunals many times. And, so far, to my knowledge, with precisely 1 result.
Which is, of course, why DP World are getting their cheque book out. Pronto.
Well done, that man, Refreshingly honest. Better late than never.
Lawyers are very good at constructing defences. Even when there is no real defence. I should know
So-when a Lawyer says some plausible guff about whether or not there was a breach of the Law relating to notifying the UK Government on Redundancies, it is important to note what they do not say. So, for example:-
1. Did they notify the other relevant authorities in Cyprus etc? No mention-you would mention it if you had 2. Does that in any way prevent this being an outrageous Unfair Dismissal, even if true? Er, no 3. Is the potential damage to DP World far greater than the cost of buying their former workers off? Er, yes. Because Lawyers sometimes concentrate too much on the legal battle, and not enough on the Commercial ramifications. Particularly ones who are not currently DP's advisers, but would like to be.
Note that DP's traditional advisers (which I believe include Clifford Chance nationally, and White & Case internationally) have said nothing publicly. Because they are trying to limit the damage.
for a second I missed that sort of stuff. And then I didn't
I do feel sorry for those who have been dismissed, but I have to admit this whole saga is fascinating.
Will rival Ferry companies (or any businesses) now follow suit & knowingly break the law, as they see it as the lesser of two evils, compared with trying to negotiate with what is almost certainly an intransigent Union?
There may well be massive commercial penalties for P & O (lost business, goodwill etc) but I don't see Mr CEO/Chairman going to prison any time soon. It's just money.
Heard this on the radio he was asked why it happend he said it was losing so much money they had to do to save the company he was then asked if he was willing to give up his bonus and he didn't want to talk about that
I do feel sorry for those who have been dismissed, but I have to admit this whole saga is fascinating.
Will rival Ferry companies (or any businesses) now follow suit & knowingly break the law, as they see it as the lesser of two evils, compared with trying to negotiate with what is almost certainly an intransigent Union?
There may well be massive commercial penalties for P & O (lost business, goodwill etc) but I don't see Mr CEO/Chairman going to prison any time soon. It's just money.
Anarchy here we come.
Not at all. It has always been this way. Sometimes, commerciality overrides due legal process. Although probably not on this occasion.
I first became interested in Employment Law as a schoolkid. Due to a Solicitors letter to the infamous "Red Robbo" (Derek Robinson) on behalf of Leyland. The gist of it was as follows:-
1. We are hereby Unfairly Dismissing you 2. Here is the Maximum Award an Industrial Tribunal (mow Employment Tribunal) can give for this 3. Never darken our doors again
It didn't work, as he sought Reinstatement (it was always about the principle, not the money, with him).
Heard this on the radio he was asked why it happend he said it was losing so much money they had to do to save the company he was then asked if he was willing to give up his bonus and he didn't want to talk about that
Yup, he'll get full wages, keep his job in all probability, & likely get a nice bonus. And let's be sure that DP knew full well in advance of his plans & authorised him to do it.
I'm not taking his or P & O's side in this, but it's his job to, & fiduciary responsibility, to protect & enhance the shareholders best interests. I doubt that includes knowingly breaking the law, but just as the Unions (rightfully) want to protect their Member's interests, it's his job to protect the Company's interests. And there's not much common ground, is there?
And that's why this case so fascinates. There are two sides to every story, let's not forget.
Not really been following this story as don't tend to follow the news and apologies if this has be mentioned earlier in the thread.
I read that it's agency staff and remove the permanents? Is that the long and short of it?
Being an agency worker for most of my working life there are little rights so assumption is they can be cut at a week's notice (or at least it was like that prior, may still be the case)
Cost cutting would be necessary for the business which is understandable, for someone raising a family or wishing to start on the property ladder not great for them.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
You'll certainly get a migraine if you engage with @HAYSIE
Comments
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.
https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferries-sackings-change-in-law-signed-of-by-chris-grayling-meant-p-o-didnt-need-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920
Susanna Reid savage 'take down' of Tory MP Paul Scully over P&O staff sacking sends fans wild
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/susanna-reid-savage-take-down-of-tory-mp-paul-scully-over-p-o-staff-sacking-sends-fans-wild/ar-AAVmiqa?ocid=msedgntp
P&O Ferries offers £100,000 to some sacked staff
P&O Ferries has said 800 redundant staff will be offered £36.5m in total - with around 40 getting more than £100,000 each.
The firm has also denied that it broke the law when it sacked the workers without warning last week.
However, unions said the compensation package being offered was "pure blackmail and threats".
Ministers had questioned whether the move was legal - but P&O said those affected were employed outside the UK.
The company said some employees are set to get 91 weeks' pay and the chance of new employment, and no employee would receive less than £15,000.
The video message in which the company sacked workers last Thursday prompted widespread outrage, with unions claiming some staff would be replaced by Indian seafarers on £1.81 an hour.
Ministers had threatened the firm with "unlimited fines" but in a letter to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, its chief executive Peter Hebblethwaite said the 786 sacked workers were employed by three Jersey-based arms of P&O Ferries.
The eight ships they worked on, which service routes including Dover-Calais and Larne-Ciarnryan, are all registered in Cyprus, the Bahamas or Bermuda.
SOURCE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60840467
Instead of people spouting theory, they need to look at the Contract. That is always a good place to start in contractual disputes
I have not seen a P&O Contract of Employment for many years. The last 1 I did see was a UK Contract of Employment. If that is still the case, then I am going to respectfully disagree with these articles. This sort of dispute has been to Employment Tribunals many times. And, so far, to my knowledge, with precisely 1 result.
Which is, of course, why DP World are getting their cheque book out. Pronto.
These employees were sailing from the UK. To France and/or Ireland. Not Jersey.
Employers can't just pick a set of Laws they fancy. Not to employees.
They could call it F+O Ferries.
Officially, Townsend Thoreson, but P&O owned them. Quickest thing they did was to rebrand the ferries...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60849957
This gets more fascinating by the day...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933
Lawyers are very good at constructing defences. Even when there is no real defence. I should know
So-when a Lawyer says some plausible guff about whether or not there was a breach of the Law relating to notifying the UK Government on Redundancies, it is important to note what they do not say. So, for example:-
1. Did they notify the other relevant authorities in Cyprus etc? No mention-you would mention it if you had
2. Does that in any way prevent this being an outrageous Unfair Dismissal, even if true? Er, no
3. Is the potential damage to DP World far greater than the cost of buying their former workers off? Er, yes. Because Lawyers sometimes concentrate too much on the legal battle, and not enough on the Commercial ramifications. Particularly ones who are not currently DP's advisers, but would like to be.
Note that DP's traditional advisers (which I believe include Clifford Chance nationally, and White & Case internationally) have said nothing publicly. Because they are trying to limit the damage.
for a second I missed that sort of stuff. And then I didn't
I do feel sorry for those who have been dismissed, but I have to admit this whole saga is fascinating.
Will rival Ferry companies (or any businesses) now follow suit & knowingly break the law, as they see it as the lesser of two evils, compared with trying to negotiate with what is almost certainly an intransigent Union?
There may well be massive commercial penalties for P & O (lost business, goodwill etc) but I don't see Mr CEO/Chairman going to prison any time soon. It's just money.
Anarchy here we come.
I first became interested in Employment Law as a schoolkid. Due to a Solicitors letter to the infamous "Red Robbo" (Derek Robinson) on behalf of Leyland. The gist of it was as follows:-
1. We are hereby Unfairly Dismissing you
2. Here is the Maximum Award an Industrial Tribunal (mow Employment Tribunal) can give for this
3. Never darken our doors again
It didn't work, as he sought Reinstatement (it was always about the principle, not the money, with him).
But it fascinated me.
I'm not taking his or P & O's side in this, but it's his job to, & fiduciary responsibility, to protect & enhance the shareholders best interests. I doubt that includes knowingly breaking the law, but just as the Unions (rightfully) want to protect their Member's interests, it's his job to protect the Company's interests. And there's not much common ground, is there?
And that's why this case so fascinates. There are two sides to every story, let's not forget.
I read that it's agency staff and remove the permanents? Is that the long and short of it?
Being an agency worker for most of my working life there are little rights so assumption is they can be cut at a week's notice (or at least it was like that prior, may still be the case)
Cost cutting would be necessary for the business which is understandable, for someone raising a family or wishing to start on the property ladder not great for them.