P&O. What does the future hold?

[manxman1980]

7 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I bet they’ll be scared about that.

I agree that the fine it pitiful and disproportionately impacts on SME's.

8 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I just can’t see how TUPE applies as there are no undertakings to be transferred. It’s not one company taking over operations from another. They’re being made redundant and I would guess they are making all full time roles redundant and then will look to employ all staff via a third party agency. Ethically and morally it is absolutely disgusting behaviour. But I can’t see how TUPE applies even from the links above. 

Go through regulation 3...

Activities cease to be carried out by a person (Crewing of a vessel by P&O Ferries) on his own behalf, and are carried out instead by another person on the client's behalf (a contractor).

Also worth considering the definition of redundancy...

For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—

(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—

                    (i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or

                    (ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—

                    (i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or

                    (ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,

have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

Now consider that P&O Ferries intend to continue operating, continue to crew their vessel (although via a third party), and appear to have replaced all employees who have been dismissed allegedly for redundancy with agency workers.  

To me there has clearly been a service provision change in that P&O have decided to outsource the crewing of their vessels.  In a service provision change there does not need to be a transfer of assets etc.  I think you are working to the older interpretation of the TUPE Regs. 

[Eris]

18 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Doesn't look Russian to me...

"DP World, based in Dubai, is one of the world’s biggest logistics, cargo and port operators, with around 50,000 employees.

It has a network of more than 80 terminals around the world, handling 15pc of the world’s container shipping traffic.

Its chief executive and chairman is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who previously criticised UK politicians for being indecisive during the Brexit process."

I THINK that there's around a 40% Russian money involved.

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I agree that the fine it pitiful and disproportionately impacts on SME's.

Go through regulation 3...

Activities cease to be carried out by a person (Crewing of a vessel by P&O Ferries) on his own behalf, and are carried out instead by another person on the client's behalf (a contractor).

Also worth considering the definition of redundancy...

For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—

(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—

                    (i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or

                    (ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—

                    (i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or

                    (ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,

have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

Now consider that P&O Ferries intend to continue operating, continue to crew their vessel (although via a third party), and appear to have replaced all employees who have been dismissed allegedly for redundancy with agency workers.  

To me there has clearly been a service provision change in that P&O have decided to outsource the crewing of their vessels.  In a service provision change there does not need to be a transfer of assets etc.  I think you are working to the older interpretation of the TUPE Regs. 

But do TUPE regulations apply to seafarers, or is it International Maritime Labour Conventions, that don’t have a TUPE equivalent?

And I believe that current staff were supplied by P&O’s own in house staffing agency, a third party, in Jersey.  It’s no longer doing that. That’s redundancy, then.

[manxman1980]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But do TUPE regulations apply to seafarers, or is it International Maritime Labour Conventions, that don’t have a TUPE equivalent?

That I do not have an answer too. I am not clear on what rules would apply.  

[fuku4]

what does your future hold?

MMMhhhhh your mom John Wright......or should I say wrong you pedo!

[ManxTaxPayer]

Shame on you! Shame on, err, me? 

 

 

[ManxTaxPayer]

Rofl...

 

 

[Manxweegie]

On 3/18/2022 at 2:50 PM, manxman1980 said:

That I do not have an answer too. I am not clear on what rules would apply.  

The rules that would apply relate to location of manning agent who they signed contract with, in this case Jersey. There is then the consideration of the flag of the vessels involved and their laws would be invoked.

There really is nothing UK employment law can do in this case. 

[Non-Believer]

[manxman1980]

@Manxweegie  @Non-Believer

I have been watching the developments and would make the following comments/observations:

1. The Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which sets out the requirement to consult the workforce when redundancies are being considered.  Interestingly the exclusion for "mariners" appears to have been withdrawn (in 1993) but it does refer to "offshore employment" (<<link).  Clearly then the employees involved are at least covered by this piece of UK legislation and P&O have admitted as much with the statement from Mr Hebblethwaite.

2. There does not seem to be a consistent answer as to the status and location of the new "manning agent" for the vessels.  Various articles have talked about Cyprus, Jersey and I think even Malta was mentioned.

3. The calls for Mr Hebblethwaite to resign are all well and good but will this now be applied to every other UK employer who actively decides not to comply with UK employment law?  I doubt that very much.  Although I might be tempted to suggest that he has his employment terminated on the grounds of Gross Misconduct for bringing the company into disrepute.

4. I do not see what the Government can do other than change the legislation in future.  Whilst what P&O have done is disgusting Employment Law is a civil and not criminal matter (unless we get into Health & Safety legislation and employing illegal workers which do carry criminal penalties).  It is clear that P&O are intending to compensate the dismissed employees and will probably use Settlement Agreements to do so.

5. The argument over "fire and rehire" is going to be very interesting to watch as this idea is very much embedded in UK employment law and in certain circumstances is perfectly lawful. 

I guess the assessment that P&O did was that the time and effort to consult with the Trade Unions and individuals would be so long and disruptive to make it more commercially viable to dismiss the 800 and pay the compensation packages.

[Non-Believer]

[Langweilig]

I heard on the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Ulster that the underpaid and inexperienced replacement P&O crew members have been ringing the unfairly-sacked original crew, asking then how to operate item's of ship's equipment.

[Gladys]

On 3/23/2022 at 12:47 PM, Manxweegie said:

The rules that would apply relate to location of manning agent who they signed contract with, in this case Jersey. There is then the consideration of the flag of the vessels involved and their laws would be invoked.

There really is nothing UK employment law can do in this case. 

If that is correct, then I am surprised the press haven't picked the Jersey aspect up.  A good lambasting of the Crown Dependencies and their questionable practices is not often missed. 

Presumably, they are more than a manning agent and actually employ the crew, not as agent for P&O?  So, if that is the case and assuming Jersey doesn't have  the equivalent  employment legislation, shouldn't it have been for the Jersey employer to sack them not P&O? 

ETA Seems that it is a Jersey incorporated P&O entity.  Jersey employment protection only covers employees based and working in Jersey. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Gladys

[manxman1980]

Interesting watching this story develop.  We now have a Tory Government talking about introducing legislation that would prevent this situation arising in future and to force P&O to backtrack on this decision.

I am not apposed to such a law being introduced, however, I thought the Tory party was opposed to restricting businesses? 

[The Voice of Reason]

On 3/26/2022 at 5:57 AM, Langweilig said:

I heard on the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Ulster that the underpaid and inexperienced replacement P&O crew members have been ringing the unfairly-sacked original crew, asking then how to operate item's of ship's equipment.

How did they get their phone numbers?

And why did they think, as you say the unfairly sacked original crew would be accommodating?