A P&O situation looming in the IOMSPCo?

[2112]

If IOMG and the SPCO do go through with fire and rehire, or can’t sort out this dispute amicably, the. I hope it’s prepared for the accompanying shitshow that will follow. The unpleasantness, the bitterness and the negative publicity. That’s not to mention UK MPs adding their views. No doubt the BBC may devote a Panatama programme on the issue. 
 

Whilst the SPCO is supposed to be run at ‘arms length’, the impression is the Treasury, IOMG and CM Cannan are adding their two pennerths worth, stirring the pot. 

[Manxman2000]

the Manannan seems to change its crew after each trip (or rotation) does the Ben not do the same.  If that is the case then to have to live aboard for two weeks is a major change to their work contract and not one I would like.

I know the likes of Condor work this system but then the clipper is away from home port for almost 21 hours.  this system was used by British Channel Island Ferries for the same reason. 

The SPC as far as I am aware have not worked this system as a rotation is less than 12 Hours. But if you are going to Heysham in a weather window you can sit on the berth for better conditions for the return crossing.  Its a major change and will have to be bought in.  I would be firmly behind the crews on this one. 

[Manxman2000]

 

 

 

Posted 33 minutes ago

"Fire and Rehire" wasn't the big problem with P&O.  The problem was they were legally obliged to notify the UK Government of their intention to dismiss so many people in a short period of time and they didn't. 

The consultation process P&O followed was also sketchy from memory. 

"Fire and Rehire" or dismissal for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR) remains a valid approach in law as long as the correct processes are followed. 

 

so the Government are going to have to inform the Government that a Government owned company are to sack Government employees (at arms length).  this should be good.  you need Ashcroft to sort this one. 

 

[manxman1980]

2 hours ago, Manxman2000 said:

so the Government are going to have to inform the Government that a Government owned company are to sack Government employees (at arms length).  this should be good.  you need Ashcroft to sort this one. 

 

I was specifically commenting on the P&O case.

In that case the company did not carry out the legally required consultation process, nor any negotiation.  The Company also failed to complete the HR1 form notifying the Government (specifically the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) which is an offence that carries a significant fine.

P&O did either rehired those it dismissed on new terms or, in the majority of cases, offered Settlement Agreements to those dismissed.   Only one person rejected the Settlement Agreement and went to the Employment Tribunal.   I believe that case is still pending.

P&O also avoided any prosecution or fine from the UK Government.  Draw your own conclusions there...

It appears that the SPCo are in fact entering a formal period of consultation and negotiation (thereby complying with the appropriate legislation). 

I don't believe that the Isle of Man has a requirement to formally notify a Government department of redundancies.  I may be wrong on that point but even if there is then it is only a notification requirement.

Whilst you may not agree with what the SPCo are trying to introduce it does sound like they are following the required processes set out in law.  What I do not know is what is in the terms and conditions of employment which also needs to be considered alongside any Trade Union agreement. 

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Manxman2000 said:

So the Government are going to have to inform the Government that a Government owned company are to sack Government employees (at arms length).  this should be good.  you need Ashcroft to sort this one. 

Usually there are attractive £incentives including shift allowance, unsocial hours, TIL, overs for working weekends etc. Surely these are on offer? After all, this isn't the Navy...

I can see how a long shift session including four square and all found would be highly attractive to youngsters. But for those with responsibilities towards others it could make life very difficult.

As (amazingly!) the gov of the day have a duty of care towards ALL of their citizens I'd like to see how Tynwald will react should there be any underhand shenanigans by the SPCo board to the detriment of their manx crews.

Try squaring that circle...!

[Ringy Rose]

Cannan’s always been a cheap Thatcher tribute act, and what’s happened since he became Chief Minister is entirely in keeping with my expectations. I’m glad my MHKs didn’t vote for him.

As for the Steam Packet, this isn’t surprising. I said a while ago that, if crews don’t like what management propose then there’s the P&O option. The world is full of merchant seamen who will gladly work for what’s on offer. The employer must “consult” but, ultimately, can unilaterally change employment terms. You accept or are made redundant.

I can see why they are considering it for off-island crew, the Douglas flats for them must be costing a fortune and the one thing Manxman isn’t short of is crew cabins. But it’s really bad for long-standing on-island crew who have families and other commitments.

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

In that case the company did not carry out the legally required consultation process, nor any negotiation

P&O understood that there was no point wasting time consulting on something they were going to do anyway. Cheaper to just pay away the deficiency. Completely unethical, and goes to show just how employers hold all the cards in just about all industrial disputes.

[Banker]

6 hours ago, 2112 said:

Whilst the SPCO is supposed to be run at ‘arms length’, the impression is the Treasury, IOMG and CM Cannan are adding their two pennerths worth, stirring the pot. 

Impression from whom? As far as I know they haven’t been involved but assume you know better?

[Banker]

Gef reports on situation 

https://gef.im/news/travel/the-time-for-talking-is-over-40248/?fbclid=IwAR3Ym1OV-ORLevy0DgBrzSI6P8T0zun8zTWDXapIOjqiJZDgbpYgpy3-Tys

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

Cannan’s always been a cheap Thatcher tribute act, and what’s happened since he became Chief Minister is entirely in keeping with my expectations. I’m glad my MHKs didn’t vote for him.

As for the Steam Packet, this isn’t surprising. I said a while ago that, if crews don’t like what management propose then there’s the P&O option. The world is full of merchant seamen who will gladly work for what’s on offer. The employer must “consult” but, ultimately, can unilaterally change employment terms. You accept or are made redundant.

I can see why they are considering it for off-island crew, the Douglas flats for them must be costing a fortune and the one thing Manxman isn’t short of is crew cabins. But it’s really bad for long-standing on-island crew who have families and other commitments.

P&O understood that there was no point wasting time consulting on something they were going to do anyway. Cheaper to just pay away the deficiency. Completely unethical, and goes to show just how employers hold all the cards in just about all industrial disputes.

P&O were in a desperate situation. Not great but at least they had some excuse. SPCo are not in a desperate situation.

Also, aren't staff at sea not protected by normal employment law?

[The Listening Ear]

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/union-claims-steam-packet-workers-have-been-threatened-with-fire-and-rehire/?fbclid=IwAR2JYCfXjTatsKu8P1p-2AEaxPdUIP6KBv1sRnga5UMu1cBd2Nz7ZFr1VvY_aem_AUgdOwB9WQGNZ20kEwGOrQ4fWcVFNBZDQLhGI6WC9sPnUHrZ83qAJo3BrOBIh69VTvs
 

So the crew member I was talking to was correct after all. 

[Manxman2000]

18 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

P&O were in a desperate situation. Not great but at least they had some excuse. SPCo are not in a desperate situation.

Also, aren't staff at sea not protected by normal employment law?

I think the crews are working under Guernsey laws as the are employed by Guernsey crewing. 

[The Listening Ear]

13 minutes ago, Manxman2000 said:

I think the crews are working under Guernsey laws as the are employed by Guernsey crewing. 

I am reliably informed that the current contracts are NOT written to Guernsey laws and are U.K./IOM laws.

The IOMSPCo tried to change these to new contracts to Guernsey laws but were stopped by the unions as Guernsey actually have no employment laws and this would have meant that the SPC management could change any of the T’s & C’s, pensions, benefits etc and the crews wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

The HR response to this… “oh we must have made a mistake writing that into the contracts” Yeah Right!!! 

Another underhand tactic from Mr Thomson and his cronies to beat down the crews that are the lifeline of this business. 

[Omobono]

what has happened to the proud national institution  and island life line the steam packet once was ,employing local people  training apprentices  providing future employment   ,surly  we should be looking after this national asset  which can return a handsome profit and at the same time  be an excellent employer with good and stable industrial relations , 

a service  thats reliable ,friendly  cost effective and you know its going to be there in the morning , 

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Manxman2000 said:

I think the crews are working under Guernsey laws as the are employed by Guernsey crewing. 

I think I might have confused myself and everyone else. I was maybe referring to the P&O situation.  But my question is relevant to both circumstances I guess . 

[Happier diner]

8 minutes ago, Omobono said:

what has happened to the proud national institution  and island life line the steam packet once was ,employing local people  training apprentices  providing future employment   ,surly  we should be looking after this national asset  which can return a handsome profit and at the same time  be an excellent employer with good and stable industrial relations , 

a service  thats reliable ,friendly  cost effective and you know its going to be there in the morning , 

Commercial pressures? Lack of native staff?