P&O Ferries - mass redundancies without consultation

[deep south]

I know it's been a while, but whatever happened to the threats of legal action against P&O Ferries and their directors? Or has this just quietly been dropped after all the strong words at the time....

 

[Deltic1961]

I guess the government have had other things to worry about. There was a fair bit of ridicule headed in Grant Schapps direction when he had criticised P&O management then threatened rail union members with exactly the same thing

 

[Gloster]

Just window dressing. The government don’t want to upset a subsidiary of a company that is, I am fairly sure, tied up with a former Chancellor and possible future leader’s beloved freeports.

 

[snowball]

BBC tonight:

Government used P&O ferries despite condemning firm

The Ministry of Defence said it used the operator, which ministers criticised for sacking 800 staff.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has admitted P&O Ferries was used by the military - despite widely condemning the firm for sacking nearly 800 staff without notice.
The Department for Transport cancelled a contract with P&O after it conducted a review of government business with P&O, after the sackings in March.
The Ministry of Defence said it used P&O to support a recent exercise.
It came after the RMT transport union said it saw evidence the MoD had bought slots on P&O's Dover-Calais service.

 

[RT4038]

I know it's been a while, but whatever happened to the threats of legal action against P&O Ferries and their directors? Or has this just quietly been dropped after all the strong words at the time....

Perhaps when the cold light of dawn came they realised that there wasn't much legal action that could be taken?

 

[Trainbike46]

Perhaps when the cold light of dawn came they realised that there wasn't much legal action that could be taken?

Didn't the P&O director literally tell parliament that their actions broke the law? There must be some realistic legal action that can be taken.

Furthermore, a policy to not use P&O ferries at all could definitely be instated.

Personally, I think the reason neither of these has actually happened suggests the government doesn't really care

 

[Typhoon]

Didn't the P&O director literally tell parliament that their actions broke the law? There must be some realistic legal action that can be taken.

Furthermore, a policy to not use P&O ferries at all could definitely be instated.

Personally, I think the reason neither of these has actually happened suggests the government doesn't really care

I looked through the MP, Natalie Elphicke's Twitter account, the last tweet on P & O was 94 tweets ago (I think, counting may not be 100%), probably because she couldn't find a way of blaming the French. If she is not going to raise it, who is?

I think you've got it in a nutshell.

Your first line says a lot, we've broken the law - and the response is to do nothing, nothing about holding ferry passengers to ransom. Doesn't bode well for workers rights in general.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Didn't the P&O director literally tell parliament that their actions broke the law? There must be some realistic legal action that can be taken.

Furthermore, a policy to not use P&O ferries at all could definitely be instated.

Personally, I think the reason neither of these has actually happened suggests the government doesn't really care

A director who knowingly broke the law when making a decision (to save the company, it is claimed) and openly admitting it. You would think there were rules about that sort of thing. Fit and proper person and all that. Makes you wonder what other laws he would break in similar circumstances. I wonder where he draws the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' law breaking?

 

[Eyersey468]

A director who knowingly broke the law when making a decision (to save the company, it is claimed) and openly admitting it. You would think there were rules about that sort of thing. Fit and proper person and all that. Makes you wonder what other laws he would break in similar circumstances. I wonder where he draws the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' law breaking?

It makes me wonder as well

 

[richw]

There must be some realistic legal action that can be taken.

How much did they pay each employee off to close the matter?

 

[Trainbike46]

How much did they pay each employee off to close the matter?

I don't think that is public knowledge, but it isn't particularly relevant with regards to legal action being taken against P&O ferries or the director himself by the government

It makes me wonder as well

Wasn't some authority considering criminal charges against Peter Hebblethwaite? Wonder what happened with that...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How much did they pay each employee off to close the matter?

Reports at the time suggested that the compensation packages were very generous. Certainly in excess of statutory amounts and probably contracted amounts - to the extent that it would have been cheaper to go through the 90 day statutory consultation then implement what they implemented in such a hurry.

Not sure who can 'prosecute' for failure to meet the requirement for 90 days consultation. If the 'sacked' staff received more through the 'voluntary' package than they would gain through a tribunal win, then it becomes pointless to pursue it. Plus there may be 'gagging clauses' when accepting any enhanced payment. It's a tough choice - make your stand on principle and get less £, or hold your nose and take the money. Re-instatement on old terms and conditions was not going to happen.

There is an 'offence' of failing to serve a notice (HR 1?) on the government that you are about to make a large number of redundancies.

 

[Towers]

The pertinent question, I remember thinking at the time, is whether these generous settlements were always intended to be offered, or was it damage limitation once their exploits had hit the headlines? The former scenario would seem unlikely, given the context!

 

[richw]

I don't think that is public knowledge, but it isn't particularly relevant with regards to legal action being taken against P&O ferries or the director himself by the government

It’s very relevant. Haven’t you read the prosecution section of this forum to learn about out of court settlements?
Out of court settlements are very common for these kind of misdemeanours in large businesses and rarely make it to court

 

[Typhoon]

How much did they pay each employee off to close the matter?

The amount they offered varied by rank, length of service etc. At least one employee did not accept the offer so, presumably, he is entitled to take the company to court.

 

[RT4038]

Reports at the time suggested that the compensation packages were very generous. Certainly in excess of statutory amounts and probably contracted amounts - to the extent that it would have been cheaper to go through the 90 day statutory consultation then implement what they implemented in such a hurry.

I think they feared sit-ins and damage to assets, (esp. with the history of such things). P&O probably thought that going through the 90 day consultation with the boats still operating was not feasible and would have resulted in a far longer PR issue and the boats out of service for far longer.

The pertinent question, I remember thinking at the time, is whether these generous settlements were always intended to be offered, or was it damage limitation once their exploits had hit the headlines? The former scenario would seem unlikely, given the context!

No doubt they will have gone for the legal cheapest first and then done whatever was necessary for damage limitation, I should think.

 

[Trainbike46]

It’s very relevant. Haven’t you read the prosecution section of this forum to learn about out of court settlements?
Out of court settlements are very common for these kind of misdemeanours in large businesses and rarely make it to court

For the option of the former staff taking P&O to court it is clearly relevant, however for the government taking P&O to court, including the criminal charges against P&O or its' director that have been suggested by the government, which is what the discussion was about, whether the former employees settled out of court isn't at all relevant

I think they feared sit-ins and damage to assets, (esp. with the history of such things). P&O probably thought that going through the 90 day consultation with the boats still operating was not feasible and would have resulted in a far longer PR issue and the boats out of service for far longer.

Personally, I think the government should take all available actions to ensure that it is abundantly clear that actively choosing to break the law is unacceptable and bad business practice. Even if only to prevent other businesses taking the same course of action in the future. Sadly though, it appears the government doesn't really care

 

[RT4038]

Personally, I think the government should take all available actions to ensure that it is abundantly clear that actively choosing to break the law is unacceptable and bad business practice. Even if only to prevent other businesses taking the same course of action in the future. Sadly though, it appears the government doesn't really care

No company takes the sort of action that P&O did without a really good survival reason. These reasons have been discussed plenty already. The staff have been paid off (generously by all accounts). Time to move on, and Government knows it.

 

[Wolfie]

No company takes the sort of action that P&O did without a really good survival reason. These reasons have been discussed plenty already. The staff have been paid off (generously by all accounts). Time to move on, and Government knows it.

Funnily enough, when an individual commits a criminal act, even if it's because their children are hungry and have no food, they face criminal charges. Allowing a company which openly admits to deliberately breaking the law to get away scott free is never an acceptable way to proceed. Your stance is effectively rewarding corporate law-breaking.

 

[deep south]

Funnily enough, when an individual commits a criminal act, even if it's because their children are hungry and have no food, they face criminal charges. Allowing a company which openly admits to deliberately breaking the law to get away scott free is never an acceptable way to proceed. Your stance is effectively rewarding corporate law-breaking.

Well, given that Boris did a similar thing, what could you expect....

 

[Stephen42]

Funnily enough, when an individual commits a criminal act, even if it's because their children are hungry and have no food, they face criminal charges. Allowing a company which openly admits to deliberately breaking the law to get away scott free is never an acceptable way to proceed. Your stance is effectively rewarding corporate law-breaking.

In this case it's uncertain whether any criminal offence occurred. The potential employment law offences are civil where most employees have accepted a settlement already. This research briefing from the House of Commons library explains some of the complexities (all seafarers impacted were on non-GB registered vessels).

Redundancy​

Employees have a statutory right to redundancy pay under the Employment Rights Act 1996, as well as having a contractual or common law right to adequate notice of dismissal. P&O have said they are paying those made redundant more than the statutorily required redundancy pay, as well as up to 13 weeks salary in lieu of notice.

Some legal commentators have suggested that P&O’s actions have not met the legal definition of redundancy. Where employees have been told they are being made redundant but there is not a genuine redundancy situation, it could instead constitute unfair dismissal under Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

However, the ability of P&O seafarers to bring unfair dismissal claims may be limited by the fact that the 1996 Act only extends protection from unfair dismissal to seafarers if their vessel is registered in Great Britain.

Consultation​

Under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, where an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days or fewer, they must consult with employee representatives before the redundancies.

P&O have accepted that they were required to consult with employee representatives but chose not to do so. Instead, they have offered to pay a further 13 weeks salary to each employee to compensate for the absence of a consultation period, equivalent to the maximum award a tribunal could grant for a failure to consult ahead of redundancies.

Notification of authorities​

Usually, under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, employers proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees as redundant within 90 days must notify the Secretary of State, in writing, 45 days in advance. Failure to comply is a criminal offence.

Changes made in 2018, however, mean that for seafarers on vessels registered overseas, the duty to notify the Secretary of State is transformed into a duty to notify the overseas authorities of the state where the vessel is registered. There has been some legal debate as to whether the criminal offence also applies to a failure to comply with this altered duty.

On 1 April the Insolvency Service announced they have initiated criminal and civil investigations into P&O Ferries over their handling of the redundancies.

Somewhat by accident P&O may have hit a loophole, the criminal offence of failing to notify only explicitly mentions the Secrety of State who wasn't required to be notified. They failed to notify the overseas authorities as well, which may prove to be a mistake as Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas probably wouldn't have been that interested.

 

[Wolfie]

In this case it's uncertain whether any criminal offence occurred. The potential employment law offences are civil where most employees have accepted a settlement already. This research briefing from the House of Commons library explains some of the complexities (all seafarers impacted were on non-GB registered vessels).

Somewhat by accident P&O may have hit a loophole, the criminal offence of failing to notify only explicitly mentions the Secrety of State who wasn't required to be notified. They failed to notify the overseas authorities as well, which may prove to be a mistake as Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas probably wouldn't have been that interested.

Interesting, TY.

 

[Dai Corner]

Somewhat by accident P&O may have hit a loophole, the criminal offence of failing to notify only explicitly mentions the Secrety of State who wasn't required to be notified. They failed to notify the overseas authorities as well, which may prove to be a mistake as Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas probably wouldn't have been that interested.

I don't think P&O were concerned about any action those overseas authorities may have taken, but about keeping the exercise as secret as possible?

It seems to me that there was no more need for P&O to inform the British (or French, or Irish) authorities than the owners of overseas factories or call centres supplying goods or services to the UK would if they make staff redundant. They probably do so all the time without us being aware.

 

[RT4038]

Funnily enough, when an individual commits a criminal act, even if it's because their children are hungry and have no food, they face criminal charges. Allowing a company which openly admits to deliberately breaking the law to get away scott free is never an acceptable way to proceed. Your stance is effectively rewarding corporate law-breaking.

I think that there needs to be a sense of proportion here. In spite of all the hot air at the time, it is uncertain if there has been a criminal act in the first place. Even if there was, a prosecution would only follow if it was deemed to have a chance of success and in the public interest. Any punishment would also have to 'fit' the crime which would depend on the consequences of the offence.

Whether a crime was committed has been discussed in other posts, so I won't comment in that as I have nothing to add. The consequences of the offence to society, compared to the fully legal route the company could have taken, appear to be minimal at worst and a positive outcome at best (i.e. the service was re-instated in the shortest possible time with the minimum of inconvenience and disruption to the market, and the affected staff were paid their due compensation). If a criminal offence has been committed then by all means prosecute them, but I would not expect the death penalty or anywhere close.

I know there are some who want P&O to be bankrupted and John Hebblethwaite's head on a stake by London Bridge for the shocking crime of not wanting to subsidise the Ts & Cs of their Ferry staff out of their other worldwide operations, but what happened was inevitable in one way or another, and the route they took was the least disruptive (and even then was no walk in the park!) to themselves, the country and their customers.

 

[Wolfie]

I think that there needs to be a sense of proportion here. In spite of all the hot air at the time, it is uncertain if there has been a criminal act in the first place. Even if there was, a prosecution would only follow if it was deemed to have a chance of success and in the public interest. Any punishment would also have to 'fit' the crime which would depend on the consequences of the offence.

Whether a crime was committed has been discussed in other posts, so I won't comment in that as I have nothing to add. The consequences of the offence to society, compared to the fully legal route the company could have taken, appear to be minimal at worst and a positive outcome at best (i.e. the service was re-instated in the shortest possible time with the minimum of inconvenience and disruption to the market, and the affected staff were paid their due compensation). If a criminal offence has been committed then by all means prosecute them, but I would not expect the death penalty or anywhere close.

I know there are some who want P&O to be bankrupted and John Hebblethwaite's head on a stake by London Bridge for the shocking crime of not wanting to subsidise the Ts & Cs of their Ferry staff out of their other worldwide operations, but what happened was inevitable in one way or another, and the route they took was the least disruptive (and even then was no walk in the park!) to themselves, the country and their customers.

How very Machiavellian. The end justifies the means and sod the law huh.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know there are some who want P&O to be bankrupted and John Hebblethwaite's head on a stake by London Bridge for the shocking crime of not wanting to subsidise the Ts & Cs of their Ferry staff out of their other worldwide operations, but what happened was inevitable in one way or another, and the route they took was the least disruptive (and even then was no walk in the park!) to themselves, the country and their customers.

I think it's fair to argue that it is better that a business fails than is allowed to commit an offence. Either way the crews would have lost their jobs as the business was unviable, but people should not be permitted to profit from even minor criminality, and that is what P&O has done and continues to do as a result.

 

[Wolfie]

I think it's fair to argue that it is better that a business fails than is allowed to commit an offence. Either way the crews would have lost their jobs as the business was unviable, but people should not be permitted to profit from even minor criminality, and that is what P&O has done and continues to do as a result.

Absolutely. If P&O are seen to get away with "minor criminality" what will the next company do, or the one after.

For example, should we allow companies to ignore health and safety laws because they cost them money.....

 

[RT4038]

I think it's fair to argue that it is better that a business fails than is allowed to commit an offence. Either way the crews would have lost their jobs as the business was unviable, but people should not be permitted to profit from even minor criminality, and that is what P&O has done and continues to do as a result.

But it is not going to be failing. I have never said that they shouldn't be prosecuted if a criminal offence has been committed (and it is apparently not clear if one has). I was just reading that Network Rail got fined £1.4million for criminal offences after two of their employees suffered serious injuries, and this is just one of many cases involving deaths and injury of their workers. However, the punishment for failing to inform Government of a major redundancy, or not going through a 90 day consultation period, but paying the staff for the 90 days, is hardly in the same league?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it is not going to be failing. I have never said that they shouldn't be prosecuted if a criminal offence has been committed (and it is apparently not clear if one has). I was just reading that Network Rail got fined £1.4million for criminal offences after two of their employees suffered serious injuries, and this is just one of many cases involving deaths and injury of their workers. However, the punishment for failing to inform Government of a major redundancy, or not going through a 90 day consultation period, but paying the staff for the 90 days, is hardly in the same league?

Were the staff paid for the 90 days? If so I see less of an issue - redundancy consultation periods are a sham in all but the most unionised workplaces, personally if I was being laid off for definite I'd rather be laid off ASAP and paid for any consultation period/notice period so I was then free to start my job search. Gardening leave for such periods is common anyway.

However, they should absolutely be fined on top if an offence has been committed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

P&O have had an accident at Calais this weekend involving a loaded coach nearly getting crushed between a linkspan and the top of the bow apperture on the Pride of Kent.

This could very easily have been a lot worse.

https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1556193189622603776?s=20&t=LKm-OPEsyHtH3_Q3YqmFYw

This is what happened to a coach on a P&O ferry yesterday. The company describes it as a ‘minor incident’, saying one passenger grazed their leg.