Scrutable

Everybody told their sacked on a pre recorded Zoom call with nothing in writing and replaced immediately with agency staff. Charming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001

I'm unsure how they can be made redundant and immediately replaced. That isn't how redundancy works.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:07 pm Everybody told their sacked on a pre recorded Zoom call with nothing in writing and replaced immediately with agency staff. Charming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001

Have UK employment protection laws fallen so low now that this can happen with no apparent consultation etc.?

I notice no mention of the grounds for dismissal, and 'redundancy' isn't mentioned in the article

I'm not prejudging anything but there are occasions when employers can get away with mass redundancy without collective consultation, although there is no strictly defined legal situation where it's accepted: https://www.acas.org.uk/collective-cons ... ly-consult

Seems a risky business though

Are their staff employed under UK law? Ferries like Pride of Hull are based in the Bahamas. At least with cruise ships, that means that staff can be employed under Bahamian (etc) law.

Gfamily wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:33 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:07 pm Everybody told their sacked on a pre recorded Zoom call with nothing in writing and replaced immediately with agency staff. Charming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001

Have UK employment protection laws fallen so low now that this can happen with no apparent consultation etc.?

I notice no mention of the grounds for dismissal, and 'redundancy' isn't mentioned in the article

Re your second paragraph, I'd probably be happy to put that down to sloppy reporting for now, until we find out more...

UK employees need at least three months notice of redundancy, and if they cant be given that, then paid for that period. If a small employer goes bankrupt the Government pays minimum redundancy money, but can't see this washing with a big company like this. As people suggest, much cheaper if your staff aren't UK employees, but the report is they want to replace them with cheaper foreign workers?

Reports of handcuff trained security operatives in balaclavas attempting to take British staff off the ships.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 90696?s=21

Seems far fetched but when I keep hearing people say that “employers can’t do that because it’s illegal” I only have to think about all the things I’ve seen in my life which were illegal but nobody did anything to stop.

Plus it's not like there's a huge array of alternative operators to choose from. P&O and probably gambling that they can basically do what they like, especially if the alternatives are insolvency or state funding.

Trinucleus wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:08 pm UK employees need at least three months notice of redundancy, and if they cant be given that, then paid for that period. If a small employer goes bankrupt the Government pays minimum redundancy money, but can't see this washing with a big company like this. As people suggest, much cheaper if your staff aren't UK employees, but the report is they want to replace them with cheaper foreign workers?

My employer told me not to come in the next morning on a Tuesday night in January having worked 30 - 40 hours per week for getting on for 6 months. “Due to the low volume of work we’ve cancelled your shift until further notice”. No P45 just a free ticket to the land of limbo. Nothing surprises me about what employers can get away with or think they can get away with.

I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.

In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call


https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.

In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call


https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

discovolante wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.

In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call


https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

Wasn’t there a similar situation at a British port a few years ago when they got rid of a ton of staff and re placed them with Blue Arrow temps(or tried to)?

discovolante wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.

In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call


https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

It’s astonishing. I thought employment law was pretty settled. Maybe ferries are different for some reason (like being registered in the Bahamas or whatever).

One article I saw said was that they were changing the flag the ships were flying under from the UK to Cyprus. From what (very) little I know about maritime law, that means that the crews were employed under British law and should be protected by it. But as a massive multinational I'm sure the lawyers have done whatever sneaky sh.t they need to to be legally if nowhere near morally in the right.

I bet the agency staff will all be on zero-hours contracts. And I don’t imagine anyone would take that bet.

discovolante wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.
In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

That's not allowed under UK employment law. An employee can only become 'redundant' when their role stops existing.
But this is P&O and possible maritime law, and etc.
Not a company I'd choose to use any more though.

Grumble wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:37 pm I bet the agency staff will all be on zero-hours contracts. And I don’t imagine anyone would take that bet.

I bet however the cards fall the top brass will walk away with sacks of money no matter what happens

Grumble wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:37 pm I bet the agency staff will all be on zero-hours contracts. And I don’t imagine anyone would take that bet.

Not from UK certainly; we'd expect at least minimum wage, but I assume there's a whole world that a company like P&O can scour for cheap labour.

I'm wondering - who do the other ferry companies employ and on what terms? Are P&O the expensive outlier, or the pioneer cheapskate?

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:06 pm

discovolante wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.

In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call


https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

Wasn’t there a similar situation at a British port a few years ago when they got rid of a ton of staff and re placed them with Blue Arrow temps(or tried to)?

Don't know about that, but fire and rehire* has been popular recently. This seems to be taking that to extremes, by skipping the rehire bit.


*Give workers the boot, then rehire them on worse pay and conditions. Oh, you don't like the new conditions? No job for you.

Gfamily wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:44 pm

discovolante wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:45 pm I’m taking the handcuffs and balaclavas with a pinch of salt for now.
In the meantime here is an excerpt of the Zoom call
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 49186?s=21

As I suspected with the reporting, he says 'on the grounds of redundancy'.

That's not allowed under UK employment law. An employee can only become 'redundant' when their role stops existing.
But this is P&O and possible maritime law, and etc.
Not a company I'd choose to use any more though.

Didn't say it was allowed (it's all a bit mysterious at the moment), just that the BBC didn't bother reporting that important bit of info. Will be interesting to see how this plays out I suppose...

I remember listening to an excellent podcast about sh.tty cruise ship practices a year or two ago but buggered if I can find it now. I wonder how much cross over to ferries there is.

Makes one wonder what they did with all that furlough money they took https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 3f908ab92d

If they are under UK law this could be a test case of the sunlit uplands, now that EU courts don't apply. There's probably back channels between P&O and government, either directly or via the Dubai owners.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:22 pm There's probably back channels between P&O and government, either directly or via the Dubai owners.[/b]

Reading the Guardian's live feed on the story (clicky) No 10/the Government are claiming that they didn't know about it beforehand. Transport minister says he has been talking to P&O, but after the news broke.

They seem to be against fire and rehire, which is news to me, as they've not been that outspoken about it before, but are mostly complaining about the way the workers were informed about losing their livelihood.