P&O Ferries - mass redundancies without consultation

[Trainbike46]

I think the insurers will very much care. Imagine that phone call.

"Yes I want to run the ferry with completely new crew, none of whom have ever been on the ship before, and some of them have no experience at all. All good with you guys?"

Clearly insurance isn't going to like that (or agree to it)

 

[BayPaul]

I think the insurers will very much care. Imagine that phone call.

It will have already happened and been agreed. As you say, the insurers would care, but they would be happy with the interim arangements

No doubt the replacement crews will have all the correct tickets however I can still see the MCA getting involved on safety grounds as they will be unfamiliar with the vessels. Does this involve officers as well as ratings?

It is very likely that the MCA would want to see emergency drills etc, but I suspect that these will be well in hand and ready to go

I suspect preventing this is exactly why they ensured the ships were berthed before saying anything. If they were already at sea, a very silly game of chase could have ensued.

Also to prevent the crews effectively holding passengers / freight / cars / each other hostage. Much easier to happen in port

 

[yoyothehobo]

Is the company making a loss? The latest accounts only cover 2020, but the profit and profit margin was up.

They claim they are making a £100 million year on year loss (covered by the parent company)

 

[Ashley Hill]

Scuttle the ships then no ships for the new staff to work on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also to prevent the crews effectively holding passengers / freight / cars / each other hostage. Much easier to happen in port

Though unfortunately it seems the luggage of Rotterdam daytrippers is being held hostage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

Scuttle the ships then no ships for the new staff to work on.

However bad this all is I doubt people would be willing to commit criminal damage, and not only that but at considerable personal risk to themselves, too, and probably guaranteeing they'd not get a new job any time soon. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't give someone a job if I knew they'd been involved in setting fire to or otherwise destroying their previous employer's property.

It's like the idea of striking traincrew going to the depot and setting units on fire. It might have been in the realms of possibility in the 1970s, but it'd never happen now.

 

[LucyP]

The 2020 accounts don't show that loss, nor would the insurers have been happy. There never were any agency workers. It's a fiction, to force the employees into accepting being rehired on worse terms. The employees have refused. The agency workers are nowhere to be seen, and there are no ferry services. It has all backfired onto P&O.

 

[duncombec]

If this outcome took them by surprise that's some gross incompetence on the part of the management...

Of course it didn't take them by surprise, but they had to pretend!

Companies of this size will be quite used to knowing how to manage expectations. After all, they were quick enough to announce that the announcement wasn't liquidation.

Oh look, as I said. The agency staff don't exist and can't run the ships. Funny that. They need to sit down with their employees and sort out the terms and conditions.

There are reports around that replacement staff are indeed ready and waiting, and any delay of a few days is likely to be for what might broadly be called "type training". Unless you're in the Port of Dover (and I'm not either), how can you claim that there "are no agency workers"?

Dover to Calais is french crew with french registered vessels

The vessels on Dover to Calais with P&O are registered in Cyprus.

It's also usual (and required by UK law) to have a consultation process before anyone is made redundant. This isn't redundancy, because the jobs are not redundant. It's fire and rehire and it really has backfired. P&O have been very badly advised. The government will be forced to intervene now because there are going to be supply chain implications.

A snipper of the Zoom call has just been played by BBC Radio Kent, and a transcript is carried on KentOnline. It clearly says "terminated". There have been no reports that anyone currently employed has been re-offered employment on revised contracts.

Exclusive: Inside zoom call where P&O staff redundancies revealed

KentOnline has seen the zoom call in which P&O staff were told they would all be losing their jobs after the company suffered losses of up to £200m.

www.kentonline.co.uk

"The company has made the decision that its vessels going forward will primarily crewed by a third party crew provider," he said.

"Therefore I am sorry to inform you that your employment is terminated with immediate effect on the grounds of redundancy. Your final day of employment is today."

According to the announcement, employees will be offered an "enhanced severance package that is well beyond the statutory requirements".

This package will be made available in April, provided each employee signs a settlement agreement by the end of March and "complying in full to its terms and conditions".

Is the company making a loss? The latest accounts only cover 2020, but the profit and profit margin was up.

See report linked above.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is the company making a loss? The latest accounts only cover 2020, but the profit and profit margin was up.

Allegedly they are losing £100m/pa, covered by DP World, and is unsustainable in its current form.

Outrage and no ferries after mass P&O sackings

The company confirms it will not run services "for the next few days" after abruptly sacking 800 staff.

www.bbc.co.uk

"In its current state, P&O Ferries is not a viable business.

We have made a £100m loss year on year, which has been covered by our parent DP World.

This is not sustainable. Without these changes there is no future for P&O Ferries."

 

[LucyP]

You cannot just terminate someone's contract. It's called wrongful and unfair dismissal. If there really are the agency workers, then why are the ferries not running later today, tomorrow, the day after?

Look up the accounts for P&O's 2 UK ferry companies. Do they show a year on year £100m loss. Don't believe things until you check them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You cannot just terminate someone's contract. It's called wrongful and unfair dismissal. If there really are the agency workers, then why are the ferries not running later today, tomorrow, the day after?

Look up the accounts for P&O's 2 UK ferry companies. Do they show a year on year £100m loss. Don't believe things until you check them.

Wouldn't it generally be the case that if you outsourced your crew provision, existing crew would have the right to TUPE across to the new provider? Or is this another maritime exception?

It doesn't strike me as any different to, for example, a company outsourcing its IT provision "lock, stock and barrel" to IBM etc?

 

[LucyP]

You're right. It would be TUPE, and TUPE on the same terms as P&O, subject to the economic, technical and organisational reasons for differing terms. What agency wants those TUPE claims against it. They just want to provide workers on agreed terms.

 

[BayPaul]

I'm not sure how many people commenting on this thread have maritime experience. I have a decent amount, having worked for my whole career as an officer at sea and a manager ashore in a shipping company, including some time in P&O Ferries, and Irish Ferries who had a similar situation to this many years ago.

For those who's experience is all ashore, here are some points of interest. I'd like to point out I really, really dislike what P&O are doing here, including to some friends, but I think it will be useful for you to get some further background

Like it or loathe it (I'm certainly loathing it), what P&O are doing here is almost certainly legal.

• The legislative framework at sea is completely different to ashore
• I am pretty certain (though can't find the exact piece of legislation) that there is no need to consult before a change of this nature under the Maritime Labour Convention. This isn't redundancy, it is a simple end of contract. Like it or not, that is allowed under the MLC.
• RMT are clearly equally certain that P&O are probably on a decent legal footing - the reason they are telling their crew to remain on the ship is that it is the last hold they have over P&O - as soon as their last member gets off the ship they have lost.
• P&O are a major company with good legal advisers. They wouldn't have done this unless certain it was legal.

Agency crews are common. Getting 800 new agency crew is a bigger task, but far from impossible. There are 1.6 million seafarers worldwide, and it is a genuinely worldwide labour market

Ships changing hands, getting 100% new crews, and going straight back into operation is surprisingly common. There is legislation to cover it, but it is entirely possible to do that safely and legally within a few hours. I have been involved in taking over a ship from another company, and it took about a week to get going, but that was in far more complex circumstances. In these circumstances, with enough planning and the right people, I would have been confident to be able to pass MCA inspections and sail today (though I must emphasise that I would never have done it like this for moral reasons). The most complex area is the engine room, but it is achievable. I'm a navigator, and I know that I could have got the bridge and emergency response organisation up and running in that time, and have talked to Chief engineers who have made it work below. Insurers know this well, and are happy with it

 

[Spartacus]

Scuttle the ships then no ships for the new staff to work on.

Nah, unless there's someone with absolutely nothing to lose.

That said, I can see some 'heavy maintenance' taking place if they remain on the ship for long, leaving parts in a disassembled, drained, but undamaged fashion. "It didn't sound right coming back into port so we thought it best to check for safety's sake, we were only half way though when we decided to leave, the new guys can reassemble it".

Trouble with a lot of this is that a lot of contracts at sea are practically zero hours, and exist only from sailing to sailing, or are relatively short term. Have they technically been sacked, or have their contracts been arranged to end at the same point? It seems P&O has said they're welcome to apply for the agency jobs, which just seems an insult.

 

[BayPaul]

You're right. It would be TUPE, and TUPE on the same terms as P&O, subject to the economic, technical and organisational reasons for differing terms. What agency wants those TUPE claims against it. They just want to provide workers on agreed terms.

Wouldn't it generally be the case that if you outsourced your crew provision, existing crew would have the right to TUPE across to the new provider? Or is this another maritime exception?

It doesn't strike me as any different to, for example, a company outsourcing its IT provision "lock, stock and barrel" to IBM etc?

TUPE isn't relevant in the maritime world.

 

[yoyothehobo]

You cannot just terminate someone's contract. It's called wrongful and unfair dismissal. If there really are the agency workers, then why are the ferries not running later today, tomorrow, the day after?

Look up the accounts for P&O's 2 UK ferry companies. Do they show a year on year £100m loss. Don't believe things until you check them.

I looked up the holding companies account and it showed a £80 million pound loss for 2020 alone.

 

[mike57]

Before IR35 came along, being a contractor (something which comes with no employment rights whatsoever) was very popular in the IT industry, for instance, because it brought in more money.

It still is in my industry, even although we are all PAYE now anyone at senior level engineering wise is a contractor because that is the only way to acheive a rate comparable to other professions.

 

[island]

You cannot just terminate someone's contract. It's called wrongful and unfair dismissal.

What section of Cypriot law (which is where the ships are registered) or the Maritime Labour Convention (which applies to sea workers) says that please? Does it apply to fixed term contracts, which most of the crew would be hired under?

 

[richw]

Pride of Hull’s master has reportedly lifted the gangway to prevent security and coach loads of agency staff boarding at Hull according to the local Mp on bbc news TV just now

 

[cjmillsnun]

The vessels on Dover to Calais with P&O are registered in Cyprus.

This is true but your reply was to a quote about DFDS crews

 

[richw]

You cannot just terminate someone's contract. It's called wrongful and unfair dismissal. If there really are the agency workers, then why are the ferries not running later today, tomorrow, the day after?

Look up the accounts for P&O's 2 UK ferry companies. Do they show a year on year £100m loss. Don't believe things until you check them.

Everything you’ve posted in this thread is incorrect under maritime law.

Holding company shows a £80m loss in 2020. Sorry to discredit you but whilst you are correct on everything you’ve posted if it was U.K. land based employment, none of it is correct in maritime law.

 

[LucyP]

But what is this mythical maritime law? How can you be a UK based employer, employing UK based staff, operating from UK based ports and suddenly say - oh it's maritime law? And which court has jurisdiction then? And how far does this maritime law go? Sorry no refunds, maritime law. Sorry we dropped your car in the dock when loading, no compensation - maritime law.

 

[DanNCL]

But what is this mythical maritime law? How can you be a UK based employer, employing UK based staff, operating from UK based ports and suddenly say - oh it's maritime law? And which court has jurisdiction then? And how far does this maritime law go? Sorry no refunds, maritime law. Sorry we dropped your car in the dock when loading, no compensation - maritime law.

Effectively if I've understood it correctly, it's the laws of the country that the ship is registered in that apply to the ship. So to take the example of the Dover - Calais routes, even though it may be British crew on board and the ship is in UK waters, it's Cypriot laws that apply rather than British laws.

 

[BayPaul]

But what is this mythical maritime law? How can you be a UK based employer, employing UK based staff, operating from UK based ports and suddenly say - oh it's maritime law? And which court has jurisdiction then? And how far does this maritime law go? Sorry no refunds, maritime law. Sorry we dropped your car in the dock when loading, no compensation - maritime law.

In this case it is the Maritime Labour Convention - https://www.ilo.org/global/standard....htm?msclkid=15231681a5fe11ec9f5bd45209a47867

Nothing mythical about it at all, and, to be clear, it would apply equally if the ship was UK flagged.

All of the other things you mention are also covered by other aspects of martime law - The Athens convention is I think the one that covers compensation in both the two cases you mention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

Effectively if I've understood it correctly, it's the laws of the country that the ship is registered in that apply to the ship. So to take the example of the Dover - Calais routes, even though it may be British crew on board and the ship is in UK waters, it's Cypriot laws that apply rather than British laws.

Yes, but the same piece of legislation also covers UK flagged ships on international voyages - it is written by the International Maritime Organisation and International Labour Organisation to ensure equal standards apply to all ships worldwide. In the UK, the Merchant Shipping Act puts this convention into UK law.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I do wonder if this is a ploy to dispose of the company altogether. It is making a significant loss and they can at least now say "we tried to do something different" and flog the ferries to DFDS/Stena/other where wanted and scrap anything else.

Could be that the intention is to run through summer with the agency staff, while they sell off the individual routes.

 

[LucyP]

But registering your ship in Liberia or wherever doesn't get you round UK law in relation to employees or passengers does it? You can't electrocute a passenger on board with faulty wiring and then say - registered in Liberia. No liability in Liberian law for that, sorry. Or you have to sue in the Liberian Courts.

 

[LOL The Irony]

All the crews should communicate with each other and sail out to a meeting point, where they should hole up and say they won't come back until they have their jobs back. They also shouldn't rule out scuttling their vessels.

 

[BayPaul]

But registering your ship in Liberia or wherever doesn't get you round UK law in relation to employees or passengers does it? You can't electrocute a passenger on board with faulty wiring and then say - registered in Liberia. No liability in Liberian law for that, sorry. Or you have to sue in the Liberian Courts.

Yes, it effectively does.

However, the mechanisms work very well.

Each ship is subject to Flag state (e.g. Liberia (your example) or Cyprus (P&O Ferries), and Port state (UK) inspections

So, in the example you give, the law in Liberia is basically to the same standard as the law in the UK - i.e. to the standards set down by the IMO. If Liberia's regulations weren't up to standard, their flag would be subject to additional inspections, which would effectively limit where their ships could trade. At the moment, their flag is on the Paris MOU white list, which means that the UK accepts that they meet international standards.

If you were injured on a Liberian ship, then the Liberian authorities would investigate and penalise the company. If the incident happened in UK waters then the UK could also investigate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

All the crews should communicate with each other and sail out to a meeting point, where they should hole up and say they won't come back until they have their jobs back. They also shouldn't rule out scuttling their vessels.

They are probably better where they are. If they went to sea they would soon run out of fuel and be in a worse situation. The shell door of a ship is a formidable obstacle, just raising the gangway as the Captain of the Pride of Hull has done has effectively barricaded the ship in place.

 

[Cloud Strife]

All the crews should communicate with each other and sail out to a meeting point, where they should hole up and say they won't come back until they have their jobs back. They also shouldn't rule out scuttling their vessels.

That would effectively be piracy.

The better option is simply to stay put.

 

[BayPaul]

Could be that the intention is to run through summer with the agency staff, while they sell off the individual routes.

Very unlikely. They wouldn't have gone through all this just to sell the routes. They have sold routes before to Stena, and the crew just moved with the ships

 

[LOL The Irony]

That would effectively be piracy.

Exactly. Hit the emeratis in the pocket and sink them.