P&O admits breaking law

[Lower]

where you announce something means little
it's the terms and conditions of employment and the relevant maritime law where you operate that matters ??

and that's the point. The EU directive allows maritime operators to crew their ships according to the employment laws of the flag state that the ship is registered in, irrespective of where the ship sails. I would imagine it was designed to allow for ships that circumnavigate the globe, but doesn't allow for ferries that only ply their trade in a limited number of countries or routes.

Anyway, Grant Shapps is apparently going to change the law to force ferry operators that operate out of the UK to pay their crews UK minimum wage and comply with UK employment law. Which of course is going to royally screw P&O who've picked up massive cost making all their seafarers redundant and rehiring cheap agency labour as they're now going to have to rehire full price workers from somewhere....

 

[ajohn]

The EU directive allows maritime operators to crew their ships according to the employment laws of the flag state that the ship is registered in,

Which is probably the same in most or all other countries. Cruise ships would be interesting too.

 

[JohnD]

The EU directive

which directive is this?

 

[motorbiking]

Already covered this.. There are 3 legal matters:
1 - Unfair dismissal - UK employees, so UK employment law applies but severance offer exceeds statutory cap for unfair dismissal. So who would sue in order to get less.
2 - Minimum wage law applies, to those working in UK territorial waters - P&O say their legal assessment says otherwise. I'm not convinced they are right
3 - Where you serve notice of group redundancies - just affects the consultation notice period (see point 1)

 

[JohnD]

... its nothing to do with the EU.

i think you're right in the sense that the UK is not obliged to follow EU directives.

Who has responsibility for UK employment legislation?

 

[motorbiking]

Legally in some cases that can be meaningless. For instance I have signed one in the past stating I wont take my knowledge to a competitive company. It included a payment to do just that.

I have enforced such clauses, be very careful, if you take the intellectual property of your ex-employer and use it in your new competitive venture.

 

[ajohn]

I have enforced such clauses, be very careful, if you take the intellectual property of your ex-employer and use it in your new competitive venture.

This was more of a case of trying to prevent people from leaving a company to work on similar items for another company. Legal advice was sign it take the money and disregard it.

It's something that can crop up in D&D and R&D. A person has worked on something and is aware of pitfalls and maybe even improvements. That can speed up the same process in another company. It seems Redbull have poached a number of Mercedes F1 engine designers for instance.

Intellectual property is another area but often that is not as solid a protection as people are inclined to think. There can be a nationalist aspect to the protection being effective as well. Also when patents are applied for in all major countries.

 

[The Samaritan]

Bottom line - fine P&O big style you will lose jobs. Force them to take back workers, longer-term or even shorter-term many more will lose jobs.

I'm not sure how many want to return but many were there for many years and got good payouts rightly so.

If P&O goes and is taken over, there will be less ships and prices will go up, so best to stick with what has happened.

 

[motorbiking]

Disagree - you cannot have businesses getting the message that strategies to fire and rehire below NMW are acceptable. Otherwise where will it end. I think the government will make an example. Low wage earners are basically subsidised by the state, so in effect given the divvies that were paid. UK tax payer will subsidise an off-shore company.

 

[The Samaritan]

You have a point but it will be a small hit then.

 

[JohnD]

Amazing news.

Big business gets away with lawbreaking.

Who could have seen that coming?

"P&O Ferries escapes criminal prosecution over mass sackings"​

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

 

[big-all]

i suspect you will find the government want to use similar tactics in the public sector to try and reduce wages for hard working people in unions ??

 

[motorbiking]

Not what all news sites are saying

P&O Ferries given ultimatum as firm's owner posts record profit

The company's decision to fire 786 crew members without notice earlier this year and replace them with much cheaper agency workers on below minimum wage sparked widespread outrage.

news.sky.com

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not what all news sites are saying

P&O Ferries given ultimatum as firm's owner posts record profit

The company's decision to fire 786 crew members without notice earlier this year and replace them with much cheaper agency workers on below minimum wage sparked widespread outrage.

news.sky.com

forced to pay minimum wage is not the same as prosecuting for law breaking.
Which was admitted by PO boss

 

[IT Minion]

Not what all news sites are saying

P&O Ferries given ultimatum as firm's owner posts record profit

The company's decision to fire 786 crew members without notice earlier this year and replace them with much cheaper agency workers on below minimum wage sparked widespread outrage.

news.sky.com

The two are both compatible.

Sky is ignoring that the insolvency service says they can't prosecute. Schapps, via Sky, is saying that they'll have to start paying the new staff minimum wage once the new law they are planning is in place.

P&O Ferries escapes criminal prosecution over mass sackings

Lawyers advised Insolvency Service there was ‘no realistic prospect of a conviction’

www.independent.co.uk

At the moment it looks like P&O are going to get away with it with no meaningful reprecussions.