Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

That's pretty wild, re: P&O ferries. How does that line up with UK labour law?

Pretty wild given it is "illegal" to want to fire someone on probation.

[Sheilbh]

That's pretty wild, re: P&O ferries. How does that line up with UK labour law?

Yeah - that was my first take. I'm not an employment lawyer but from my understanding you can't fire people like that (unless they're on probation - unless they work for garbon ).

But I don't know. So I read this Guardian piece where they've spoken to employment lawyers - and reading between the lines it sounds like they have just decided to break the law and that it is better for them to take the hit of big settlements etc

What are the legal implications of P&O Ferries sacking 800 staff?
Employment lawyers say the company could face claims for unfair dismissal
Rob Davies
@ByRobDavies
Thu 17 Mar 2022 18.21 GMT
Last modified on Thu 17 Mar 2022 18.47 GMT

Employment lawyers reacted with surprise after P&O Ferries sacked 800 seafarers out of the blue, warning it may have broken several laws and could be hit with claims for unfair dismissal.

As staff staged sit-ins on the company's boats, with the backing of their trade unions, experts cast doubts over the legality of P&O's plot to replace them with cheaper agency workers.

The affair could end up costing P&O "hundreds of thousands" in unfair dismissal payouts and penalties for legal breaches, they said.

What laws is P&O accused of breaking?

Employers are legally required to consult workers during a statutory notice period before making them redundant. P&O did not do this, so trade unions believe that its actions are likely to be unlawful.

"For those staff who have been, or are about to be dismissed, they will certainly have claims for unfair dismissal," said Rustom Tata, chairman and head of the employment group at law firm DMH Stallard, adding that elements of employment law appeared to have been "wholly ignored".

Further, employers wishing to make more than 100 redundancies must notify the business secretary at least 45 days in advance of those dismissals. On Thursday afternoon, a No10 spokesperson said: "We weren't given any notice to this."

Failure to notify the secretary of state would be a breach of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the TUC said.

Unions representing P&O workers have been consulting lawyers with a view to taking legal action.

Redundancy notices are being issued, with the P&O apparently having recognised the unlawfulness of its actions with comments that enhanced compensation will be paid.

P&O's offer of "enhanced" redundancy packages indicates that it may have "recognised the unlawfulness of its actions", according to Tata.

Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said: "If P&O breached the law they must suffer severe consequences – with ministers increasing the legal penalties if necessary. If one employer gets away with this, every worker is at risk."

Is this "fire and rehire"?

Fire and rehire is a hugely controversial method used by some companies, usually – but not always – when in dire financial straits. It involves sacking staff and then telling them they can apply for their old jobs on less favourable terms. Companies that have deployed the tactic include Weetabix, Tesco, British Airways, Heathrow and British Gas. Trade unions and the public support a ban on the practice but ministers last year blocked a bill that aimed to do just that.

The government would be "dismayed" if P&O were doing this, a No 10 spokesperson said. But what P&O is trying to do looks slightly different. Rather than rehiring staff to their old jobs, it is replacing them with agency workers and saying that sacked staff could, if they wanted, join those agencies.

"That is effectively seeking to avoid having to renegotiate terms with staff and their representatives," said Tata.

The TUC said it was not yet clear if P&O was planning to rehire staff on inferior terms but warned it was a growing trend, with 9% of workers affected by such a scheme in the first year of the pandemic.

What now for P&O workers?

Some are staging sit-ins aboard the company's ferries, with the support of unions such as the RMT and Nautilus International.

Kathryn Evans, head of employment at law firm Trethowans, reckons staff could end up being paid "hundreds of thousands of pounds in failure to consult and unfair dismissal awards."

But Tata warned that the sit-ins could prompt a backlash from the company too.

"The question may become whether it is lawful and reasonable for the employer to require the employee to leave the vessel and what the impact will be of an employee refusing to do so," he said.

"Might any unfair dismissal compensation be reduced to nil? Given the employer's approach it is quite likely that the employees will find considerable sympathy in the employment tribunal – albeit when any case is finally heard."

I am totally with O'Grady hear they need the book throwing at them if - as it appears - they've just decided to ignore a whole range of legal obligations. I'd be looking at not just huge compensation for all workers, but calling in every single other bit of the DP World Group operating in the UK given they apparently have decided that they don't need to follow laws. I'd also be looking at directors' personal liability because I cannot believe they can be fulfilling a fiduciary duty in choosing for their company to breach the law (in addition under UK company law they need to consider other stakeholders including employees and customers - which I think it's difficult to say they did). And clawback any penny of covid support they received (which I imagine was substantial).

But I am angry about this so I'm in a full "nationalise the bastards" mood right now

Bit I think it is really important to punish them very harshly and very visibly, because if we don't then every private equity house who buys a company will decide to take the hit of ignoring laws and get on with it. Apparently the "saving" is £9 million a year plus extra costs for settlements - the cost needs to be many times that.

Separately I feel sorry for P&O Cruises who are an entirely separate entity and in an entirely different group and must be having a very stressful day

[The Larch]

To add insult to injury on the Brexit angle, apparently only British employees were fired, but EU ones (mostly French, it seems) were not.

[Josquius]

To add insult to injury on the Brexit angle, apparently only British employees were fired, but EU ones (mostly French, it seems) were not.

Exactly as planned by the brexit brigade alas. Can't be having pesky EU regulations infringing freedom and all that.

Pretty bloody shocking if they have decided to just break the law and take the fines. That seems to happen more and more these days in a variety of areas. Clearly shows fines are nowhere near enough

[Sheilbh]

Quote from an employment lawyer in the Guardian. Apparently if you're intending to make more than 100 redundancies then you need at least 45 days of consultation and to inform the government. There's also TUPE (pensions rules) issues with moving to an agency.

By the sounds of it they just didn't do it and in his view it sounds like they've broken several laws. As I say need to come down hard pour encourager les autres. As I say I've never seen anything like this where a company has really blatantly decided to just ignore the law

[Grey Fox]

encourager is the positive outcome word.

[Sheilbh]

Just seen another take from an employment lawyer at a big City firm that if it turns out that they really have just broken the law in this way - and chose to do that - then it could mean the directors are criminally liable. I have no idea why they'd take this risk or not get advice - personal liability is always something directors want advice/reassurance on. They whether didn't get that or just decided to risk it

[crazy canuck]

Just seen another take from an employment lawyer at a big City firm that if it turns out that they really have just broken the law in this way - and chose to do that - then it could mean the directors are criminally liable. I have no idea why they'd take this risk or not get advice - personal liability is always something directors want advice/reassurance on. They whether didn't get that or just decided to risk it

It is the thing that always gets a Board's attention - and all too often it is the case the legal advice is sought after the fact....


This is a discussion about a much bigger issue - prior to 2008 lawyers were starting to be included in the E-Suite - the thinking was that it would be beneficial to have a legal mind in the mix when important decisions were being made.  Not for the purpose of providing legal advice but as part of the substantive discussions. 

Then 2008 hit and that extra layer of administrative cost was one of the first things cut as firms struggled to stay afloat - and it never really came back.  Its been good for business for litigators like me, as businesses get advice after the fact.  But not a great business model for the firms companies themselves.  The smart ones tend to check ahead of time.

[Sheilbh]

And I imagine he spent much of his years of imprisonment running through the best thing to say in the interview.

I've not seen that yet though does sound awesome. I guess he's just happy to be home but it does suck how little attention he got. Right up to the first hints of release it was only the lady got mentioned.

So on this I saw a thing with some journalists who have covered these cases quite intensely and they said it was absolutely an unfortunate media/photogenic thing. She was relatively young, photogenic, her husband is apparently a very effective campaigner - and also she had a one year old daughter when she was taken (who she now needs to get to know as a seven year old) and her husband was very effective at putting their kid front and centre.

It was interesting because they said there are other dual Iranian and European citizens in captivity now (they specifically mentioned France, Germany and Austria) where there is no media pressure and there is no visible campaign. The explanation was genuinely and sadly that they're in their sixties. They're not very photogenic, their kids are grown-up adults etc so it just attracts less media attention. Sad but there we are

(I'd add Zaghari-Ratcliffe also worked for the BBC and Thomson Reuters - not as a journalist but I think that probably helped in terms of media attention.)

[Tamas]

So considering Johnson sort of admitted it years ago, is there a chance she was actually a spy?

[Oexmelin]

encourager is the positive outcome word.

It's used ironically. It's a reference to Voltaire. Dans ce pays, il bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.

[Grey Fox]

Interesting. Thanks.

[Josquius]

So considering Johnson sort of admitted it years ago, is there a chance she was actually a spy?

Wasn't aware of this but on googling... It seems unlikely. The reason for her visiting is completely understandable.
Fucking Johnson. That man stole years of her life.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/boris-johnson-mistake-could-harm-case-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-say-family

[Sheilbh]

More issues of institutional racism in the Met - they are 50% more likely to solve a murder if the victim is white than black or Asian. And that discrepancy grew during Cressida Dick's tenure.

Meanwhile the High Court found the Met's policing of the Sarah Everard vigil was "not in accordance with the law". Basically they got covid regulations wrong and "failed to perform its legal duty" to consider whether women at the vigil might have a reasonable excuse. The Met, in their impressive efforts to destroy all public trust, have decided to appeal:

It's absolutely right that we are held to account for our actions and that there is proper scrutiny of the decisions we make as a police force in upholding legislation and maintaining public order.

We also respect the strong views held by Reclaim These Streets in defence of human rights and public protest, and their pursuit of justice for these views.

As an organisation, we work with, support and police hundreds of protests and events across London every day and take our responsibilities under the Human Rights Act in doing so very seriously.

It's important for policing and the public that we have absolute clarity of what's expected of us in law.

"This is why we feel we must seek permission to appeal the judgment in order to resolve what's required by law when policing protests and events in the future.

As well as its general illiberalness and the power it would gove to tech companies to police things - this is another reason I'm very dubious about the Online Safety Bill where it could be an offence to post "harmful" content. Harm is defined as "psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress" which seems potentially pretty broad. But it'll be comparatively easy to arrest people for that sort of offence than, say, violent crime etc.

(Also again how the Online Safety Bill fits in with the Tory "anti-woke" positioning - I have absolutely no idea )

[Admiral Yi]

More issues of institutional racism in the Met - they are 50% more likely to solve a murder if the victim is white than black or Asian. And that discrepancy grew during Cressida Dick's tenure.

I can conceive of reasons other than institutional racism for differing solve rates.