P & O

hilts said:
I always thought it was against employment law to make someone redundant and then replace them with someone in the same role.
Click to expand...
I always thought if you made a position redundant you had to wait a period of time before you coupd reinstate that and employ someonw new
 
hilts said:
I always thought it was against employment law to make someone redundant and then replace them with someone in the same role.
Click to expand...
You can do as part of a restructure to help the company survive, but they haven't followed the process, notice, consultation etc by the sounds of it. Normally there would be redeployment which is what is absent here too.

Clearly it would depend what contract they had in the first place, how long they worked there for and who is actually employing them.
 
Last edited:
hilts said:
I always thought it was against employment law to make someone redundant and then replace them with someone in the same role.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they are going to use agency staff for everything, so there's no "jobs" any more, hence they're being made redundant. The people doing the work will be employed by someone else.
 
Schapps is due to speak and will probably say it's very sad and blame the RMT/Nauticus for it. Rather than attack a party donor.
 
inbetween said:
This will of come down from the parent company of P&O called DP World which is UAE based.

My brother worked for a 'British' company who are also owned by a parent company in the UAE and they're relentless with cost saving almost to dangerous and pointless levels where they can't do the job. He couldn't wait to get out.

The infiltration of foreign investment into British companies does have its benefits but in this case not so much....
Click to expand...
It’s disaster capitalism. As companies fail, they are bought out by investors who will asset strip and cut back to the bare bones and continue using the name to charge as top a dollar as they can.

Not sure what happens when all companies have gone down this path, but we’re slowly getting there.
 
Corky said:
You can do as part of a restructure to help the company survive, but they haven't followed the process, notice, consultation etc by the sounds of it. Normally there would be redeployment which is what is absent here too.

Clearly it would depend what contract they had in the first place, how long they worked there for and who is actually employing them.
Click to expand...

I have used P&O quite a bit and found their staff to be excellent, feel sorry for them. This next general election can’t come soon enough.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Just announced everyone is fired - no mention of replacement foreign labour - rides roughshod over UK employment laws but hey this is Brexit Britain - hope the fuckers never get another booking again
Click to expand...
It's fuckball to do with brexit. This is where a strong trade union comes into its own. Further, people need to be telling P&O they will not use there services.
 
hilts said:
I always thought it was against employment law to make someone redundant and then replace them with someone in the same role.
Click to expand...
Hilts. What they have done is illegal and when the cases come to tribunal they will have to pay compensation. The compensation will include notice pay, stat redundancy pay and a figure for failing to consult properly.
In the meantime the company take in cheaper labour (pay and conditions) and probably bank the likely compensation bill in a matter of months.
Given the pandemic, rise in living costs etc this is a complete cunts trick.
 
Can’t help wonder if little or nothing happens about this, others will do the same shithouse trick these have done.
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Hilts. What they have done is illegal and when the cases come to tribunal they will have to pay compensation. The compensation will include notice pay, stat redundancy pay and a figure for failing to consult properly.
In the meantime the company take in cheaper labour (pay and conditions) and probably bank the likely compensation bill in a matter of months.
Given the pandemic, rise in living costs etc this is a complete cunts trick.
Click to expand...

What we need is a govt that can give companies huge fines on top of the above to either prevent this from happening or dish the fine out to the staff.

This falls on govts because you can’t expect companies not to be cunts, they will always be all about the bottom line.

I believe they have been offered enhanced redundancy if they sign by the 31st March. Twats.
 
Just watched another faux anger performance at the Despatch Box by a Govt Minister - angry at a firm that is simply implementing employment tricks that the Govt support and refused to block.

And if you wonder why they get away with it then read this and see how intertwined DP World are with the Tory election promises

www.rmt.org.uk

DP Worlds concerns

Maritime Union RMT to raise concerns with Government that DP World have been awarded Freeport contract despite not paying agreed pension deficit contributions.
www.rmt.org.uk
 
hilts said:
What we need is a govt that can give companies huge fines on top of the above to either prevent this from happening or dish the fine out to the staff.

This falls on govts because you can’t expect companies not to be cunts, they will always be all about the bottom line.

I believe they have been offered enhanced redundancy if they sign by the 31st March. Twats.
Click to expand...
How can they sign as they no longer work for the company?
I was told at a seminar when I worked in employer compliance in the Revenue (and then put into practice on reviews), that redundancy was when the job (or office) was lost The job has gone, not to be replaced. If the job was still to be in existence (as appears to be the case), it was not redundancy, and contractual procedures for termination of contract for the employees concerned should be followed, which, again, clearly hasn't happened.
Unless I'm so far out of date that this is not now the case, please let me know - every day is (still) a learning day.
 
Last edited:
Citizen of Legoland said:
Sounds like they are going to use agency staff for everything, so there's no "jobs" any more, hence they're being made redundant. The people doing the work will be employed by someone else.
Click to expand...
Also, my understanding of contracting something like this out would be that it should fall under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment). Certainly if they were changing from one contractor to another it would mean that all employment including T&CS is protected (in my limited understanding).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top