P&O

Callous attitude to worker's rights

We’ve all heard the news - 800 P&O workers have been made redundant immediately, many via a video message.

It’s quite shocking that this can happen and I have been asked what the legal situation is for those who have been fired.

Fire and Rehire?

Ministers, MPs, broadcasters and commentators have referred to this as fire and rehire. Technically it is because P&O is firing their current workers and replacing with agency workers, no doubt with far less attractive terms, conditions and rates of pay. But when we refer to fire and rehire, we generally mean an employee is given an ultimatum: ‘Accept these new terms and conditions and continue to work, or if you refuse, we will fire you and automatically rehire you on the new terms’.

What P&O are doing is something even worse. They are simply firing and then rehiring someone else!

I have also heard some people say this is perfectly legal because the employment rights for seafarers are somewhat limited in scope than work ashore. Admittedly, there are differing rules and regulations for seafarers and fishermen, but in my opinion the P&O crew are not exempt from claiming unfair dismissal.

This recent tweet by a well known personality is probably wrong on the first point but clearly right on the second. I prefer the thoughts and analysis of employment barrister Grahame Anderson, below:

So, why have they gone full steam ahead, knowing they have broken every rule in the employment law rulebook, and dismissed nonetheless?

It’s all down to cost.

Firstly, it’s not a redundancy situation, as the P&O HR guy said on the infamous video. But none of the roles appear redundant. The Employment Rights Act section 139, sets out when a redundancy situation occurs and this is clearly not one of them.

The company are well aware those dismissed will have valid tribunal claims but have costed that in. How long would they have consulted with the staff before inevitably dismissing them? If P&O were looking to reduce pay and conditions there would inevitably be protracted negotiations with the union which could goon many months.

Why not dismiss immediately, pay notice and enhance that payment on condition that those receiving it sign a settlement agreement precluding them from making a tribunal claim? It makes commercial sense because the tribunal penalties for non compliance with employment law can be at times very weak, so those who do make claims will not impact greatly on the overall cost of the exercise.

This may save the company costs in the short term but the repetitional damage as a consequence may have much longer lasting effects.

One final thought

An employment tribunal has the power to order the employer to pay a financial penalty to the Secretary of State if it has breached the employee’s rights and has demonstrated aggravating features. The current maximum is £20,000 per claim.