Having to think about this abhorrent #PandO situation from the beach with patchy internet and without my green book. #ukemplaw ppl tell me what I’m missing. 🧵
The crew here appear to be UK-based employees who I would imagine count as Mariners for the purposes of s. 199 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (where most employment rights except discrim are found). Here’s the section: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/…
S. 199 excludes mariners from certain rights in certain cases. One of the key disabling provisions is s. 199(7) but that only applies to employment on a GB-flagged ship. As I understand it, P+O reflagged all their ships to be Bermudan in the 70s. So doesn’t seem to be relevant.
What I can’t really see is whether any of the other disabling provisions affect the position.
But if that’s right it becomes a classic territorial reach case: are the connections between GB and the employment sufficiently strong that Parliament would have intended the rights to apply? Can see no reason why they wouldn’t be.
@MilsomChr suggests there could be discrim claims. They’ve sacked British staff in favour of non-Brits. Question is one of interpreting the EqA Ships and Hovercraft Regs 2010 (sexy): probably more straightforward than in Walker v Wallem Ship Management.
Sadly don’t think @OfficialRMT likely to pursue an injunction to compel consultation because, in statute if not at common law, dismissals appear already to have taken effect? I think I recall @ThompsonsLaw did get a similar injunction but can’t find atm.
What have I missed #ukemplaw peeps? Seems to me P+O know they’ve done wrong if they’ve just purported to pay ppl their max entitlements but they’ll have got proper advice. @SocLabLaw statement coming soon.