The P&O scandal...thanks a bundle Dubai

The sheikh, the unions and the battle for P&O Ferries

Dubai’s ruler squares up to RMT as staff at company owned by his government are forced off vessels by security

A little over a year ago, the High Court in London delivered its verdict on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. Dubai’s ruler, concluded one of England’s most senior judges, had orchestrated the abductions of two of his children - including one off the streets of Cambridge - and subjected his youngest wife to a campaign of “intimidation”.

On Thursday, a company owned by the Dubai state, over which Sheikh Mohammed presides, effectively sacked 800 British staff from P&O Ferries in an unprecedented act of industrial aggression.

P&O’s ferry operation was shut down with immediate effect, leaving passengers stranded, while security guards, trained in the use of handcuffs, were sent aboard ships to remove any mutineering British crew.

One senior MP suggested on Thursday night that the 72-year-old sheikh, once a close friend of the Queen but his reputation now shredded by an English court, may have a “beef against the UK”. P&O’s beleaguered, bewildered workforce might just agree.

P&O Ferries fell prey to the whims of its Dubai overlords after it was bought by DP World, an Emirati logistics company, for £322m in 2019.

DP World is in turn owned by Dubai World, a global holding company for all manner of investments.

Dubai World boasts on its website of its commitment “to generating value for our shareholder, the Government of Dubai, with a corporate philosophy in line with the vision set for Dubai by His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, and Ruler of Dubai”.

That philosophy, it helpfully added, is “based on sustainability, best ethical practices and integrity”.

In the Commons, MPs decried Dubai’s manouverings.

“The villain in all of this is P&O and their parent company, DP World, a company owned by anti-trade union oligarchs in Dubai who have a shockingly bad track record in employment relations," said Gavin Newlands, the SNP’s transport spokesman. Downing Street condemned P&O’s actions.

Chris Bryant, Labour MP on the foreign affairs committee, told the Telegraph: “It feels like the Sheikh has a beef against the UK, but this is no way to treat ordinary workers. There is quite a queue for pariah states at the moment, and he wouldn’t want to be edging up to the front.”

Sir Roger Gale, Conservative MP for North Thanet, was scathing of a sheikh, ordered to pay £550m to his ex-wife Princess Haya in December.

Much of the money was to be used by the princess to protect herself and their two children, against “the grave risk” posed to them by the sheikh himself.

Details of allegations made against the sheikh, which he denied, were disclosed in a bruising lengthy divorce battle, played out in the English courts.

Sir Roger said on Thursday: "This is why Sheikh Mohammed is so unpopular anyway. Because he is an arrogant man. And an extremely unpleasant man.”

Snip…

"We’ve already been replaced. The new foreign workers are already on board.

Snip…

“Clearly the company has been planning this behind our backs for a very long time.”

Snip…

After that came the security guards, brought in by P&O to remove staff occupying its ferries.

They had been waiting in the wings, it is claimed, before going aboard. In an urgent press release, Mick Lynch, the RMT’s general secratry, said: “We are receiving reports that security guards at Dover are seeking to board ships with handcuffs to remove crew so they can be replaced with cheaper labour.”

The security guards had been recruited for a “fairly high profile” job just days earlier, according to an email seen by The Telegraph and circulated in a security company.

By Thursday evening, crews had left their ships, their futures unknown.

P&O and Dubai’s ruling sheikh, had, for now at least, got their way. Its ships won’t be running “over the next few days”.

1 Like

People need to stop using the P&O Ferries, and the government could set up another company in competition, would serve the owners right.

4 Likes

The company is registered in Cyprus so is beyond UK employment law.

2 Likes

But I thought regardless of where the company is registered, if you employ people in a certain country you are then beholden to the employment laws of that country.

1 Like

This is encouraging from senior management in the hospitality business…one of many such messages.
Hopefully many of the P&O workers will end up in jobs with companies like this who value them more

1 Like

I think that applies to those working on shore, but once employees are at sea they no loner apply

The following is slightly different, as it looks at how laws effect those who work mainly abroad, not offshore. But it looks like if the staff’s role has a closer link with the UK, than anywhere else, then that is where their legal rights lie.

So P & O staff, live in the UK. Start their roles from the UK, get paid in UK currency. Then they are UK employees.

P&O will take a massive financial hit from this. Brexit has not changed employment laws (so far anyway). P&O being based in Jersey does not change the employment laws that apply (UK). Otherwise American firms would fire UK employees without comeback or firms would move their registered country before mass firing employees to circumvent the laws.

All employees will need to be paid:
Redundancy pay
Notice period
Period of time for when they should have been employed while the company was running the redundancy consultation (can be about 3 months)

The bigger issue they face is whether they can argued whether it is even a redundancy situation. As they are replacing the workers with agency staff it suggests that the roles are still required and therefore it is not a redundancy situation at all. If this is how a judge views the situation (P&O business model viability does not factor in to this) then they could be responsible for paying all employees until they find a new job.

So there is the potential for this to get very expensive and messy for P&O…

Don’t all passenger ships operating out of British ports require a licence
to operate out of those ports ??
If so surely it should be a simple task to suspend or revoke that licence ?
Whilst this won’t get the jobs back, it would be an incentive to play by the
rules l think ??
Donkeyman! :thinking::thinking:

1 Like

Hi

Boris is just back from an Official Visit to the Gulf.

He got nothing he wanted and now this.

Dubai tried this with the USA and lost, big time.

We are no longer a World Player and Boris is treated as a joke.

1 Like

As our highest rep for UK PLC, he IS a joke! :clown_face:

Any idea which firm swims?

As far as I’m aware, the crews were recruited in Jersey, so UK law wasn’t applicable.

UK law incorporated EU employment law, and still doesn’t apply in this case.

These aren’t passenger ships, they’re ferry services.

P&O cruise line passenger ships are a separate Anglo/American company and are based in Florida.

Not necessarily so Ruthio. I heard on the radio that all those who were sacked had employment contracts written under Jersey’s employment laws which are different to the UK’s. Therefore the UK courts can’t do anything.

How depressing.
Hopefully, because many hotels are desperately seeking staff (see above ) many will find alternative employment

Ask yourselves why British Ships are, usually, registered abroad.

Not many years ago, I could only find a couple of vessels which were registered in the UK.

Go back to 1960, when I was getting ready to leave the MN, many of the bigger ships, Liners, Tankers, etc., were already changing the name of the Country, on their stern, to remote Islands out there in the world.#

I leave it to you to guess why that might be.

Tax purposes more than likely…

Hi

Here you go
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports World Controversy

Hi

Sorry, link not working

Google Dubai Ports World controversy.