Video calls are great, right? In the pandemic and post-pandemic era, they have been a lifeline with so many different uses.

What they’re perhaps not great for, is telling your employees that they are dismissed. For example, the world was shocked when Better.com boss, Vishal Garg, dismissed 900 of their staff via a Zoom call.

Following the obvious viral trend, P&O Ferries announced on the 17 March 2022 that its workforce of circa 800 employees were dismissed. To do so, P&O produced a pre-recorded video message that was sent to its employees.

In the video, we apparently see Mr. Stephen Nee, Head of Employee Relations for P&O. Mr. Nee explained the circumstances that P&O faced, including the staggering losses suffered by the company for the last two years. He goes on to state that this cannot continue before delivering his message which we have set out, verbatim, for you, below:-

“the company has made the decision that its vessels, going forward, will be primarily crewed by a third party crew provider. Therefore, I am sorry to inform you that this means your employment is terminated with immediate effect, on the grounds of redundancy. Your final day of employment is today.”

Thoughts for employers to consider

 In the recording, Mr. Nee stated that the reason for the dismissals was redundancy, which can arise from three scenarios.

Given the circumstances, we consider it likely that P&O will argue that the work the P&O employees do has ceased or diminished or is intended to do so.

This is based on Mr. Nee’s statement that the employees will be replaced with alternative workers, which indicates that both the business and place of work will not close.

In pinning these colours to the mast, Mr. Nee has potentially undermined P&O’s arguments from the outset, for two reasons:-

1. Is there a genuine redundancy? Mr. Nee appeared to indicate that the type of work that the P&O employees do will remain, it just will not be carried out by them.
2. P&O have not engaged in a fair process, the outcome was already decided when the pre-recorded message was sent out.

It is therefore likely that P&O are going to suffer claims, including but not limited to unfair dismissal.

Other angles to consider would be whether there should be transfers of the employees from P&O to the service provider(s) and/or the potential breach of the collective consultation requirements.

However, one life boat may be the offer of settlement that Mr. Nee referred to in the recording.

He stated that this settlement was an enhanced package, over and above that offered by statutory redundancy.

It would appear then, that P&O are hoping to mitigate the number and value of claims.

It is perhaps a brazen approach but it may have the desired effect.

The employees may be tempted to avoid a long, possibly expensive (depending on union backing) and stressful process for the right price.

For further assistance with any of the information contained within this article, please do not hesitate to contact the Bridge Employment Law team on 01904 949008 or email us at enquires@bridgeehr.co.uk.