But the employment lawyer in me was intrigued.
I asked colleagues for their take. Was there something I was missing? You see, despite clearly being planned carefully, and executed with military precision (with recorded videos and agency temps ready to come on board the ferries), the move simply doesn’t make sense.
Not least because the way things were done means tribunal findings against P&O are all but inevitable as well as there being real potential for criminal proceedings.
My colleagues were equally perplexed.
Tribunal risk
All dismissals come with the risk of employment tribunal claims. In this case this includes the likelihood of a series of union-backed claims for unfair dismissal.
There is also the well-known duty to collectively consult when an employer is considering making 20 or more employees redundant.
It is surprising P&O has apparently chosen to live with that risk. It has said because of its financial situation it had no alternative. So where is the saving in not consulting the workforce?
The reality is the cost may well end up being far higher than it would have been if there had been a consultation process.
The cost of not consulting
Let’s do the maths.
The law requires a minimum of 45 days' consultation where an employer proposes to make redundancies at this scale. P&O could have consulted for 45 days, which would have cost wages for that time.
Certainly not cheap; however, employment tribunals can make an award of up to 90 days’ pay per affected employee, and — in the circumstances — the expectation has to be that the so-called “protective award” would be exactly that.
And that's what the union is likely to fight for too.
Further, dismissing people without going through any process not only encourages unfair dismissal claims, it also appears to make findings against P&O inevitable.
Plus, P&O will incur the additional cost of paying agency staff for the 45 days that the previous employees will not work (but would have if they were consulted) while having to compensate those sacked for the notice of termination it did not give.
You can see why I am struggling with P&O’s logic.
Then let’s factor in the massive reputational issues. It would be unfair of me to suggest that P&O may have thought that the distressing news elsewhere in the world may have detracted attention; however, it does appear that it did not appreciate the extent of the media glare and the fall-out from all those headlines.
Criminal liability?
However, what is particularly striking is that finding themselves handling potentially hundreds of tribunal claims is not necessarily the ferry firm's biggest legal challenge: it also appears its actions mean it will be subject to a criminal investigation.
It is a criminal offence for P&O not to inform the UK Government, at least 45 days before the first dismissal, of the intention to make mass redundancies.
If prosecuted and if convicted, the business and its directors (who can face prosecution as individuals) can be fined unlimited amounts. Such prosecutions are rare, but not unheard of. Given the public outcry it has to be assumed that prosecutions are being actively considered.
All of which makes me wonder what P&O’s calculation has been?
The lawyer in me asks whether there are some jurisdictional issues that have not yet surfaced? Maybe more likely is that P&O is calculating employees will sign away their claims. It would be understandable if many of those unfortunate enough to be affected feel that accepting a guaranteed payment in the near future is better than fighting to secure a higher payment through the courts.
That's still quite a gamble.
And even if that pays off, P&O has the reputational fall-out and the unfortunate wait to see if it ends up in the criminal dock.
This will run and run. Whatever the outcome I suspect that those planning a ferry trip to the continent may be checking their travel arrangements.