Ouzo
- Thread starter Bav34
- Start date
MoodySabre
Well-Known Member
Good to know that big companies - thinking of railways here - can't get away with everything. You wonder how much poor training and leadership and lax operating standards contribute towards this sad situation.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
Except that the charge is against an individual, not the company. There is a danger that the officer involved is being made a scapegoat for corporate failings - it will be interesting to see what facts come out during a trial, if there is one
Talbot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Except that the charge is against an individual, not the company. There is a danger that the officer involved is being made a scapegoat for corporate failings - it will be interesting to see what facts come out during a trial, if there is one
[/ QUOTE ]
Especially as the person concerned is not a full time employee of the company.
Except that the charge is against an individual, not the company. There is a danger that the officer involved is being made a scapegoat for corporate failings - it will be interesting to see what facts come out during a trial, if there is one
[/ QUOTE ]
Especially as the person concerned is not a full time employee of the company.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
I wonder how easy this will be to prosecute.
Is there information on who was where and on what heading and whether under power or sail etc.
Have there been any details published about exactly when and where it was all supposed to have taken place?
Mind you, I suppose he still wasn't supposed to run down the Ouzo even if it turns out that the ferry was the stand on vessel.
Is there information on who was where and on what heading and whether under power or sail etc.
Have there been any details published about exactly when and where it was all supposed to have taken place?
Mind you, I suppose he still wasn't supposed to run down the Ouzo even if it turns out that the ferry was the stand on vessel.
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. The master of the Ouzo is "master under god" in the old terminology and is legally responsible for the safe management of that ship. He decides what happens at sea, not the company, and he controls what happens, not the company.
We dont know whether this officer is guilty or not, but one things for sure the company would have no involvement whatsoever in the handling of that ship at the critical moment. Were the directors on the bridge as lookouts?
Trouble with the approach that blames everything on the employer is that it removes any responsibility from the employee. Saw lots of that at work - employees who couldnt care a damn, couldnt be fired without an unfair dismissal case, and the employer was left with the compensation bill.
We dont know whether this officer is guilty or not, but one things for sure the company would have no involvement whatsoever in the handling of that ship at the critical moment. Were the directors on the bridge as lookouts?
Trouble with the approach that blames everything on the employer is that it removes any responsibility from the employee. Saw lots of that at work - employees who couldnt care a damn, couldnt be fired without an unfair dismissal case, and the employer was left with the compensation bill.
beneteau_305_553
Well-Known Member
Presumably the captain instructed the officer of the watch to steam at 22 kts in the dark in an area where yachts are likely to be?
The Directors of the company authorised the use of a ship that instructed the captain to get to bilbao in 44 hours?
Did the yacht have a radar reflector hoisted, and was the nav light working/ switched on?
To charge the employee under these circumstances seems like trying to get a scapegoat to me.
The Directors of the company authorised the use of a ship that instructed the captain to get to bilbao in 44 hours?
Did the yacht have a radar reflector hoisted, and was the nav light working/ switched on?
To charge the employee under these circumstances seems like trying to get a scapegoat to me.
aztec
Well-Known Member
i agree in some ways with Birdseye.
but arn't the company vicariously liable as they are the "employers"?
don't they have a duty of care to see that their business is conducted properly?
have they robust enough practices in place to prevent this?
and where/what was the condition that caused this to fail?
i feel gutted for the so called "agency" officer, as this seems to imply a lesser degree of quality, ie. not full time employed by P&O. i doubt that his qualities or experience will be less that anyone elses.
as for scapegoat.... i do hope not.
but arn't the company vicariously liable as they are the "employers"?
don't they have a duty of care to see that their business is conducted properly?
have they robust enough practices in place to prevent this?
and where/what was the condition that caused this to fail?
i feel gutted for the so called "agency" officer, as this seems to imply a lesser degree of quality, ie. not full time employed by P&O. i doubt that his qualities or experience will be less that anyone elses.
as for scapegoat.... i do hope not.
VicS
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
i feel gutted for the so called "agency" officer, as this seems to imply a lesser degree of quality, ie. not full time employed by P&O. i doubt that his qualities or experience will be less that anyone elses.
[/ QUOTE ] IIRC he had previously been a P&O employee.
i feel gutted for the so called "agency" officer, as this seems to imply a lesser degree of quality, ie. not full time employed by P&O. i doubt that his qualities or experience will be less that anyone elses.
[/ QUOTE ] IIRC he had previously been a P&O employee.