The purpose of the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), which comes into operation soon, is to protect seafarers’ rights throughout the world.
But as Tony Ayton, who for the past seven years has been the senior International Transport Workers Federation Inspector for the 32 Counties of Ireland, explains, it is flawed.
Ayton has served for over 40 years as a trade union officer, during which time he has visited well over a thousand ships and met and dealt with tens of thousands of foreign seafarers in seaports all over Ireland.
Earlier this year Ayton was presented with an award for recovering one million US dollars in back pay for seafarers.
5. There is provision in the new MLC for inspectors from the Port State – the state in whose port the vessel is visiting – to go on board a vessel to check if the provisions are being applied and to take certain steps, including stopping the vessel leaving the port, if they find it is not.
There is provision for certain documents to be issued by the flag state called a ‘Maritime Labour Certificate’ and a ‘Certificate of Labour Compliance’.
I can understand how any person reading the MLC would think this is a very positive development, or at least they would think that way if they are not familiar with the reality on the ground of international shipping operations and the often harsh reality of the employment of many seafarers.
As any ITF inspector, or maritime trade union officer will tell you, double-bookkeeping and the possession of false documentation is rife on board vessels operating under the Flag of Convenience (FoC) system.
This is where crew are intimidated into signing documents saying they got a particular level of wage, worked a particular number of hours, etc, which is radically different to the wage they did in fact receive, or the hours they actually worked, etc.
To back this up, false ships accounts and records, etc are created to match the untruths.
We often find that crews are warned that they will be sacked and blacklisted, which can mean that they and perhaps other members of their family will never get a job at sea again, if they disclose any information to anybody which is at variance with what the employer tells them they must say.
Often these unfortunate seafarers have borrowed a substantial amount of money to pay off a crewing agent in their own country to get them the job in the first place and if they get sacked, then not only are they without the amount of wages they expected from the job, but they are in debt at home and they and their family are in trouble as a consequence.
In some countries ship owners have got the authorities to endorse the setting-up of bogus trade unions, with whom they then ‘negotiate’ wages and employment terms for seafarers. Not surprisingly these wages and terms are greatly sub-standard.
6. In these kinds of circumstances if an inspector from a flag state who is serious about compliance with the convention carries out an inspection, she/he may well be fooled into believing that all was well on board and will then sign the two certificates.
Later, if an inspector from any Port State goes on board and finds what seems to be a correct Maritime Labour Certificate and a Certificate of Labour Compliance and these are backed up with pristine wage accounts, working hours/overtime records, all signed by the crew who will swear that these records and their signature was voluntarily placed thereon and they say they have no complaints, – what can she/he do?
To a trained and experienced ITF inspector’s eye, the choreography is easy to spot when speaking to the crew, but what interpretation would a Port State inspector be likely to make of such a situation and what would she/he be likely to do?
Would she/he stop a vessel from sailing based on his/her instinct and/or based on information supplied by, say an ITF inspector, or Officer of an ITF-affiliated trade union?
Unfortunately, as is often the case, this information from ITF/trade union sources cannot always be backed up by reliable documentation, or signed statement(s) from the crew contradicting the documents they involuntarily signed earlier.
While the provisions of the MLC provide options to a Port State inspector who has doubts, I have to say that based on my experience, most Port State inspectors are likely in these kind of circumstances to be restrained by their senior mandarins who will advocate the usual ‘do not act without positive proof’ principle.
Going back to points (1) (2) and (3) above (in part one), this is more likely to happen if the Port State inspectors are not backed up by strong and unequivocal legislation.
In saying what I have said, I am not intending to be critical of Port State inspectors and their superiors.
I understand from personal experience the predicament they would be in.
In common with my colleagues worldwide, I have often had to walk off a ship knowing that many things on board were crooked, but finding myself unable to take any action, because I could not prove any of it and I did not have the backing of the crew, albeit out of fear on their part.
If I was, as I often have been, up at the Admiralty Marshals Court (a division of the High Court) in either Belfast or Dublin, seeking a warrant for the arrest of a ship, based on my knowledge of what was actually going on, but without positive proof and I did not have the crew behind me, and then the ship owners legal representative walked into the courtroom waving certificates and documents signed by the flag state and the crew saying all was in order, then my case was toast and I would not get the warrant.
If by some fluke I got the warrant, I ran the risk that my employer and I could end up paying substantial costs and legal fees for an unlawful arrest, despite our actions being truthfully based.
As I know from personal experience, truth and honesty is not always a recipe for success in our law courts.
7. Finally let me pose a couple of questions.
• The management of Irish Ferries have decided to buy out the company and are prepared to pay about 450 million euros for it.
If they knew – and they are the sort of people who would know – does anyone think they would be splurging out 450 million euros if they feared that the MLC (and/or the Ferry Directive if it ever materialises) would effectively outlaw the kind of employment practices they want to operate under?
• Would the Co.Wexford based Celtic Link Ferries be expanding its operations like it is, by chartering in additional FoC vessels if they feared the implications of the MLC?
• Would Stena line be trying to introduce cheap labour crews on the Irish Sea?
• Would there not have been an extensive lobby against this MLC by a certain section of the international shipping industry if they feared it would actually achieve most of its aspirations? I have seen no evidence of such a lobby.
• Is it a case that all of the MLC is seen by certain ship owners as something that will have little if any effect as long as the are allowed to operate under an FoC and work the system as before?
• As regards Irish ship owners, are they confident that there will be another fudge by the Government here as regards legislative back-up for the MLC and that therefore any zealous Port State Inspector (or one being encouraged by an ITF inspector) who finds problems and seeks to prevent a vessel sailing from one of our ports, can be threatened with, or actually accused before the Courts of exceeding their statutory powers?
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Tony Ayton
On behalf of the ITF inspectorate, Ireland.
