FOC CAMPAIGN REVIEW - itfcongress2010.org · TCC Benchmark 14 Inspectorate 16 Democratic Control 18...
Transcript of FOC CAMPAIGN REVIEW - itfcongress2010.org · TCC Benchmark 14 Inspectorate 16 Democratic Control 18...
42 C‐14/DSC/2
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS’ FEDERATION
42nd Congress Mexico City, 07 August 2010 Dockers Section Conference
Agenda item 2:
FOC CAMPAIGN REVIEW
1. Please find attached (Annex 1) the summary report, conclusions and recommendations of the FOC Campaign Review. The Joint Seafarers and Dockers Conference will discuss the report in detail and are requested to agree the recommendations and adopt the policy.
Requested Action: 2. The Conference is invited to discuss the document and comment as appropriate.
1
Annex 1 to 42 C‐14/DSC/2
Annex 1 to 42 C‐14/JSDC/Briefing
FOC Campaign Review
Summary report, conclusions and recommendations
2
Contents PageIntroduction 4 Terms of reference 4 Methodology
5
FOC Campaign Review Working Group ‐ Composition 5 Sub‐groups 6 Meetings 7 Information gathering 7 Consultation 11 Conclusions and recommendations
12
Commercialisation and financial transparency 12 Review of the IBF 12 Seafarers’ Charter 13 Funding and audit 14 TCC Benchmark 14 Inspectorate 16 Democratic Control 18 FOC Campaign at national level 24 Fair distribution of maritime employment 24 Review of Oslo to Delhi 25 EU legal developments 25 Relationship between seafarers and dockers 25 National flag issues 26 Negotiating rights 27 Implementation
28
Training and education 28 Phase‐in 28 Ongoing work 29
3
ANNEXES 30 Annex 1: “Mexico Policy” 30 Annex 1.3: Funding and Audit Policy 40 Annex 1.5: National Flag Policy 44 Annex 1.9: Seafarers’ Charter Policy 46 Annex 2: Guidelines for implementation: Seafarers’ Charter Policy 48 Annex 3: Guidelines for implementation: Funding and Audit Policy 51 Annex 4: Guidelines for implementation: National Flag Policy 53
4
Introduction 1. At the ITF’s 41st Congress, meeting in Durban in August 2006, the decision was
made to carry out a thorough and systematic review of the FOC Campaign. 2. This was the first review to be carried out since the review carried out on the 50th
anniversary of the FOC Campaign, in 1998, which had resulting in the document “Oslo to Delhi” and the policy know as the Delhi Policy, adopted at the ITF’s 39th Congress.
Terms of reference 3. Congress agreed the following terms of reference, laying out the aims and scope of
the review:
a) Conduct a systematic review of the policies and strategic direction of the FOC campaign. Examine current and possible future developments in shipping and how they could impact on the campaign, including the specific problems of officers and ratings, and how to secure a fair distribution of maritime employment between beneficial ownership countries and labour supply countries;
b) Review on changes needed to the policy in light of EU developments; c) Examine all aspects of the implementation processes of the FOC Campaign
with a view to evaluating whether and in what manner, more effective support and assistance could be provided in respect of the campaign’s primary objective and how to ensure full transparency in the operation of financial aspects of the campaign;
d) Review the campaign structures of both the industrial and political
campaigns;
e) Such examination shall include a review of the operations of the Secretariat (insofar as they are relevant to the FOC Campaign) and of the worldwide inspectorate, as well as the efforts by affiliates at the national level to give effect to FOC campaign policies, particularly those related to its primary objective;
5
f) To review the relationship between the dockers and the seafarers both
nationally and internationally to build upon the cooperation for the benefit of both sections and the campaign.
At its first meeting, on 19‐20 February 2007, the FOC Campaign Review Working Group further agreed:
g) To incorporate the review of the IBF and examine the ‘commercialisation’ of
the campaign.
Methodology
FOC Campaign Review Working Group 4. An FOC Campaign Review Working Group was elected to carry out the review,
comprised as follows:
Name Union Country
Seafarer/Docker representative
B Orrell Seafarers’ Section Chair Seafarer P Crumlin Dockers’ Section Chair Docker D Heindel 1st Vice Chair, Seafarers’ Section Seafarer L Lindgren 1st Vice Chair, Dockers’ Section Docker G Oca 2nd Vice Chair, Seafarers’ Section Seafarer
J Bowers(later R Hughes)
2nd Vice Chair, Dockers’ Section Docker
M Castro CCUOMM Argentina Seafarer S Zitting FSU Finland Seafarer D Benze Ver.di Germany Seafarer
A Tselentis PNO Greece Seafarer A Serang NUSI India Seafarer R di Fiore FIT‐CISL Italy Seafarer J Djedje‐Li SYMICOM Ivory Coast Seafarer S Idemoto
(later Y Fujisawa) JSU Japan Seafarer
N Stam FNV Bondgenoten Netherlands Docker P Ostvold NTF Norway Docker I Pavlov SUR Russia Seafarer A Hamzah SPWU Singapore Docker T Tay SMOU Singapore Seafarer
R Howard SATAWU South Africa Docker T Abrahamsson SEKO Sweden Seafarer R McEllrath ILWU USA Docker
6
Figure 1
Sub‐groups 5. The Working Group initially rejected the proposal of sub‐groups and opted for all
members to be involved in each discussion. 6. A small group comprising of the Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Section Chairs and Vice‐
Chairs and members of the Secretariat, carried out some of the preparatory work in between meetings of the full Working Group.
7. Towards the end of the review however, in order to progress the work more
quickly, several sub‐groups were set up. Those were:
Sub‐group Members Task Approach Democratic control
T AbrahamssonD Benze I Pavlov
Review democratic control of campaign and develop proposals for future model/structure
One meeting: − Manila, Sept 2009 Email discussion.
Inspectorate D Benze T Tay R di Fiore Plus ITF Coordinators:R Alarcon E Esopa N McVicar D Summers
Review Inspectorate and develop proposals for future role and management of Inspectorate
Several meetings – London, Mar 2007; – London, Feb 2008; – London, June 2008; – London, Oct 2008; – London, June 2009; and
– Manila, Sept 2009 National Flag Focus Group
T AbrahamssonY Fujisawa T Tay A Serang A Tselentis A Hamzah J Oca (for G Oca) Plus non‐members: J Smith (NMU) K Y Ting (HKSU) T T Chung (HKSU) K S Huat (SOS)
To formulate a proposal on ITF minimum standards for non‐domicile seafarers working on national flag vessels
Several meetings: − Hong Kong, 10 Jun 2009;
− London, 29 Jun 2009; − London, 2 Nov 2009; and
− London, 17 Nov 2009 Email discussion.
Seafarers’ Charter & Funding Requirements & Audit
T AbrahamssonY Fujisawa
To produce guidelines for implementation of the finalised Seafarers’ Charter Policy and the new funding and audit procedures.
One meeting: − Rome, Sept 2009 Email discussion.
TCC Benchmark
R di Fiore J Oca (for G Oca) I Pavlov
To review the TCC Benchmark and formulate a proposal on its future
Email discussion.
Figure 2
7
Meetings 8. However, the majority of the work of the review was conducted by the whole FOC
Campaign Review Working Group during its numerous meetings. The table below details all the meetings that took place during the review period:
Year Date Venue Meeting2007 19 February 2007
23 March 2007 LondonLondon
FOC CRWGInspectorate Sub‐Group
19‐20 November 2007 London FOC CRWG2008 4‐5 February 2008
12‐13 March 2008 17 June 2008 7‐8 October 2008
LondonLondon Stockholm London
Inspectorate Sub‐Group FOC CRWG Inspectorate Sub‐Group Inspectorate Sub‐Group
17‐18 November 2008 Hong Kong FOC CRWG2009 22‐23 January 2009
10 June 2009 23 June 2009 29 June 2009
LondonHong Kong London London
FOC CRWGNational Flag Focus Group Inspectorate Sub‐Group National Flag Focus Group
30 June – 1 July 2009 London FOC CRWG10‐11 September 2009 Rome Seafarers’ Charter & Funding
Requirements & Audit Sub‐Group 28‐29 September 2009 Manila Inspectorate Sub‐Group 2 October 2009 2 November 2009 17 November 2009
ManilaLondon London
Democratic Control Sub‐Group National Flag Focus Group National Flag Focus Group
18‐19 November 2009 London FOC CRWG2010 18‐19 January 2010 London FOC CRWG
Figure 3 9. In all, 29 days of meetings were held, amounting to some 170 hours of discussion
and deliberation. In total the Working Group considered over 680 pages of documentation.
Information gathering Internal ITF data 10. Various internal ITF data was collected and analysed during the course of the
review, including:
8
a) Motion on FOC Campaign (adopted by FPC in Rio de Janeiro in April 2005); b) an analysis of ITF approved FOC Collective Bargaining Agreements for the
years 2004, 2005 and 2006 (excluding cruise agreements); c) FOC Campaign structures and implementation processes; d) various IBF documentation; e) suggestions put forward by Asia/Pacific Seafarers’ Regional Committee and
the Task Force on the Retention of Maritime Skills, meeting in Sydney in November 2006;
f) a summary of the origin and history of the TCC Benchmark; and g) an analysis of FOC Campaign structures, including data on membership,
regional representation, meeting attendance and meeting costs. Survey 11. An independent market research agency, Pexel Limited, was engaged to carry out
a survey amongst maritime affiliates, to obtain views on issues relevant to the FOC Campaign Review.
12. A questionnaire was developed by the Secretariat, with some technical assistance
from Pexel. Questions vetted for objectivity and relevance and the questionnaire was approved by the Preparatory Group. Given their sector specific peculiarities, the offshore and cruise ship sectors were excluded from the survey.
13. The questionnaire comprised 31 multiple‐choice questions, with space for
additional comments, and was distributed in 21 languages, including English. 14. It was sent by email to some 325 maritime affiliates. Some 250 affiliates were
asked to complete the survey and return it to Pexel by email. Another 75 affiliates, were targeted to participate in a telephone interview, to get more detailed responses to the questionnaire. The cost of carrying out the phone survey for all maritime affiliates was prohibitively high, therefore the 75 were chosen as a cross section of unions, representing seafarers and dockers, with both practical and political involvement in the FOC Campaign.
Responses 15. Some 83 unions responded, with the telephone interviews yielding the most
results (64% compared with 36% responding by email). 16. The charts below (Figure 4 and Figure 5) indicate the breakdown of responses by
geographic region and legal status.
9
Sample distribution by geographic region
2125%
4150%
45%
67%
45%7
8%AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth AmericaOceaniaSouth America
Sample distribution by legal status
2 2%
4453%
2733%
1012%
BenerficialOwnership
Labour Supply
BeneficialOwnership andLabour Supply
Neither
Figure 4 Figure 5 Results 17. The responses collated from affiliates indicated that there was consensus on the
following issues:
a) ITF should maintain opposition to the FOC system; and b) FOC crew should be encouraged to join a union, although there were
differing views on which union would be most appropriate (signatory union or labour supply union).
18. The majority of affiliates felt that:
a) the concept of beneficial ownership should be clarified; b) negotiating rights should be shared with labour supply unions; c) ITF rates should continue to apply on FOC vessels wholly crewed from the
beneficial ownership country; d) there should be criteria governing all unions seeking ITF negotiating rights
and that the Seafarers’ Charter should be adopted as ITF policy; and e) ITF should establish union membership rates to apply to non‐domiciled
seafarers. 19. Significant support was indicated for the following:
a) ITF should declare 2nd registers to be FOC; b) the Athens policy should be widened beyond the strictly defined ferry
services; and c) the ITF Inspectorate should have a broader role, including encouraging
seafarers to join a union and participate actively in ITF campaign activities. 20. There were mixed views on:
10
a) negotiating rights, between unions in the beneficial ownership and effective control countries;
b) wage rates for non‐domiciled seafarers working on national flag vessels; and c) whether unions are able to provide effective membership services to non‐
domiciled members. Individual affiliate submissions 21. Several unions submitted their views about the future of the FOC Campaign in
writing. Individual submissions were received from the following unions:
JSU Nautilus UK NUSI Ver.di
22. In addition, joint submissions were received from the following groups of affiliates:
Nordic maritime unions Singapore maritime unions
Inspectorate views 23. A paper was submitted by the Inspectorate, giving Inspectors’ views about the
future of their role. External information 24. The following external information was considered during the course of the
review:
a) Excerpts from the Report and Recommendations of the IMEC Officer Recruitment and Training Working Group (2007);
b) An analysis of crewing levels: findings from the SIRC Global Labour Market Survey (Winchester, N., Sampson, H, and Shelley, T.; Seafarers’ International Research Centre, Cardiff University; March 2006);
c) Analysis of shipping markets, provided by Institute of Shipping Analysis (SAI); d) Report on the Shipping Market Crisis: General (Gray Page, 12 November
2008); e) Report on the Shipping Market Crisis: Tanker sector (Gray Page, 18 December
2008); f) Report on the Shipping Market Crisis: Cruise sector (Gray Page, 18 December
2008); and
11
g) Information about EU developments impacting on the FOC Campaign from a legal standpoint.
25. It was noted that the economic state of the industry would not make a
fundamental difference to the review.
Consultation 26. As stipulated in the terms of reference, a thorough consultation of maritime
affiliates took place during 2009. 27. In March 2009 affiliated unions attending meetings of the Fair Practices
Committee (FPC) and Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Sections were supplied with an interim report of the FOC Campaign Review and given the opportunity to provide feedback on the work carried out to date.
28. The FPC also asked the Secretariat to use the regional conferences as a means of
gathering feedback from the affiliates about the review and the future policy, to be fed into the final phase of the review.
29. Affiliates attending the Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Jakarta on 14‐15 April
2009, the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Conference in Panama City on 4‐8 May 2009 and the African Regional Seminar in Mombasa on 25‐27 May 2009 were all provided with the interim report. Their comments were reported back to subsequent meetings of the FOC Campaign Review Working Group and taken into account in the Working Group’s deliberations.
30. In Europe, consultation took place between April and September 2009. In
November 2009 the outcome and recommendations were presented to the Working Group.
31. Maritime affiliates were given further opportunity for comment at meetings of the
Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Sections, held in London during November 2009.
12
Conclusions and recommendations
Commercialisation and financial transparency Review of the IBF 32. The terms of reference stated the need for the FOC Campaign Review to include a
review of the IBF. In particular, affiliates asked that the following be examined:
a) the strengths and weaknesses of the IBF system; b) fairness and transparency within the IBF system; c) the impact of the IBF on negotiating rights; d) the role of ITF policy in determining the resolution of disputes within the IBF
system; and e) whether or not there was a better system than the IBF.
33. These matters were considered and discussed by the FOC Campaign Review
Working Group over the course of several meetings, taking place between 2007 and 2009.
Conclusions 34. The Working Group recognised the contribution the IBF has made to the overall
increase in the number of FOC vessels under agreement, including a number of TCC agreements that have moved to IBF. It was felt that negotiated wages and conditions were a positive development in the FOC Campaign. The Working Group agreed that the FOC Campaign should strive to maintain a system of international collective bargaining.
35. It was strongly felt that the IBF should not be allowed to undermine the ITF
principles of beneficial ownership and negotiating rights. The Working Group agreed that these principles should be strengthened within the revised ITF FOC Campaign Policy. Furthermore, the IBF should be continually assessed to ensure its procedures continue to enhance ITF policy.
36. It was felt that IBF system should produce a fairer distribution of employment
between beneficial ownership and labour supply countries. The Working Group agreed that the establishment of the DER Funds within the IBF system was a step
13
in the right direction and that the implementation of this should be monitored and evaluated to assess its effectiveness.
37. It was felt that the maximum percentage of funding and non‐cash elements should
be more strictly observed across the board. To this end, the Working Group revised and updated the guidelines on Funding Requirements and Audit Procedures that apply to the ITF’s own agreements and developed a Funding and Audit Policy (see Annex 1.3). The Working Group agreed that this matter should also be taken up within the IBF structure with a view to tightening up IBF funding practices.
38. The Working Group agreed that the Agreements Vetting Group should be retained
to provide support to the Steering Group and provide the Secretariat with recommendations. This was felt to be vital to the IBF approval procedure and an important tool to help retain control over the level of agreements in the context of the IBF’s flexible implementation process.
39. The Working Group also agreed that the pro‐forma spreadsheets continue to be
used to ensure adherence to the approval criteria. 40. Concerns were raised about the IBF disputes procedure and binding arbitration.
This was addressed in the ITF Claim put forward for the 2009 negotiations. These negotiations were ongoing at the time of the review, so it was agreed that this issue should be revisited following the review of the IBF methodology.
Seafarers’ Charter 41. An important element of the FOC Campaign Review was to look at the obligations
of the ITF and its affiliated unions to seafarers, particularly those working on FOC ships under ITF approved collective bargaining agreements. It was felt that the core principles laid out in the Seafarers’ Charter should not be optional for unions to sign up to, but should be binding.
42. The Working Group agreed that the Seafarers’ Charter should be adapted and
incorporated into ITF Policy, to set out the minimum obligations to be fulfilled by all affiliated unions signing ITF agreements.
43. The text of the Seafarers’ Charter Policy is attached to the Mexico Policy (see
Annex 1.9). 44. Having finalized the text, a sub‐group was formed to look at implementation of the
Seafarers’ Charter Policy and develop guidelines and a timetable, which are attached to this document as Annex 2.
14
Funding and audit 45. In assessing the financial transparency of the FOC Campaign, the Working Group
reviewed the funding and audit requirements. As with the Seafarers’ Charter, it was agreed that these should be adapted and incorporated into FOC Campaign policy, to provide a framework for affiliates that provide seafarers with benefits through the ITF agreements system.
46. The text of the Funding and Audit Policy is attached to the Mexico Policy (see
Annex 1.3). 47. Having finalized the text, a sub‐group was formed to look at implementation of the
Funding and Audit Policy and develop guidelines and a timetable, which are attached to this document as Annex 3.
TCC Benchmark 48. The future of the TCC Benchmark was considered by the TCC Benchmark sub‐
group, through an exchange of views over email. 49. During the email discussions the sub‐group considered various matters, including
the following:
a) The original aims of the ITF TCC Benchmark; b) The possibility of the existence of the ITF Uniform TCC without the
Benchmark; c) The political and practical implications of keeping or abandoning the
Benchmark; d) The merits of differentials and need to review; e) The impact of the IBF system on the TCC Benchmark; f) The role of the Benchmark in the relationship between the ITF and its IBF
counterparts; g) The concept of the Benchmark as a minimum, or as a higher penalty for non‐
IBF owners; and h) Responsibility for setting and reviewing the Benchmark.
15
Conclusions 50. It was recognised that the TCC Benchmark had always been a key component of
ITF agreements, but that since the IBF was established, negotiated wages were favoured over unilaterally imposed levels of pay such as the TCC Benchmark.
51. However, it was noted that some employers remain outside of the IBF process,
and so it was concluded that the ITF should retain its own TCC agreement and wagescale to ensure that seafarers on board non‐IBF ships are also protected.
52. It was considered important to have an agreement offer to those shipowners not
in the IBF, and this could serve as a first step towards joining the IBF process. 53. There should still be some way of benchmarking wages for non‐IBF agreements
and for standards to continue to be set by ITF affiliates. The TCC Benchmark should be retained, but not necessarily in its current form.
54. The TCC Benchmark should be adapted to mirror the IBF format, but be set
between 1 and 3 % higher. 55. TCC pay levels should continue to be decided independently of the IBF but within
the overall context of the IBF. 56. Consideration should be given to the possibility of a cash minimum wage level and
how this might work. 57. The primary advantage for IBF employers is flexibility. This should be retained and
the same level of flexibility should not be offered within the TCC Agreement. 58. Two groups should be created – officers and ratings – to set minimums for each
group, with less flexibility that the IBF allows. 59. Differentials should be adapted so that they more closely reflect the current
labour market. Differentials should be set by the FPC on a regular basis. They should be subject to local negotiations, but should be flexible only within the limits set by the FPC.
60. Whatever replaces the TCC Benchmark should be clear and transparent to ensure
that wage accounts can be checked by Inspectors without confusion. Recommendation
16
61. The FOC Campaign Review Working Group acknowledged that the process of remodelling the TCC Benchmark would be ongoing beyond Congress. It was proposed that the Agreements Vetting Group be tasked with carrying out the technical work necessary and that work be progressed under the supervision of the FPC Steering Group and FPC.
Inspectorate 62. The future of the ITF Inspectorate was considered by the Inspectorate sub‐group.
Several meetings were held, some involving only the Inspectorate representatives on the sub‐group and some involving both Inspectorate and affiliate representatives.
63. Proposals were discussed by the FOC Campaign Review Working Group and
conclusions were drawn. Conclusions 64. It was considered that the role of the Inspectorate related to the application of
policy and the operations of the FOC Campaign, rather than policy itself. Therefore the Working Group concluded this part of the Review by agreeing a set of principles, providing a framework for the future direction and work of the Inspectorate to be considered.
a) Organised seafarers and dockers and strong and effective maritime unions
are key elements in the success of the FOC Campaign. b) The FOC and POC Campaigns fall within scope of the ITF’s “Organising
Globally” initiatives and therefore cannot operate effectively in isolation from other essential activities of the ITF.
c) Focus of the worldwide FOC and POC Campaigns should be at a national level by the affiliates.
d) FOC and POC Campaign strategies must take into account today’s industrial and social environment.
e) The worldwide Inspectorate is a critical international resource in advancing the FOC and POC Campaigns globally.
f) An expanded role for Inspectors that promotes the objectives of the campaign within relevant areas of the union should be encouraged, e.g. active engagement in FOC/POC organising and campaigning activity.
g) Vessel inspections and crew support remain fundamental to work of Inspectors.
17
h) Inspectors and Coordinators should not be involved in policy making. i) The 1994 FPC Policy statement “Criteria on the status of Inspectors and on
the Appointment of Inspectors and ITF Coordinators” should be revisited along with the Memorandum of Understanding between the affiliates and the ITF.
j) The work of the Inspectorate must be coordinated by the ITF Secretariat. k) The Secretariat must maintain sufficient resources to support and supervise
the Inspectorate. l) New job descriptions should be developed for Inspectors and Coordinators,
having regard for the modern operating requirements of the FOC and POC campaigns.
m) Model procedures should be developed for the selection, recruitment and appointment of Inspectors.
n) Inspectorate performance measures must be appropriate to the local working environment.
o) Annual Inspectorate work plans should be introduced, including key goals for the year.
p) Unions at the national level must support the Inspectors’ work in the field. q) FOC crew should be organised and should be encouraged to be aware of and
engaged with the FOC and POC Campaigns. Recommendations 65. The Working Group recommended that work be progressed under the supervision
of the FPC Steering Group and the FPC. 66. The table (Figure 6) below indicates further work to be undertaken by the
Secretariat in the review of procedures and processes relating to the employment of the worldwide Inspectorate and a notional timetable for completion. It is envisaged that the work would be carried out by the Secretariat in conjunction with representatives of affiliated unions and/or the Inspectorate, as appropriate.
Task Time‐
frame 1 Review 1994 Policy Statement “Criteria on status of Inspectors and Coordinators” 2010 2 Review Memorandum of Understanding on Inspectorate arrangements between
ITF and affiliate 2010 –2011
3 Review Inspectorate management systems and support processes and procedures 4 Develop new job descriptions for Inspectors and Coordinators5 Develop model Inspectorate selection and recruitment criteria and related
processes and procedures 6 Develop model inspectorate performance measurement tools7 Develop model annual Inspectorate work plan and training module8 Develop additional inspectorate training modules having regard for new skills
required in an expanded role Figure 6
18
Democratic Control 67. In reviewing the FOC Campaign, it was deemed necessary to assess the democratic
control of the campaign, to evaluate whether the structures in place still served the needs of the campaign and, if not, how they should be adapted.
68. This question was debated in several forums and there was a broad consensus that
there was room to improve the structure. Above all it was felt that union engagement should be improved and that discussions should not be replayed in numerous forums.
69. In determining the future structure, the Working Group aimed to:
a) enable democratic, consensual and timely decision‐making; b) encourage greater engagement and participation amongst unions in
decision‐making and campaign activities, particularly unions previously less involved;
c) maintain equal representation amongst seafarers and dockers; and d) ensure effective use of resources and time (in particular, to avoid repetition
of discussions in numerous forums). Recommendations
Figure 7
19
Figure 8
Joint Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Conference Remit 70. The Joint Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Conference, as part of Congress, would be
responsible for adopting FOC Campaign policy, agreeing a 4‐year work programme for the FOC Campaign and electing representatives to the FPC Steering Group and FPC.
Meetings 71. The conference would take place every 4 years at Congress and would be open to
all seafarers’ and dockers’ unions to attend, in line with Congress rules and procedures.
Fair Practices Committee (FPC) Remit 72. The FPC would be responsible for developing FOC Campaign policy, providing
direction and overseeing the Campaign.
20
Composition 73. The Fair Practices Committee would continue to be made up 108 members, with
seats allocated according to agreed criteria. Of the 108 seats the following would be ex‐officio seats:
Seafarers’
Section Dockers’ Section
Section Chair 1 1Section Vice Chairs 2 2Regional Chairs/Vice Chairs Up to 5 Up to 5Women’s Representative 1 1TOTAL 9 9GRAND TOTAL 18
Figure 9
74. Distribution of the remaining 90 seats would be determined, taking into account the following:
a) affiliates with the largest number of declared seafarer and docker members; b) regional breakdown of the ITF’s maritime membership at the time of election
(each Congress); c) affiliates with established involvement/contribution to the FOC and/or POC
Campaigns; d) affiliates whose increased involvement would benefit the FOC and/or POC
Campaigns; and e) affiliates whose involvement would help meet the ITF’s strategic objectives.
75. Equal representation would be maintained between dockers and seafarers. Meetings 76. The meetings would take place every two years, in the year following a Congress
year and in the year preceding a Congress year. Meetings would be formal plenary‐style meetings, co‐chaired by the Chairs of the Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Sections.
77. Members’ attendance would be funded. 78. Attendance would be restricted to FPC members, with advisers and observers
permitted according to agreed criteria.
a) Those persons specifically granted observer status (e.g. Task Group Chairs) would be allowed to attend as observers.
21
b) Unions wishing to send observers and advisers would need to obtain agreement in advance from the ITF General Secretary.
c) There would be a restriction on the numbers of observers and advisers allowed to attend. The number of observers and advisers should not normally exceed the number of members. Other restrictions may be necessary due to practical considerations, such as the size of the conference facilities.
d) Participation costs of observers and advisers would be for the account of the union concerned, except those specifically granted observer status (e.g. Task Group Chairs).
e) Observers and advisers would not normally be able to ask for the floor. Invited observers (e.g. Task Group Chairs) would be invited to speak by the Chair.
f) Observers and advisers would not have voting rights. 79. The Committee would be provided with documentation in various languages and
interpretation would be provided at the meetings. Fair Practices Committee Steering Group (FPC‐SG) Remit 80. The FPC Steering Group would have slightly enhanced decision‐making powers, to
compensate for FPC only meeting once every two years. 81. The Steering Group would be responsible for recommending policy, monitoring
the implementation of policy, overseeing the running of the Campaign and dealing with disputes. It would have the mandate to take decisions as authorised to do so by the FPC. It would also have the authority to establish task groups and existing task groups would be responsible to the Steering Group.
Composition 82. Membership to the Steering Group would be slightly expanded from 32 to 38
members. Of the 38 seats the following would be ex‐officio seats:
Seafarers’ Section Dockers’ SectionSection Chair 1 1Section Vice Chairs 2 2Regional Chairs/Vice Chairs Up to 5 Up to 5Women’s Representative 1 1TOTAL 9 9GRAND TOTAL 18
Figure 10
22
83. The distribution of remaining 20 seats would be determined, taking into account
the following:
a) affiliates with established involvement/contribution to the FOC and/or POC Campaigns; and
b) regional breakdown of the ITF’s maritime membership at the time of election (each Congress).
84. Equal representation would be maintained between dockers and seafarers. 85. As at 2010, seats would be distributed as follows:
Region Number of seats onFPC‐SG
Notes
Africa / Arab World 2* * There must be at least one representative from the Arab World, either amongst ex‐officio members or other elected members. Each region would have an equal number of seafarers’ and dockers’ seats.
Asia Pacific 6Europe 8Latin America & Caribbean 2North America 2TOTAL 20
Figure 11 86. Any FPC member not already occupying an ex officio seat could be elected to one
of the 20 remaining seats. Meetings 87. The Steering Group would meet 2 or 3 times per year. Meetings would be formal
plenary‐style meetings, co‐chaired by the Chairs of the Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Sections.
88. Members’ attendance would be funded. 89. Attendance would be restricted to Steering Group members, with advisers and
observers permitted according to agreed criteria.
a) Those persons specifically granted observer status (e.g. Task Group Chairs) would be allowed to attend as observers.
b) Unions wishing to send observers and advisers would need to obtain agreement in advance from the ITF General Secretary.
c) There would be a restriction on the numbers of observers and advisers allowed to attend. The number of observers and advisers should not normally exceed the number of members. Other restrictions may be
23
necessary due to practical considerations, such as the size of the conference facilities.
d) Participation costs of observers and advisers would be for the account of the union concerned, except those specifically granted observer status (e.g. Task Group Chairs).
e) Observers and advisers would not normally be able to ask for the floor. Invited observers (e.g. Task Group Chairs) would be invited to speak by the Chair.
f) Observers and advisers would not have voting rights. 90. The Steering Group would operate in English only, however if a member was
unable to participate in English the ITF would, where agreed in advance, bear the attendance costs of the member’s own interpreter.
Task groups 91. Task groups play an important role in policy development and decision‐making
within the FOC Campaign and should be retained within the structure. 92. Although task groups would report to the Steering Group, they could consist of
representatives of the wider pool of maritime unions not just the members of the FPC or the FPC Steering Group. Membership of task groups should be determined according to expertise or involvement in a particular issue or area.
93. Terms of reference should exist for each of the groups and that these should be
standardised (including as a minimum the group’s aim, remit and responsibilities and the criteria for membership).
Maritime Round Table 94. In the 3rd year of each inter‐Congress period, a Maritime Round Table would take
place. This would be open to all Seafarers’ and Dockers’ affiliates and would be informal, interactive and educational in its format.
95. It would consist of a number of workshops, run in parallel, dealing with different
topics or themes. 96. The aim would be to educate unions, to facilitate an exchange of ideas between
affiliates and to generate campaign input and involvement from a wider pool of unions.
97. Workshop themes would be agreed in advance and affiliates would then nominate
the appropriate person(s) to participate, whether senior leadership figures or other officials/activists.
24
98. The costs of participation would be for the account of the organisation concerned,
although some funds would be set aside for each event to provide some assistance to affiliates unable to meet the total cost of attending. These funds would be allocated by the ITF Maritime Coordinator, according to the ITF’s criteria for financial assistance:
a) that the union concerned should not be in arrears with its affiliation fees; b) that union should try to meet part of the costs involved; and c) that help is given only to those unions which cannot afford to send even one
delegate. 99. Bringing workshops of this type into the structure of the FOC Campaign would
make the Campaign more inclusive and dynamic and relevant. This would in turn increase participation and activism at a national level, as well as ensuring most effective use of the available time during formal meetings.
FOC Campaign at national level 100. The terms of reference stated that the review should include an evaluation of the
efforts by national affiliates to give effect to FOC Campaign policies. 101. This subject was placed on the agenda of several Working Group meetings,
however on each occasion there was insufficient time for the Working Group to consider or discuss it. Eventually a decision had to be taken regarding the time available to carry out the remaining work of the Review and the Working Group agreed that this area of the Review would not be undertaken.
102. It was suggested that implementation of the FOC Campaign and its policies be
monitored continually by the Fair Practices Committee and the Fair Practices Committee Steering Group.
Fair distribution of maritime employment 103. As stipulated in the terms of reference, the Working Group considered the matter
of fair distribution of maritime employment between beneficial ownership countries and labour supply countries.
25
Conclusions 104. The Working Group agreed that one way to achieve a fairer distribution of
maritime employment was to work towards the effective implementation of the Developed Economy Ratings Fund, as established for IBF agreements. The goal should also be to work towards the establishment of a similar fund to apply to non‐IBF agreements.
105. Beyond these measures, it was recommended that after Congress the Seafarers’
Section explore other ways to address the issue.
Review of Oslo to Delhi EU legal developments 106. One of the key points laid out in the terms of reference was the need to assess the
FOC Campaign Policy against recent legal developments in the European Union. 107. In particular the review provided an opportunity to ensure that the ITF was best
placed to defend legal challenges. In particular, it was considered important to place greater emphasis on the FOC Campaign’s focus on the protection of seafarers. The connection between the negotiating rights of unions and the best interest of seafarers needed to be made more explicit in the text.
108. Throughout the process of reviewing and redrafting the text, the ITF’s Legal
Department advised the Working Group and suggested appropriate wording to ensure that the Policy met these requirements.
109. In the light of EU developments and following the adoption of a national cabotage
policy it was agreed that regional standards would be reviewed by the Seafarers’ Section, when appropriate.
Relationship between seafarers and dockers 110. The terms of reference also specified the need to review the relationship between
seafarers and dockers. 111. It was deemed important to give recognition within the policy itself to this
relationship, and in particular to acknowledge the connection between the FOC
26
Campaign and the more recently established POC Campaign. This was addressed during the redrafting of the policy text.
112. The Working Group also took this matter into account when considering the future
Democratic Control of the FOC Campaign and strived to maintain an equal balance between seafarers’ and dockers’ unions for the Campaign’s decision‐making structures.
113. It was agreed that attention should also be paid to the strengthening of
relationships between seafarer and dockers during the implementation of the new Policy and the day‐to‐day running of the Campaign.
National flag issues 114. One of the fundamental areas that the Working Group wished to address in the
review of the Delhi Policy was the issue of rates of pay for non‐domiciled seafarers employed on national flag vessels.
115. Repeated attempts had been made over many years to reach an agreed ITF
position on minimum standards for national flag vessels. 116. The Working Group wanted to be able to include in the new policy a clear position
on minimum conditions for national flag ships, particularly in relation to non‐domiciled seafarers.
117. Importance was placed on ensuring that the new policy would serve to support the
efforts of national flag unions to encourage quality national shipping, the retention of maritime skills and the employment of national seafarers. The policy should also be consistent with the National Cabotage Policy that was adopted by the Seafarers’ Section Conference in June 2008.
118. In developing the policy on national flags the Working Group also wanted to give
recognition to the role that labour supply unions play in supporting quality national shipping, particularly through the service they provide to their nationals working on board national flag vessels.
119. During the latter part of the Review, a National Flag Focus Group was assembled,
and lengthy discussions took place over the course of several meetings. 120. Finally, the Focus Group arrived at a compromise position and was able to
recommend a draft National Flag Policy, to be annexed to the new FOC Campaign Policy (see Annex 1.5). This was seen to be an important first step on the road to bridging the wage gap between the ILO minimum (as interpreted by the ITF/ISF)
27
and the ITF TCC Benchmark. Guidelines for implementation of the policy are attached as Annex 4 to this report.
121. Paragraph 3 of Annex 1.5 (National Flag Policy) of the Mexico Policy is understood
to relate to the agreement set out in the ITF model wage scale for non‐domiciled seafarers serving on national flag vessels (2011‐2014), which is based on USD42,326 per month for 2011‐2014, on a vessel manned with 23 crew. The wage scale forms part of the guidelines for implementation, attached as Annex 4. However, it is accepted that this may be revised if the ILO recommended minimum wage for an AB is revised.
Negotiating rights 122. The Working Group concluded that the principle of beneficial ownership is the
cornerstone of FOC Campaign Policy and it is in the best interest of seafarers for there to be bilateral memoranda of understanding between beneficial ownership and labour supply unions.
123. This was reflected in the drafting of paragraph 31 of the “Mexico Policy”. 124. The Working Group also recommended that, once the Policy is adopted at
Congress, the FPC Steering Group be tasked with developing a framework and criteria for bilateral arrangements, including details of any exceptions and step‐by‐step procedures.
Revised FOC Campaign Policy 125. The text of the revised FOC Campaign Policy, known as the “Mexico Policy”, is
attached as Annex 1 to this document. 126. The revised ITF FOC Policy (the Mexico Policy) is for adoption at Congress and once
adopted can only be reviewed or amended by Congress. 127. All other policies and guidelines relating to the FOC Campaign as annexed to the
Mexico Policy, once adopted, may be reviewed and/or amended from time to time by the appropriate ITF bodies (e.g. Fair Practices Committee, FPC Steering Group, relevant Section Committee).
28
Implementation 128. Once the new policy has been adopted by Congress in August 2010 and is
operational, a comprehensive implementation programme should be initiated, to take place during the next inter‐Congress period.
Training and education 129. This implementation programme would include training and education for ITF
affiliates about the new policy and what implications there are for them as unions. 130. Training and education would also be provided to the ITF Inspectorate, to ensure
that they are aware of the new policy and the impact any changes may have on their work in the field.
131. It may also be necessary to educate and raise awareness amongst other third
parties, in particular those IBF companies or other employers with ITF agreements, to ensure that they are aware of those areas of the new policy that relate to ITF agreements and negotiating rights.
Phase‐in 132. While the “Mexico Policy” as a whole will be effective as soon as it is adopted by
Congress, certain other policies coming out of the Review will be subject to a phase‐in period, to give affiliates time to implement changes.
133. This applies to the Funding and Audit Policy (Annex 1.3), the National Flag Policy
(Annex 1.5) and the Seafarers’ Charter Policy (Annex 1.9). Guidelines for implementation for these policies are attached as Annex 2, Annex 3 and Annex 4 to this document.
29
Ongoing work 134. Some areas of the Review will continue into the next inter‐Congress period, under
the supervision of the relevant decision‐making bodies. These are:
Task Responsible Timescale Inspectorate Review – remaining work (see paragraph 66 and Figure 6)
SecretariatFPC / FPC Steering Group
By Jan 2012
Develop framework, criteria and step‐by‐step procedures for bilateral agreements
FPC Steering Group By Jan 2012
Remodelling of TCC Benchmark Agreements Vetting Group FPC / FPC Steering Group
Jan 2012
Develop standardised Terms of Reference for Task Groups
FPC Steering Group Jan 2012
DER Fund ‐ review FPC Steering Group Ongoing Review of Regional Standards – in light of EU developments
Seafarers’ Section When appropriate
Figure 12
30
Annex 1: “Mexico Policy” ITF Policy on Minimum Conditions on Merchant Ships This document is a stand alone statement of ITF Policy and must be read in conjunction with other ITF policies as decided by relevant ITF bodies from time to time (ITF Policies). This Policy replaces the policy adopted by the ITF’s 39th Congress in New Delhi, known as the Delhi Policy. Any explanatory notes concerning the history or development of ITF Policies are not binding statements of ITF Policies. Statement of principles 1. The ITF opposes the flags of convenience (FOC) system and believes that there
should be a genuine link between the flag a vessel flies and the place where it is beneficially owned and controlled. As a general rule, FOC registers fail to enforce minimum social standards and/or trade union rights for seafarers and have demonstrated both an unwillingness and an inability to abide by international standards. Such standards include international safety standards, international maritime labour standards and human and trade union rights. There is as a consequence a lack of social control over vessels on such registers as exercised by democratic and independent trade unions.
2. FOCs enable shipowners to minimise their operational costs by, inter alia, tax
avoidance, transfer pricing, trade union avoidance, recruitment of non‐domiciled seafarers and/or passport holders on very low wage rates, non‐payment of welfare and social security contributions for their crews, using seafarers to handle cargo, and avoidance of strictly applied safety and environmental standards. As a result, FOC registers enjoy a competitive advantage over those national registers which operate with high running costs and are subject to the laws and regulations of properly established maritime administrations in the flag state. FOCs also allow shipping companies to establish complex ownership structures that are characterised by a lack of administrative and managerial accountability and transparency.
3. The ITF believes that FOCs amount to unfair competition. Crews are often selected
on the basis of cost rather than quality and the employment is of a casual nature and little consideration is therefore given to either the needs of the crew or the long‐term sustainable needs of the industry and society as a whole. FOC registers
31
generally do not contribute to the training of seafarers or to the career development of seafarers serving on vessels flying their flag.
4. The ITF is against discrimination and abuse of seafarers and believes that the use
of FOC registers facilitates direct exploitation and enables owners to pay and treat seafarers as they deem fit. The balance of power is unequal.
Statement of objectives 5. In view of the above, the ITF campaigns against FOCs and sub‐standard shipping
with the following objectives:
a) To protect and enhance the conditions of employment of seafarers and to ensure that all seafarers are protected from exploitation regardless of, for example, colour, nationality, sex, race, religion or sexual orientation;
b) The elimination of the FOC system and the establishment of a regulatory
framework for the shipping industry based on the concept of a genuine link between the flag a ship flies and the place where it is beneficially owned and controlled;
c) To attack sub‐standard shipping and seek ITF acceptable standards on all
ships irrespective of flag using all political, industrial and legal means at the ITF’s disposal;
d) To strengthen affiliated unions in order to maximise international solidarity
in support of the Campaign; e) The universal recognition and application of relevant international minima –
in particular, the ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006, ILO core labour standards, relevant IMO instruments and human rights instruments – on all ships irrespective of flag.
6. In order to pursue the FOC Campaign, the ITF operates on two fronts:
a) Politically, it lobbies governmental and inter‐governmental organisations,
with a view to raising standards within the industry and strengthening the link between the flag a ship flies and the nationality of the beneficial owners and those who control the vessels;
b) Industrially, it seeks to secure acceptable minimum wages and conditions for
seafarers on board FOC and substandard vessels by engaging in international collective bargaining with shipowners, employers and their representatives
32
and other forms of constructive dialogue with industry participants, and by way of practical solidarity action between ITF affiliates worldwide.
7. The FOC Campaign is built on solidarity between seafarers and dockers and their
respective trade unions. The success of the FOC Campaign depends, among others, upon the involvement and strength of dockers’ unions worldwide. Therefore, support for dockers and their unions is integral to the FOC Campaign, including support for the ITF’s Ports of Convenience (POC) Campaign, including by seafarers themselves.
Definition of a flag of convenience (FOC) 8. The ITF defines flags of convenience as:
Where the beneficial ownership of a vessel is found to be elsewhere than in the country of the flag the vessel is flying, the vessel is considered as sailing under a flag of convenience. In cases where the identification of the beneficial owner is not clear, effective control will be considered and any vessel where there is no genuine link between the flag state and the person(s), or corporate entity with effective control over the operation of the vessel shall be considered as sailing under an FOC.
9. For the purposes of ITF Policy, beneficial ownership refers to ultimate beneficial
ownership or interest by a natural person. Where beneficial ownership is unclear, the ITF shall take account of who has effective control of the ship. Effective control is taken to mean control by an individual or group of individuals over a ship. i
10. Any register can be declared an FOC on the basis that the majority of vessels on
the register are not beneficially owned and/or effectively controlled within the flag state and the register does not satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 11 below.
11. In addition to the above definition of an FOC, the ITF also takes into account the
following criteria when determining whether to declare a register as an FOC:
a) The ability and willingness of the flag state to enforce international minimum social standards on their vessels, including respect for basic human and trade union rights, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining with bona fide trade unions.
b) The social record as determined by the degree of ratification and
enforcement of ILO Conventions and Recommendations.
33
c) The safety and environmental record as revealed by the ratification and enforcement of IMO Conventions and revealed by port state control inspections, deficiencies and detentions.
12. The union(s) in the flag state may, if the overall conditions that apply to their
national flag are not acceptable to them, request that the ITF declare the register as an FOC. The ITF reserves the right to declare any register an FOC if circumstances so dictate. The ITF also reserves the right to declare any ship to be an FOC ship on a ship by ship basis, following consultation with the flag state union(s).
Registers not declared as FOC 13. The ITF recognises the right of its affiliates to take action against any vessel,
irrespective of flag, to secure ITF acceptable standards. For non‐FOC vessels, such action should normally only be taken with the agreement of the ITF affiliated seafarers’ union(s) in the flag state.
ITF acceptable standards for FOC vessels 14. All vessels designated as flying a flag of convenience should be covered by an ITF
approved collective bargaining agreement signed in accordance with this Policy. ITF acceptable standards for second register vessels 15. Second registers are the domain of affiliated unions in the flag state and no
affiliate shall negotiate in respect of crew on second register vessels without the approval of the ITF affiliates in the flag state. Collective bargaining agreements concluded on second register vessels, or vessels flying flags declared by the ITF as offering similar conditions, must not be below the ITF TCC benchmark and ITF standards, as amended from time to time. In signing any agreement, the flag state union shall, where practical, enter into appropriate bilateral arrangements with the union(s) in the country of labour supply.
ITF acceptable standards for national flag vessels 16. ITF acceptable standards for national flag vessels are laid out in the ITF’s Policy on
National Flags (attached to this Policy). Bareboat chartering 17. Vessels bareboat chartered into and from a flag which are genuinely aimed at the
development of national flag shipping and in which the full possession and control of the vessel has passed to a national or corporate entity in the flag state which
34
exercises effective control over the vessel, will be considered to be national flag vessels provided that the union(s) in the country of beneficial ownership agree(s).
Dual or parallel registered vessels 18. Dual or parallel registered vessels shall be considered as FOC vessels. However,
national flag vessels dual or parallel registered into and out of a flag of convenience for the sole purpose of registering a ship mortgage are, provided the union(s) in the country of beneficial ownership agree(s), and where all conditions on board are national, considered to be national flag vessels.
Cabotage 19. The ITF supports the retention and extension of cabotage at a national level and
recognises the importance of such arrangements to secure sustainable long‐term employment for seafarers on board ships engaged in regular trades within a particular country. In order to avoid social dumping, any vessel not forming part of such agreements, whether an FOC or non‐FOC vessel, which subsequently becomes involved in the cabotage trade, must recognise standards, which have been agreed for vessels trading within the designated country.
20. Cabotage shall be reserved for national flag vessels of the country concerned. Regional standards 21. The ITF recognises the right of all affiliates within a specific and defined region to
propose to the FPC regional standards covering vessels trading exclusively within and manned by seafarers from that region.
Rights and responsibilities for FOC vessels 22. The ITF agrees that in principle all affiliates representing seafarers have the right to
conclude agreements which conform with ITF Policy provided that the ITF procedures set out herein are followed. In having this right ITF affiliates recognise that they also have responsibilities to abide by ITF Policy, including the ITF’s Seafarers’ Charter Policy.
23. The ITF should continue with the policy of determining the “value” of an
agreement on the basis of total crew costs (TCC) and in accordance with the standards set by the FPC.
Negotiating rights and responsibilities for FOC vessels
35
24. Negotiating rights for FOC vessels will be allocated according to what is in the best interests of the crew. The ITF considers that this is normally the union(s) in the country of beneficial ownership or where beneficial ownership is unclear, the country of effective control. Such union(s) shall, where practical, enter into appropriate bilateral arrangements with the union(s) in the country of labour supply. ii
In all circumstances where collective agreements are concluded:
a) The entire crew must be covered by the agreements concerned; b) All the crew should be members of the affiliated union(s) concerned and the
union(s) must fulfil the minimum obligations to those members as stipulated by the FPC from time to time including ITF Seafarers’ Charter Policy;
c) All members of the crew, whether domiciled in the country of beneficial
ownership and/or effective control or not, must be treated in a fair and equitable manner;
d) The ITF Secretariat must be consulted before an ITF Special Agreement is
signed and before ITF Welfare Fund fees are paid;
e) Any funds or levies charged in respect of the vessel(s) must be incorporated into and form part of the collective agreement, as should details of union membership fees, as determined by the union(s) concerned;
f) No agreement shall be considered valid until the ITF consultation procedure
has been satisfactorily completed and the agreement has been endorsed by the ITF as set out in this Policy.
25. Any ITF affiliate representing seafarers may conclude ITF approved agreements for
FOC vessels NOT beneficially owned and/or effectively controlled in their country provided the affiliate in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control has conceded negotiating rights (in line with the ITF consultation procedure set out in this Policy) and provided that the provisions of paragraph 24 above are otherwise complied with.
26. There are three elements to an ITF approved collective bargaining agreement:
a) First, the agreement must satisfy the ITF criteria relating to either the ITF TCC or other standards set by ITF international collective bargaining with ship owners, employers and their representatives or other forms of constructive dialogue with industry participants, and must comply with other policy requirements as approved and amended by the FPC from time to time;
36
b) Secondly, it must be endorsed by the ITF and be reviewed regularly to ensure
it continues to meet ITF criteria; and c) Thirdly, save as provided for in paragraph 34 no ITF Special Agreement
relating to a specific vessel must be signed until the union(s) in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control have been consulted and a decision has been taken by the ITF Secretariat as to the allocation of negotiating rights.
Manning 27. The manning scale for FOC vessels covered by ITF approved agreements is
provided in the Annex of the ITF Standard Agreement, as amended from time to time. FOC vessels covered by ITF approved agreements shall adopt the ITF manning scale and not the one provided in the flag state manning certificates or any comparable document. However the ITF manning scale can be varied if the affiliate(s) in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control certify that a proposed manning scale is based on their national levels and is acceptable to them.
ITF consultation procedures for the signing of agreements covering FOC vessels 28. An applicant union shall send an application in the appropriate format, as
determined from time to time, to the ITF Secretariat before concluding an agreement for a specific FOC vessel.
29. If the application is submitted by a union other than a union in the country of
beneficial ownership and/or effective control, the ITF Secretariat will consult the union(s) in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control.
30. It is imperative that affiliates in the country of beneficial ownership and/or
effective control coordinate their responses to inquiries from the ITF Secretariat concerning the right to crew and to negotiate collective bargaining agreements for a particular FOC vessel. Failure to respond may result in the affiliate concerned having to relinquish their negotiating rights and responsibilities under ITF Policy. Following such an inquiry from the ITF Secretariat, the affiliates approached shall reply as soon as possible but not later than four weeks.
31. Affiliates in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control
maintaining their rights to sign collective agreements must pursue their demands and must keep the ITF Secretariat informed concerning the steps that they have taken to secure signature of a collective agreement. In concluding collective agreements, affiliates in beneficial ownership and/or effective control countries
37
shall, where practical, enter into appropriate bilateral arrangements with the union(s) in the country of labour supply.
32. In cases where the unions in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective
control have conceded the negotiating rights to the country of labour supply, the labour supply unions should be consulted concerning any negotiations exercised by the unions in the country of beneficial ownership and/or effective control affecting the conditions of employment of the seafarers concerned.
33. In cases where affiliates in a country claim that a vessel is beneficially owned
and/or effectively controlled in that country but are unable to show satisfactory proof that this is the case, they should not object to an affiliate in a labour supply country signing an ITF acceptable agreement for the vessel through the medium of the ITF Secretariat and in accordance with this Policy.
34. It shall be understood that the ITF affiliates in the country of beneficial ownership
and/or effective control may wish to maintain their rights to crew and sign collective agreement(s) for a vessel upon the expiration of an agreement signed by an affiliate(s) in the labour supply countries in which case the consultation procedure will be undertaken on the expiry of the collective agreement. Furthermore the consultation procedure will be undertaken again when the terms and conditions of the agreement change or when there are changes in the beneficial ownership and/or effective control of the vessel concerned. The affiliates in the countries of beneficial ownership and/or effective control for their part undertake to consult with the other affiliates as appropriate in the labour supply countries prior to the expiration of the agreement(s).
35. The ITF Secretariat shall commence the procedures adopted by the FPC and
agreed by the Executive Board with respect any non‐compliance with this Policy by ITF affiliates, including the suspension of affiliation in accordance with the ITF Constitution.
36. In cases where an ITF acceptable agreement may be obtained by industrial action
or the threat of such action in a particular port, negotiating rights and responsibilities under this Policy will be transferred to the union involved in the industrial action for the period of the validity of the ITF Special Agreement (i.e. 12 months). Normally only an ITF Standard Agreement should be signed following industrial action. However, if this cannot be obtained, the Inspector or union(s) concerned, in consultation with the ITF Secretariat, may sign an acceptable agreement other than the ITF Standard. On the anniversary of the Special Agreement, negotiating rights and responsibilities for the vessel should be allocated to the appropriate union in accordance with this Policy.
38
i Guidance note: The beneficial owner of the ship is the person who has ultimate power and who exercises true control over the ship. Effective control is the person or entity with ultimate decision making responsibility and accountability, namely true control. Identifying who has beneficial ownership of a ship or who exercises effective control over a ship is essentially a question of fact In its report Behind the Corporate veil: Using Corporate Entities for Illicit Purposes (Paris, 2001) the OECD describes beneficial ownership as follows:
“’beneficial ownership’ refers to ultimate beneficial ownership or interest by a natural person. In some situations, uncovering the beneficial owner may involve piercing through various intermediary entities and/or individuals until the true owner who is a natural person is found. With respect to corporation, ownership is held by shareholders or members. In partnerships, interests are held by general and limited partners. In trusts and foundations, beneficial ownership refers to beneficiaries, which may also include the settler or founder.”
In the same report the OECD refers to effective control as follows:
“‘control’ means effective control by an individual or a group of individuals over a corporate vehicle. Thus, with respect to the types of corporate vehicles examined in the report, the relevant inquiry will be who exercises effective control (rather than legal control) over the corporate vehicle. In many misuses of corporate vehicles, the beneficial owner or settler/founder controls the corporate vehicle despite outward appearances suggesting control by a third party. For example, directors of a corporation could merely be ‘nominees’ who pass on the duties required of a director to the beneficial owner and accept instructions from the beneficial owner. With respect to trusts, the settler may continue to exercise effective control over the trustee through the use of a trust ‘protector’ and a letter of wishes.”
ii It is acknowledged that this presents difficulties in some circumstances, in which case the matter will be referred to the FPC Steering Group to help find a solution.
39
Annex 1.1: ATHENS POLICY Annex 1.2: NATIONAL CABOTAGE POLICY (these Annexes will be included in the final version of the policy when it is published after adoption by Congress)
40
Annex 1.3: FUNDING AND AUDIT POLICY Introduction 1. This ‘Funding and Audit Policy’ revises the 1993 Guidelines and Recommendations
and sets out binding procedures for ITF affiliated unions in respect of the funding and audit requirements for ITF approved agreements for Flag of Convenience (FOC) ships which have been signed by ITF affiliated unions.
Principles 2. Any affiliate that incorporates a funding element within an ITF approved
agreement recognises that such a fund must comply with ITF requirements. Wage scale: general lay‐out 3. All agreements must be set out in a uniform manner showing the clear distinction
between cash and non‐cash benefits on the wage scale. 4. For this purpose, the left‐hand side of the scale shall comprise only wage
elements payable in cash on board or to a seafarer’s individual bank account and payments on his/her behalf to family or other parties on receipt of the seafarer’s request by means of an allotment note. Any left‐hand side “allowances” payable not to the seafarer’s individual bank account, but to the company or third parties, must be confirmed by the seafarer’s individual request (allotment note) stating the purpose of the transfer, the amount and the period during which the specific payment is to be made.
5. All other elements, not authorised directly by the seafarer, but included in the
wage scale for the purposes of meeting objectives that may be agreed between the parties to the CBA, including training, medical or other elements, shall be shown on the right‐hand side. With the exception of union dues, where applicable, such elements should be considered as “funding”.
Funding requirements 6. The maximum amount of funding included in the costing of an ITF approved
agreement should not exceed the agreed levels, per position, set for TCC and IBF, as amended from time to time.
7. All funding elements and related payments must be clearly identified within the
text of the CBA.
41
Funding audit procedures 8. In many cases the observance of funding payments cannot be checked effectively
by an ITF Inspector. 9. Where a CBA is concluded between a company and a union, it is the mutual
responsibility of the parties to the CBA to ensure that the provisions of the agreement are fulfilled. Therefore, with regard to monitoring funding purposes or respective payments, the parties to the CBA shall be accountable to each other in the first instance.
10. Where the inclusion of a funding element has been requested by the company and
the company is subsequently able to hold, invest, transfer, offset or otherwise control the money, the union must be eligible to receive regular reports to satisfy itself that the purpose of funding has been met and respective benefits have been provided to the value of the amount allocated.
11. Likewise, the company shall have the right to receive reports in respect of monies
received, accumulated or transferred under funding provisions introduced on the union’s initiative, where applicable.
12. All reports under paragraphs 9 or 10 above must be completed on an annual basis
and received before end of April, for the preceding calendar year. The ITF may, from time to time, identify minimum information to be reported in a common format in all cases, with the possibility to additionally inquire into specific details where necessary. Non‐submission or delay of a report may be considered as breach of agreement.
13. The ITF and, in the case of the IBF, the JNG shall be entitled to request and receive
copies of any account/report and has the right to send in independent auditors with the right of access of all relevant documents and accounts.
Exemptions from audit procedures 14. Union dues levied upon seafarers by virtue of their trade union membership or by
contractual requirements accepted by the seafarers at the time of signing on, are exempt from these procedures, whether or not they are shown on either part of the wage scale or count towards the total cost.
15. Likewise, exemption from these procedures applies to any agreed deductions into
funds which may be due to a requirement of and are directly overseen by the national administration in the country of the seafarers’ domicile, whether levied upon the employer or taxed on the individual seafarer. The proof of the respective national requirement must be made available.
42
16. In the case of the IBF, there may be a number of funding elements identified
centrally between the ITF and the JNG in respect of which alternative accounting/auditing procedures shall apply. These would normally be registered as legal entities and their creation, as well as rules and procedures, agreed centrally between the parties to the IBF. The relevant accounts of activity of these funds shall, likewise, be considered at the IBF central level. The list of such elements shall be regularly reviewed and annexed to this Policy.
ITF internal procedures 17. Where an agreement with funding elements is signed by a labour supply affiliate,
the respective beneficial ownership affiliate has the right to receive the previous years’ funding accounts from the signatory affiliate and make inquiries when necessary.
18. Where an agreement with funding elements is signed by a beneficial ownership
affiliate, the respective labour supply union has the right to receive the previous years’ funding accounts from the signatory affiliate and make inquiries when necessary.
19. The signatory affiliate is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the
intent of funding in any agreement signed and for informing the ITF of any evidence of non‐compliance or breach of this Policy. Under normal circumstances, if no complaints are received from the union concerned, this will be considered by the Secretariat and the FPC Steering Group as a confirmation that this Policy has been applied in full and the respective funding arrangements are in line with ITF requirements.
43
Annex 1.4: MIAMI GUIDELINES (this Annex will be included in the final version of the policy when it is published after adoption by Congress)
44
Annex 1.5: NATIONAL FLAG POLICY 1. ITF policy is that national flag ships (i.e. those not declared as FOCs by the ITF)
must be crewed by seafarers who are covered by national collective agreements negotiated by ITF affiliated flag state union(s).
Domiciled seafarers 2. Wages and conditions for domiciled seafarers working on national flag vessels are
a matter for negotiation by the ITF affiliated flag state union(s), subject to the minimum international standards set by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as interpreted by the ITF.
Non‐domiciled seafarers 3. Where non‐domiciled seafarers are employed on national flag vessels, the total
crew cost should at least meet the minimum agreed by the Seafarers’ Section, as amended from time to time.
4. Wages for non‐domiciled seafarers should be calculated in accordance with the
criteria agreed by the Seafarers’ Section. Cargo‐handling clause 5. In line with the principles of mutual solidarity between seafarers and dockers, as
expressed in ITF policy, the cargo handling clause should be incorporated into all national agreements.
Exclusions 6. Where other ITF policies apply or where higher standards exist, national cabotage,
regional standards, offshore, continental shelf, ferry services, intra‐community trade and cruise vessels are excluded from this policy.
Bilateral relationships 7. Labour supply unions play an important role in supporting quality national
shipping, particularly through the service they provide to their nationals working on board national flag vessels.
8. Where possible, bilateral relationships should be cultivated between national flag
unions and labour supply unions.
45
Annex 1.6: OFFSHORE POLICY Annex 1.7: PIRACY POLICY Annex 1.8: POLICY ON RIDING SQUADS (these Annexes will be included in the final version of the policy when it is published after adoption by Congress)
46
Annex 1.9: SEAFARERS’ CHARTER POLICY POLICY ON TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND OBLIGATIONS TO SEAFARERS SERVING ON FOC VESSELS Introduction 1. Unions affiliated to the ITF are autonomous affiliates in accordance with the
constitution of the ITF and have adopted the policies of the ITF, including those that relate to the ITF’s Flag of Convenience (FOC) Campaign.
2. The ITF approves collective agreements in accordance with the criteria and
procedures approved by the Fair Practices Committee (FPC), as set out in the Mexico Policy.
3. This “Seafarers’ Charter” Policy sets out the agreed practice for ITF affiliated
unions in respect of obligations and membership rights for seafarers serving under ITF approved agreements for Flag of Convenience (FOC) ships which have been signed by ITF affiliated unions.
Membership fees and union obligations 4. The level and type of any fee levied by ITF affiliates on or in respect of seafarers
employed under ITF approved agreements shall be equitable and in line with that which is provided to those seafarers by the affiliate.
5. As established by the Fair Practices Committee (FPC), the minimum core
obligations which must be fulfilled by affiliates in relation to seafarers employed under ITF approved agreements covering FOCs are as follows:
a) An appropriate form of membership card; b) A union newsletter, journal or magazine; c) A contacts directory including telephone numbers and names of union officials; d) Assistance with any valid claim arising under the collective agreement; e) Participatory rights in the affairs of the organisation (in a form which reflects
the special nature of any membership); f) Where possible, visits by a union representative to the vessel; and g) Identification of the key responsibilities of each affiliate where bilateral
agreements are in place. Responsibilities
47
6. In the event of any claim (whether backpay, injury or death) by or on behalf of a seafarer under an ITF agreement, in the first instance the signatory affiliate will be responsible for handling the claim. The affiliate will identify union officials who will be responsible for assisting members with claims under its approved or acceptable collective agreement(s) and will notify the ITF Secretariat of those persons.
7. Where more than one affiliate shares fees in respect of its members, the affiliates
will agree between them which of them is responsible for assisting the seafarers employed under the agreement, taking into account that in all cases full trade union obligations must be met in respect of all the seafarers regardless of nationality or domicile. Once the division of responsibilities has been agreed, the affiliates will advise the ITF Secretariat accordingly.
8. The affiliate will keep the ITF Secretariat informed about the number of claims
(including backpay, injury and death claims) arising under their ITF approved agreements, details of those claims and the terms of settlement of those claims.
TCC and/or IBF funding elements 9. Any funding elements incorporated within an ITF approved agreement must
comply with ITF requirements, as set out in the ITF’s Funding and Audit Policy. ITF Secretariat and the union(s) 10. Where seafarers’ claims are dealt with in the port of call, the signatory affiliate
may only be able to provide limited help to their members abroad. In such cases the ITF Secretariat will continue to assist seafarers on board. Where the affiliate’s members are involved, the ITF and the affiliate will co‐operate to provide all assistance possible.
48
Annex 2: Guidelines for implementation: Seafarers’ Charter Policy
Membership fees and union obligations – general 1. Ongoing membership is linked to the question of permanent employment. Most
seafarers cannot pay dues when not at work therefore membership may be limited to the duration of the contract.
2. It is the duty of the unions to inform seafarers that they are covered by a CBA, but
the obligation should fall on shipowners/companies to give the unions details of the crew. This should be stated in CBA.
3. Notwithstanding the requirement that dues levied should be proportionate to the
services provided, this policy sets out a minimum level of service provision that must be maintained.
4. Unions should provide crews with a copy of the Seafarers’ Charter Policy along
with the CBA and employment contract. Membership cards 5. Regardless of the form they take (e.g. hard copy, electronic card) membership
cards should give the seafarer and the union proof of the seafarers’ membership. 6. The minimum information should be as follows:
Seafarer’s name Membership number Date of birth Nationality Contact details of union (appropriate contact person/department dealing with
non‐domiciled members)
Other information could also be included, at the discretion of the union, for example:
Date of issue Term of validity Member’s rights and obligations
49
Union newsletter/publications 7. When considering the appropriate format, distribution method, regularity and
language(s), the union should consider the number of non‐domiciled members they are servicing.
8. The contacts directory, including telephone numbers and names of union officials,
could be included in this publication. Participatory rights 9. Participatory rights may be affected by the constitution of the union, that of the
national federation or by national legislation. Seafarers under ITF agreements should have a voice and have their interests represented within the relevant union. Unions should do whatever possible within their own circumstances to encourage participation in the union.
Visiting members 10. When signing agreements, unions should be aware of the obligation to visit
covered vessels. Responsibility for claims handling & bilateral agreements 11. When unions are setting the level of dues for crew on FOC vessels they should
consider potential liabilities and ensure they will be able to deal with any valid claim.
12. Where bilateral agreements with shared responsibilities exist, the ITF and
seafarers should be informed of what is being provided by each union. 13. Unions should inform the Secretariat of the person(s) nominated to deal with their
non‐domiciled member claims. Audit and monitoring procedure 14. Audits should normally be carried out by a qualified auditor, and where this is not
possible, by another appropriate and independent professional. 15. The ITF will be proactive in monitoring affiliates’ compliance with this policy. Compliance
50
16. Affiliates must comply with ITF policy. Although there are precedents for withdrawal of negotiation rights in the event of a breach of policy, sanctions set out in the ITF Constitution (Rule III) will normally apply.
TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION August 2010 Adoption at Congress, MexicoSeptember 2010 – December 2011 Preparatory period: With defined tasks to be
completed by unions and ITF 1 January 2012 Policy to become effective January 2012 – December 2013 “Grace period” 1 January 2014 onwards All affiliates signing agreements to be fully
compliant
51
Annex 3: Guidelines for implementation: Funding and Audit Policy
TCC & IBF – general 1. Given the fact that TCC agreements are unilateral whereas IBF agreements are
negotiated, there are two different processes of implementation; however the same general principles will apply.
2. The acceptable maximum percentage for funding elements will be agreed
separately for TCC and IBF agreements. 3. Following the “grace period”, the Agreements Vetting Group will not be able to
recommend any new agreements for approval where non‐cash elements appear on the left hand side.
4. All funding elements should be clearly explained in the CBA and each column of
the wagescale should contain a “quick find” reference to the relevant text within the CBA.
Union dues 5. Affiliates are responsible for determining the level of dues. Union dues should not
be considered funding elements. Union dues charged under ITF agreements should be transparent.
Deductions for national requirements 6. Any deductions for national requirements should be explained within the
agreement. Reporting procedures 7. The procedure for reporting is detailed within the Funding and Audit Policy itself
(see paragraphs 12‐17). 8. The FPC Steering Group should be provided with regular reports on the progress of
the implementation of the policy. Compliance
52
9. Inspectors should be able to verify the observance of cash payments stipulated on
the ‘left‐hand‐side’ of the scale during the course of onboard inspections or following receipt of complaints of a breach by crew or other parties. Therefore, once an agreement has been ITF approved, there should normally be no need for extra auditing of such cash elements.
10. Affiliates must comply with ITF policy. Although there are precedents for
withdrawal of negotiation rights in the event of a breach of policy, sanctions set out in the ITF Constitution (Rule III) will normally apply.
TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION August 2010 Adoption at Congress, Mexico September 2010 – December 2011 Preparatory period: With defined tasks to be
completed by unions and ITF AGREEMENTS AUDIT to be carried out
1 January 2012 Policy to become effective January 2012 – December 2013 “Grace period”1 January 2014 onwards All affiliates signing agreements to be fully
compliant
53
Annex 4: Guidelines for implementation: National Flag Policy
1. Implementation of this policy will be from 1 January 2011. Where the total crew
cost defined in the attached wage scale has not been reached by this date, the AB’s gross wage (pro rata for ratings) will increase by $50 from 1 January 2011.
2. For the successful implementation of this policy it is vital that the port state unions
and ITF Inspectors respect the status of national flag vessels and the jurisdiction of the national affiliates where a national agreement exists. The only exception to this is where a complaint is received, from either the flag state union or the crew, in line with existing ITF policy.
3. Implementation of this policy should be supported by a training and education
programme for ITF affiliated unions.
54
ITF model wage scale for non‐domiciled seafarers serving on national flag vessels (2011‐2014)
Rank Differentials Basic Daily Wage
Leave Pay
Leave for
Public Hols
GOT 104
OT Rate
Total Cash
2.50 8.00 1.25 Master 2641 88.03 220.08 126.97 1651 15.87 4639Ch. Off. 1705 56.83 142.08 81.97 1066 10.25 29952nd Off. 1366 45.53 113.83 65.67 854 8.21 23993rd Off. 1316 43.87 109.67 63.27 823 7.91 2311RO 1366 45.53 113.83 65.67 854 8.21 2399Ch. Eng. 2401 80.03 200.08 115.43 1501 14.43 42171st Eng. 1705 56.83 142.08 81.97 1066 10.25 29952nd Eng. 1366 45.53 113.83 65.67 854 8.21 23993rd Eng. 1316 43.87 109.67 63.27 823 7.91 2311Elect. Eng. 1366 45.53 113.83 65.67 854 8.21 2399 Total Officers 0 29065 Bosun 1.1171 641 21.36 53.39 30.8 400 3.85 1125AB 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007AB 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007AB 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007OS 0.7431 426 14.21 35.51 20.49 266 2.56 749Fitter/Repairer 1.1174 641 21.36 53.4 30.81 401 3.85 1126Oiler/Greaser 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007Oiler/Greaser 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007Oiler/Greaser 1 574 19.12 47.79 27.57 358 3.45 1007Wiper 0.7431 426 14.21 35.51 20.49 266 2.56 749Chief Cook 1.7413 999 33.29 83.22 48.01 624 6 1754Steward 0.8514 488 16.28 40.69 23.47 305 2.93 858Steward 0.8514 488 16.28 40.69 23.47 305 2.93 858 Total Ratings 13261 TOTAL CREW COST 42326 Officers' wages based on a total crew cost concept Ratings = AB Benchmark as ILO ITF/ISF interpretation total wages + $50 All amounts are in US Dollars and calculated on a monthly basis with the exception of the daily wage.