Section Front Front Page |
 |
|
Union Mans Six LNG Tankers
| |||
| New AMO Jobs In Commercial Trade Under Historic Contract | |||
The ships are the LNG Leo, LNG Capricorn, LNG Taurus, LNG Libra, LNG Gemini and LNG Virgo. Although the vessels were built and documented in the U.S., they have operated almost exclusively between Indonesia and Japan, and they will remain in that trade under the Marshall Islands flag. The Seafarers International Union will continue to represent the unlicensed crews on the six ships. Two additional LNG tankers, the LNG Aquarius and LNG Aries, will fly the Marshall Islands flag in spot markets, but they will employ foreign officers and crews. All eight ships are owned in Japan by Mitsui O.S.K. Line and Nissho Iwai Trading Corp., which acquired them from Energy Transport Corp. in 1998. All are managed and operated by Pronav Ship Management., of Greenwich, CT. AMO members aboard the six LNG carriers "earn top U.S. wages" under the first-ever collective bargaining agreement between the union and Pronav Ship Management, said AMO National President Michael R. McKay. "Pronav also makes full daily contributions to the AMO Pension, Medical, Vacation, Safety and Education, and Money Purchase Benefit Plans for each AMO job on each ship," McKay said. "Union members in the Pronav fleet still have the option of participating in the AMO 401(k) Plan, with Pronav matching a share of each employee's contribution." In addition, the five-year AMO-Pronav Ship Management agreement provides for fully enforceable grievance and arbitration procedures, McKay said. "Our full-bodied agreement with Pronav provides new high-paying jobs for AMO members and enhances benefit security for AMO members and their families," McKay continued. "The contract is a real triumph over what flags of convenience are known to represent." Addressing the reflagging issue, McKay said: "We would have preferred continued U.S. registry for the LNGs--no one in our union wants to see the U.S. flag come down from the stern of any merchant ship for any reason. But, in this case, there was no way to prevent reflagging--a decision that was made long before AMO secured its contract with Pronav." McKay noted that AMO's evolution since its charter as the Brotherhood of Marine Engineers in 1949 had paralleled the post-war proliferation of flag-of-convenience merchant fleets worldwide, and that the union had witnessed the harmful impact of FOC registries on the U.S. fleet. "Like all seagoing unions, we saw the American fleet dwindle from more than 2,000 ships at the end of the war to fewer than 300 in commercial trade today, and we know that FOC shipping has been a significant factor in that decline," he said. "Like all seagoing unions, we know what it is to lose ships and jobs to foreign interests." McKay also pointed out that AMO has been an "active and consistent" participant in the International Transport Workers Federation, which has fought for more than 50 years to improve labor and living conditions on FOC ships. "No labor action directed at FOC fleets by the ITF or the AFL-CIO ever went without the complete support of AMO," he said. Finally, McKay recalled AMO's prominent role in support of legislation that became the Maritime Security Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in October 1996. The bill--led through the House by the late Rep. Herbert Bateman (R-VA) and through the Senate by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS)--was intended primarily to prevent or at least delay the planned reflagging of scores of U.S. containerships operated in commercial foreign trade by companies that do not employ AMO members. "We made that bill a priority, even though AMO had the least to gain from it among officers' unions," McKay explained. "We supported the Maritime Security Act as a matter of principle from the day it emerged in its earliest form in the Bush administration until the day President Clinton put the pen to it, and we have helped win the necessary funding in each subsequent budget cycle." AMO now represents the licensed officers on only seven of the 47 ships enrolled in the 10-year, $1 billion Maritime Security Program authorized in the 1996 measure. "In the case of the LNG tankers, there was no saving legislation," McKay observed. "The ships' owners were under no legal obligation to keep the tonnage in U.S. registry--the ships were going to flag out with or without U.S. officers and crew members. Under the difficult and unfortunate circumstances, the priority was to spare American jobs at sea. AMO had the chance to do that, and we succeeded." The agreement between AMO and Pronav Ship Management--negotiated at the request of the company--was signed in August 1999, but it was contingent upon MARAD's approval of Marshall Islands registry for the ships. Flag-out requests had been filed with the agency by the ships' U.S. owner trustees in January 1999 and August 1999. MARAD approved the registry transfer reluctantly in November 1999, noting that the ships are not needed for U.S. trade and citing a Department of Defense determination that the LNG carriers are not necessary for strategic sealift or other national security purpose. The agency also concluded that, because the ships will continue to employ U.S. citizen officers and crews, there will be no damaging effect on the U.S. sealift manpower pool. But manning by AMO was delayed further when the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association challenged the flag-out through MARAD and other venues. MEBA had represented the officers on all eight LNG tankers under a collective bargaining agreement with Pronav Ship Management. The contract was applicable only to U.S.-flag service and valid only until June 2000. MEBA and Pronav Ship Management were negotiating a new agreement covering the six ships after reflagging, but those talks ended without agreement. Pronav Ship Management then approached AMO, which agreed to negotiate a contract and provide qualified officers. In December 1999, MEBA--awaiting an arbitrator's ruling on whether Pronav Ship Management was required to resume bargaining--asked a federal court to overturn MARAD's decision and block the reflagging. MEBA also asked MARAD to stay its ruling while the matter was before the court. The arbitrator found for Pronav Ship Management, and MARAD denied MEBA's request for delayed reflagging. In January 2000, the court said reflagging could proceed. That decision prevailed through judicial review and appeals that stretched until June 16, 2000, when the court said that it lacked jurisdiction, that MARAD had acted within its authority, and that MEBA had failed to make an adequate case. On July 12, 2000, MARAD gave Pronav permission to begin reflagging, and AMO began filling the jobs in a ship-by-ship turnover that ended early in October. Explaining his agency's conditional approval of the registry shift late in 1999, Maritime Administrator Clyde Hart said that, while the LNG tankers are not suitable for defense missions, continued U.S. employment aboard them helps to ensure the"availability of American mariners for commercial operations and military readiness." Hart also explained MARAD's finding that the LNG tankers do not accommodate U.S. trade or commercial demand. "The volume of LNG in U.S. foreign commerce does not require their retention," Hart said. "Nor do foreign policy considerations." Noting that U.S. citizens will man the ships at least through 2004, Hart said the agreements will provide "stability and employment for hundreds of skilled mariners." In its Nov. 3, 1999 summary and conclusion, MARAD said the ships "are in good shape, even though over 20 years old, and can be expected to be commercially viable ... through the next 11 years under the extended charter." MARAD also said that, while the ships "do not meet the current criteria for militarily useful vessels," conditions "can be imposed to assure their availability for requisition should they be necessary for national defense for a reasonable time in the future." Moreover, the ships' officers and crews are "needed for national crewing requirements--adequate conditions can be imposed to assure availability, as proposed, of most of the manpower pool," MARAD said. MARAD barred the "transfer in ownership or change in registry or operation of the vessels under the authority of a foreign country" without the agency's prior written approval. The ships were also prohibited from "trading with countries that the U.S. embargoes." | |||
 | |||
|
