INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF UNION STANDARDS IN OCEAN TRANSPORT
| Author | R. L. Rowan,M. J. Immediata,H. R. Northrup |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1977.tb01139.x |
| Published date | 01 November 1977 |
| Date | 01 November 1977 |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
Vol.
XV
No.
3
INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF UNION STANDARDS IN
OCEAN TRANSPORT
R.
L.
ROWAN,
H.
R. NORTHRUPE
AND
M.
J.
IMMEDIATA~
INTRODUCTION
Recent literature has demonstrated an interest in the activities
of
international trade
secretariats and multinational firms. The prospects for multinational collective bar-
gaining in industries such as chemicals, glass, metals, rubber, food, and tele-
communications have been analysed earlier, and an effort has been made to place in
perspective the actions
of
various international labour bodies which have attempted to
influence the behaviour of multinational companies.’ This article examines the work
of
the London-based International Transport Workers’ Federation (I.T.F.) in the ocean
transport sector where much controversy surrounds the union’s campaign to control
flags and crews
of
convenience.
FLAGS
OF
CONVENIENCE
PHENOMENON
Although there appears to be no general agreement on either the use or definition
of
the term, the ensigns
of
Liberia, Panama, Singapore, Cyprus, and the Somali Republic
are those most frequently identified as flags
of
convenience. Honduras was once an
important flag
of
convenience country but now contributes little to tonnage under these
flags. Other registries, once considered tax havens but now regarded as quasi-flag of
convenience registries, include Hong Kong, the Bahamas, Greece, and some small
countries in the Pacific area.2 The I.T.F. lists Liberia, Panama, Cyprus, Singapore,
Malta, Lebanon, Cayman Islands, Seychelles, Oman, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the
Netherlands Antilles as flag of convenience registries.
Combined, the fleets under flags
of
convenience total more than
88.4
million gross
tons, approximately
25
per cent
of
the world’s total merchant fleet. Liberia has the
largest merchant fleet in the world,3 and predictions based on
1978
orderbooks indicate
that this country’s portion
of
total world tonnage may increase from
18
to
25
per cent by
1978.
Total flag
of
convenience tonnage may account for
35
per cent
of
the world’s
merchant fleet
by
the early
1980’~~
The growth
of
these fleets since the Second World
War, caused by the benefits
of
a politically neutral flag, attractive fiscal arrangements
including low registration fees, low tonnage taxes, and, in some instances, tax exemp-
tion, and lower manning costs made possible by the absence of unions and social benefit
legislation and regulations concerning the employment of national crews, has attracted
the attention of academics, unions, governmental and other bodie~.~ Because
of
the high
breakage and
loss
ratios, especially of vessels under new flag
of
convenience registriesa
and the apparent lack of flag of convenience governmental machinery to enforce
international safety standards and social conventions, vessel owners are often equated
with substandard shipping operators, which may or may not be the case.7
CREWS
OF
CONVENIENCE
Parallel to the growth in size of flag
of
convenience fleets and also attracting I.T.F.’s
*
R.
L.
Rowan and
H.
R. Northrup are Professors
of
Industry and Co-Director and Director,
respectively,
of
the Industrial Research Unit, the Wharton School, University
of
Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
t
M.
J.
Irnrnediata is a Senior Research Associate in the Industrial Research Unit.
338
ENFORCEMENT OF
UNION
STANDARDS
IN
OCEAN
TRANSPORT
339
interest has been the growing employment of seamen from developing countries at
lower rates
of
pay. Although the absence
of
restrictions concerning the employment
of
national crews has facilitated their employment aboard these vessels, these crews
of
convenience are not employed exclusively aboard flag of convenience vessels. British
flag vessels, for example, have traditionally employed Asian seafarers, at Asian rates, on
Far Eastern trade routes. In fact, the lack
of
a sufficient number
of
national seamen has,
at times, necessitated the employment
of
foreign crews.8This practice has been accepted
during periods
of
merchant fleet expansion by north European maritime unions whose
wages and benefits are on the average considerably higher than the rest
of
the world;
yet, in a severely depressed and contracting industry, the employment
of
Asian seafarers
raises problems for unions whose declining membership is largely unemployed.
I.T.F. policy with regard to crews
of
convenience has been formulated to affect vessels
flying what are considered traditionally maritime as well as ‘convenience’ flags: ‘Any
shipowner who, without prior consultation and agreement with the bonafide seafarers
trade union(s) recognised as such by the I.T.F., in the country of the flag
of
the vessel(s),
departs from the practice
of
manning his vessel(s) with the seafarers
of
that country,
shall be deemed to have engaged a crew
of
con~enience’.~ Despite the inclusion
of
traditionally maritime flag operators in this definition, and occasional boycott activity
taken against them,’(’ the major thrust of 1.T.F.k campaign has been directed towards
flag
of
convenience operators employing crews
of
convenience.
1.T.F.k
claims that it represents these crews, which have on occasion solicited portside
intervention by 1.T.F.-affiliated unions, have been disputed by both unions and gov-
ernments
of
developing nations as well as by shipowners signing valid articles
of
agreement with National Maritime Boards
of
the crews’ home countries. The develop-
ment of I.T.F. policy with respect to both flags and crews and case studies
of
companies’
responses to the
1.T.F.k
campaign are discussed below.
THE
I.T.F.
Originally established in 1896, the
I.T.F.
presently claims more than four million
affiliated members organised in 368 unions in eighty-one countries.” The secretariat
includes eight industrial sections to which affiliated unions may belong, including
railways, road transport, inland navigation, ports and docks, shipping, fisheries, civil
aviation, and allied industries and services. In addition, and of particular interest in this
article, a special seafarers’ section has been created to represent the interest
of
seamen.
This is the section that has been active in conducting the I.T.F. programme against the
flags
of
convenience. The I.T.F. did not begin formulating an official policy with respect
to multinational companies until 1974,’* but the seafarers’ and dockers’ sections have
conducted a joint campaign to enforce union standards on international shipping firms
for over twenty-five years.13
THE
SETTING-UP
OF
THE
CAMPAIGN
Before 1948, contact between I.T.F. affiliates and management representatives in the
shipping industry was limited to participation in the I.L.0.3 Maritime Conferences and
Joint Maritime Commissions. By the time
of
its second post-war congress held in
Oslo
in
July 1948, however, the
I.T.F.
favoured direct and independent action. At the urging
of
dockers’ and seafarers’ sections, the
Oslo
congress passed a resolution condemning the
registration
of
ships in Panama and Honduras and calling for ‘an international boycott of
Panama and Honduras ships
. . .
(to) be applied by both seafarers and dockers,
. .
.
(since) it
is
only through such drastic action that the menace can be eli~ninated’.’~ A
boycott committee was subsequently appointed by a joint seafarers’ and dockers’
conference which met in London in February 1949.15
To continue reading
Request your trial