Star Sea Transport Corporation of Monrovia v Slater
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE BRANDON |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] EWCA Civ J1013-1 |
| Docket Number | 1978 S. No. 4513 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 October 1978 |
[1978] EWCA Civ J1013-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Justice Donaldson)
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Brandon
MR. R. BUCKLEY (instructed by Messrs. Holman Fenwick & Willan, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Appellants).
MR. A. IRVINE and MR. R. FIELD (instructed by Messrs. Clifford-Turner, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Respondents).
This case is of interest to all those who go down to the sea in ships. It is about flags of convenience. They are much disliked by a trade union called for short I.T.F., the International Federation of Transport Workers.
The "Camilla M" is a bulk carrier of some size. She carries about 26,000 tons deadweight. She is owned by a Liberian company called the Star Sea Transport Corporation of Monrovia. She is a new vessel, having been built in this country only last year. She flies the Liberian flag - a flag of convenience. She is managed for the owners by London agents, Mavroleon Brothers Limited. They are of good standing. She is a first-class vessel, well-appointed and well-run.
In March 1977 she was let on a time charter to a Panamanian company called Atlantic Lines & Navigation Company Incorporated. She was to be redelivered between November 1978 and February 1979. The hire was $3,750 a day. There was an "off-hire clause" which provided that "in the event of boycott on account of flag or ownership, blacklisting", etc. the payment of hire was to cease. But the owners, of course, would remain liable during the off-hire period for paying the wages of the crew and so forth.
The officers on the vessel were all Greek. The crew were all Indians. All of them, both officers and crew, were well-content with their wages and their conditions.
In October 1977 the vessel recruited in Bombay a crew of Indian seamen for service under articles which were to last for about a year until October 1978. The crew were all members of the Indian union, the National Union of Seafarers of India (N.U.S.I.). Their articles were approved by agovernment organisation there, the Indian National Maritime Board (N.M.B.). The Indian crew were paid on the scale agreed between the National Union of Seafarers of India and the Indian National Maritime Board. The crew all signed those articles in the presence of the shipping master in Bombay. He is an officer of the government. Under arrangements approved by the Indian government, the crew were paid their immediate outgoings during the voyage: but the rest of their pay was retained until the end of their articles when it was paid to them at Bombay in the presence of the shipping master. No doubt those arrangements are part of the Indian government's policy, so as to ensure that the money which is earned should be kept in India and not dissipated elsewhere. Those arrangements were fully agreed by the men themselves, the Indian union and the Indian Government.
The actual rates of pay for the Indian seamen were between £35 and £45 a month. Those rates of pay were the same as those paid by the owners of other ships, such as British ships or Greek ships, when they employed Indian seamen. But the rates were very low in comparison with the rates paid to seamen from other countries. We have had some figures given to us. The current rate recommended by the International Labour Organisation is about £98 a month. The Greek rate is about £165 a month. The I.T.F. rate (I will describe it later - it covers an average of ten European countries) is said to be £326 a month. That is very high compared with the Indians' £35 to £45 a month. No doubt the reason why the Indian crew, their union and government agreed to these low wages was because they wanted to secure employment for the seafarers of India.
This brings me to the International Transport WorkersFederation. They are not a union of workers. They are a union of trade unions. They are a federation of seamen's unions from all over the world. They have their headquarters here in London. Their affiliated unions number some 300. They include the National Seamen's Union here in England, the National Seafarers' Union of India, the Pan-Hellenic Seamen's Federation, and so forth. Practically all the seamen's unions all over the world are members of this federation and are affiliated to it.
This federation takes strong objection to flags of convenience. I will read a few sentences from a brochure which was read to us in full by Mr. Irvine setting out the reasons why the federation object to flags of convenience. They say that: "Such flags without any shadow of doubt are completely 'phoney'. The countries which make them available to the unscrupulous owner are certainly not maritime countries in any genuine sense. On paper they possess huge maritime fleets - far far larger than they could ever manage with their own facilities … There is no doubt at all that they are enormously convenient to the ship owner. He can save himself money in a number of ways: by avoiding taxation in the country of genuine ownership: by relieving himself of the need to comply with genuine national maritime safety and social security legislation: on crew costs, because he can employ crew members from low-wage countries, from countries where there are huge pools of unemployed workers, and from those where seafarers' trade unions either do not exist at all, are hopelessly weak, or effectively controlled by employers and reactionary governments. It is certainly no accident that a very high proportion of crew members employed on 'flag-of-convenience' vessels come from countries which fall under one or more of these heads."
The international federation does all it can to discou these flags of convenience. It has a network of inspectors the major ports throughout the world. This is what they sa they do: "Such is the power of international solidarity within the maritime trade union movement, that an owner will often find that he has only two choices: to introduce dece conditions for his crew members or to discover that dockers tugmen, lock-keepers, and pilots feel so strongly about the in which he is treating their fellow-workers on board that literally won't touch his ship with a barge-pole. That is something which can be decidedly inconvenient for the stubb flag-of-convenience operator." That shows clearly enough if I.T.F. find that a flag of convenience is not treating the crew properly, they will bring pressure to bear on the owner - by not allowing the ship to sail.
No doubt the objectives of the federation are good. I understand them and would not seek to criticise them. The question is how far can the federation lawfully go in pursue of them.
I will turn now to the happenings on the "Camilla M." month ago on the 9th September, 1978 she arrived in Glasgow discharge a cargo of grain. She discharged her cargo in the or four days. She was due to leave at 2100 hours on the 14 September, 1978. The shipowners made arrangements with the tugs, pilots, boatmen, and so forth for her to sail at that time. But she did not sail. The tugmen and the others "blacked" the ship. This was because of approaches made by the international federation. No doubt through their London officers Mr. Laughton and Mrs. Collarbone. On the evening of the 15th September or thereabouts their Glasgow man Mr. Guirfiguratively wearing his I.T.F. hat, boarded the "Camilla M" on behalf of the I.T.F. He demanded that the wages of the Indian crew should be brought up to the I.T.F. scale and that back pay should be paid to the men from the beginning of their articles in November 1977. That and other demands were made. Mr. Guinane said the vessel would be "blacked" and would not sail until those demands were complied with.
The shipowners were very distressed to find that their ship had been "blacked" and could not go on her legitimate voyages. They sought the help of the seamen's union in India. and of the Indian government. On the 15th September, two days later, Mr. Barnes, the General Secretary of the Indian union in Bombay sent this cable to the I.T.F. and the N.U.S. in London:
"Understand your rep. boarded vessel Camilla with Indian seamen at Glasgow and demanded ITF wages. Indian Seamen bona fide members of NUSI and governed by NMB terms and conditions and Indian articles of agreement. Hence would request not - repeat not - insist payment of ITF wages as such insistence will only jeopardise further employment of Indian seamen on vessel Camilla as also other vessels of Mavroleon fleet. Fraternally Leo Barnes."
That was a plain request by the General Secretary of the Indian union to the I.T.F., saying "Do not black this vessel. If you do so, you are only jeopardising the employment of the Indians concerned. Let her go." It was supported by the Indian government.
That plea fell on deaf ears. During the succeeding days the I.T.F. elaborated a series of demands on the owners of the vessel as the price for allowing her to sail. If I may summarisesome of them. First, the owners were to sign the I.T.F. agreement. That meant they would have to conform to I.T.F. rules over the next twelve months paying, I suppose, I.T.F. wages. Second, the owners were to pay the back pay at I.T.F. rates amounting to $352,687 to the Indian crew. Third, the crew of the "Camilla M" were to sign the I.T.F. agreement of employment.
In order to get the "Camilla M" away, the owners themselves were ready to agree to all those demands. But then there appeared a stumbling block. The Indian crew of the "Camilla M"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.W.L. Ltd v Woods
...Woods, Donaldson J. granted an interlocutory injunction, thinking that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The "Camilla M." [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 26 compelled him to do so. This injunction was discharged by a Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Salmon and Stephenson L.J. In the subsequen......
-
N.W.L. Ltd v Woods
...Woods, Donaldson J. granted an interlocutory injunction, thinking that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The "Camilla M." [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 26 compelled him to do so. This injunction was discharged by a Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Salmon and Stephenson L.J. In the subsequen......
-
N.W.L. Ltd v Woods
...its behalf is not taken bona fide for a legitimate trade object. 22If so, on the authority of this court's decision in The "Camilla M" 1979 1 Lloyds LR 26, following cases starting with Conway v Wade 1909 AC 506, the plaintiffs' action is likely to succeed and the injunctions it claims sho......
-
Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation (Marine)
...the way in which the blacking of fiags-of-convenience vessels is carried out are to be found in the judgments in The "Camilla M." [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 26 and N.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1294, where the object sought to be achieved by the blacking policy and the reasons why it do......