(1) When a seaman without leave quits the service of a vessel and does not intend to return to duty; or
(2) When a seaman signs shipping articles, agrees to join a vessel waiting in port and then fails to do so, unless the failure was beyond his/her control.
b. See 46 U.S.C. 11104, 46 U.S.C. 11106, 46 U.S.C. 10309, 46 U.S.C. 11051, and 46 U.S.C. 11503.
7 FAM 742 DESERTION DOES NOT OCCUR
(CT:CON-111; 09-15-2005)
Desertion does not occur when:
(1) When a mariner is absent without leave or overstays leave time, but has not refused or neglected to comply with an order to return and had no intention to sever connection with the vessel;
(2) When a seaman goes ashore without permission, but intends to return;
(3) When a seaman openly leaves the ship with the consent of the master or leaves under circumstances showing the master’s desire or intention to terminate the seaman’s services; and
(4) When the seaman leaves the ship because of cruel or oppressive treatment, for want of sufficient provisions in port when they can be procured by the master, or when the voyage is altered in the articles without.
Don’t ever remember signing articles for any vessel I’ve sailed on. Doesn’t matter in this case in the grand scheme of things. It boggles the mind how this situation has gotten so bad for our fellow mariners . Morty’s descendants must be rolling over in their grave. Those boats will eventually work somewhere, and will require well documented mariners to run them. What owner they sail under is any persons guess right now. To the guys at BTC, keep your credentials up to snuff. The office guys can’t run the boat.
Oh, I fully agree these guys are getting screwed over, but just pointing it out. The ATBs I am on now, we sign articles and receive a discharge every hitch. Maybe just a little extra protection?
Are articles required? If they are it’s my understanding that they still apply even if they have not been signed.
This is a coast-wise voyage:
a) After the beginning of a voyage, a seaman is entitled to receive from the master, on demand, one-half of the balance of wages earned and unpaid at each port at which the vessel loads or delivers cargo during the voyage. A demand may not be made before the expiration of 5 days from the beginning of the voyage, not more than once in 5 days, and not more than once in the same port on the same entry. If a master does not comply with this subsection, the seaman is released from the agreement required by section 10502 of this title and is entitled to payment of all wages earned.
Boom… there it is right there. Not getting paid to work while being kept away from family would qualify as oppressive treatment in most jurors (and admiralty tribunals/USCG administrative hearings) opinions I’d imagine.
After hearing that they would not be paid, the complaint asserts, some plaintiffs returning from vacation breaks have refused to report to their vessels. Some plaintiffs continue to work on their vessels out of a sense of loyalty, fear of discipline, or to retain their Coast Guard licenses and documentation. Furthermore, says the complaint, some were told that if they left their vessels unattended or otherwise not in compliance with Coast Guard regulations, the seamen would be subject to Coast Guard discipline.
In failing to make daily wage payments, plaintiffs claim that Bouchard violated their employment contracts as well as federal labor laws. Each employee is seeking the full amount of unpaid wages due to him, as well as penalty wages, fees, and attorney costs. The amount of wages owed to current plaintiffs ranges from $5,760 to $15,250, not counting any contributions to fringe benefit programs, bonuses, retirement accounts, or future opportunities.
If mariners are refusing to return from vacation shouldn’t they be facing the same legal risk at the crew stranded on the vessels? If there are no logistical limitations on crew change what is the difference?
From a legal stand point no. A person is responsible until relieved. Same thing with hospital nurses, can’t just leave when your shift is over and you can be mandated to stay or it’s a criminal violation of the law. They must be properly relieved. You can fire them but you can’t hold the other person legally responsible for not showing up. I’m sure there’s a number of other professions with the same thing. That being said, if it was me, I’d be out of there. One way or another
It seems to me that the key point here is by what legal authority are are crew members being held on board?
Normally it’s under the captain’s authority but it looks to me that once the pay stops the contract is broken and the captain no longer has authority to hold the crew. Next the argument is that the vessel is at risk the the COTP can require the crew to stay aboard. But, once the risk is gone by what authority is the crew being held? In practice it’s by the COTP making threats against mariners documents. But the crew ashore have documents that can be threaten as well.
What’s stopping them from calling any credentialed mariner and demanding they go to work without pay?
Ummm… the law? Coast Guard isn’t forcing anyone to work without pay. They are simply telling the master that it is illegal to willfully abandon a vessel at anchor. If you can’t see the difference, this thread will continue to repeat the same nonsense.
Additionally, those employees on the boats now aren’t actually working for no pay. They are owed pay that they aren’t receiving at the moment.
I’m glad you can be so cavalier about it. In another week or so these guys won’t be able to make their mortgage payments, if they haven’t already missed one. Money owed isn’t the same as money in their bank accounts, and we all know that the odds of them getting 100% of what they are owed is doubtful.
My thinking is the law here doesn’t apply to people who are not crew. Once the pay stops (as agreed etc.) then the mariner is no longer crew. Assuming adequate notice, risk to vessel and so forth.
You’d think the mariners involved or at least one of them would have license insurance but if not the simplest thing is for a captain to send a certified notice to the USCG stating he intends to resign his position as master due to unpaid wages and if he resigns how can he be held responsible for a vessel he is no longer employed on? Ask the USCG if his license will be in jeopardy for resigning under those circumstances. If so what is the US Code of Federal Regulations that states so.
I find it a bit strange that none of the mariners involved chime in on this forum. Are they that afraid? They already aren’t getting paid. What’s the worst that could happen? Or is there something else being not said?
Non Union. Morty pays a premium so “they” don’t seek the union. This is also why so many people that work there are strapped to bouchard. A 20+ k paycut is a big deal if your budget is based on what you make there. Glad I got out when I did. I would like to get paid though.
Wage disputes are a civil matter. USCG has no real authority over that unless articles are signed. These boats do not sign traditional articles. And if you cause a hazardous condition by abandoning a vessel at anchor with a COTP order on it, there are charges for:
Misconduct- Generally, a factual allegation for a complaint issued for misconduct must, on its face, allege facts, which fulfill the standards of 46 CFR 5.27. The words of the factual allegation must allege that what was done was wrongful. Thus, if the actions alleged could, on the face of the factual allegation alone, be other than wrongful, the word “wrongfully” should be included.
Failure to Perform Duty- The offense of failing to perform duty is distinct from incompetence in that the former is a failure to perform, whereas the latter is inability to perform. A person may neglect a duty by never entering upon it; such is an omission of action, rather than an act. A duty may be imposed by law, regulation, or custom in effect at the time of the offense. When there is an intervening cause (confinement on the ship or other relief from duty) for failure to perform, the allegation for the offense(s) should be based on the actions from which the relief from duty was based.
Negligence, 46 USC 7703(1)(B), 46 CFR 5.29
Misconduct, 46 USC 7703(1)(B), 46 CFR 5.27
Violation of Law or Reg 46 USC 7703(1)(A), 46 CFR 5.33
Incompetence 46 USC 7703(4)
