With the USCG throwing the term “Proper Manning” around made me wonder how they would come up with who was required to meet this standard as there is NO COI that would list the minimum manning scale.
If I was the CE or AE, I would be long gone as they are not required as per the USCG. I also found it interesting that the Barge crew was not listed as they do have a COI.
“Perform all duties required by law” is the catch all. If the USCG Captain of the Port issues an order it is a law. And yes the crew is required follow it."
Once an officer resigns he/she is no longer required to follow anything. It is the company’s responsibility to man the vessel. A certified letter to the company and a copy to the Captain of the Port is sufficient. Been there done that.
I pretty sure those two units got COIs as part of the first 25% required under Sub M implementation by July 2019. Regardless the USCG MSM has manning guidelines for tugs and more importantly the COTP has the authority and latitude to set the manning level.
I don’t think that will fly for vessels anchored offshore. As the COTP order alludes to the safety issue is remedied if vessel transits to a safe berth.
The issue is the people not being paid as well as responsibility for duties. If they don’t like not being paid they can resign, inshore or offshore. As long as they are within 200 miles of shore there are remedies. Regardless, once you resign you are not an employee and not responsible for squat. Should a company abandon a seaman without pay they have some serious issues that are taken up in other USCG regulations.
For a crew under articles it’s against the law to abandon the vessel. From the COTP order it looks like the company or master is responsible for safe manning (the order cites 46 CFR 15.105) . In this case what CFR applies if the crew quits?
This is how the USCG can be the lawful superior of any person on any US vessel and is how the COTP takes control of a vessel.
Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
[PART 6—PROTECTION AND SECURITY OF VESSELS, HARBORS, AND WATERFRONT FACILITIES
§6.04-8 Possession and control of vessels.
The Captain of the port may supervise and control the movement of any vessel and shall take full or partial possession or control of any vessel or any part thereof, within the territorial waters of the United States under his jurisdiction, whenever it appears to him that such action is necessary in order to secure such vessel from damage or injury, or to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility or waters of the United States, or to secure the observance of rights and obligations of the United States.
There’s nothing there about “any person on any US vessel”.
If a crewmember that is not getting paid quits by what authority can the CG require him to remain aboard? The CFR cited by the order says the company or master are responsible for safe manning. Nothing about unpaid crew members.
For that matter if they are not being paid how are they considered crew?
I doubt the crew of a Bouchard vessel signed articles. Perhaps a former crew member could tell us.I haven’t talked to a US coast-wise mariner that signed shipping articles, most didn’t even know what they were.
Goes back to lawful orders, COTP issues orders to Master, and Master to crew. If you are a crew member and Master tells you that you have to stay for safety reasons that is a legal order. It’s unfortunate but pay really has nothing to do with it at that time. This is much more than a simple shore side job. This is about dealing with a significant safety risk since they are at anchor and not at a berth.
Since there is a COTP order to the master and BTC to maintain a minimum manning level, the Master has no choice but to order the crew to stay. If the crew walks off it will be disobeying a lawful order.
Yes the pay issue is terrible, but is not really in play under this extreme circumstance.
Are the office people not getting paid as well?
What law or agreement provides that a crew member cannot terminate his employment relationship?
New York is an “employment-at-will” state. Therefore, an employer may generally terminate an employment relationship at any time and for any reason, unless a law or agreement provides otherwise. For example, a federal or state law, collective bargaining agreement, or individual employment contract may place limitations on an otherwise at-will relationship.
I think some people are confused in thinking being a USCG licensed mariner puts you under some quasi military jurisdiction. The USCG issues a license that says you have the qualifications to seek employment for a particular position. Once you accept that employment unless you sign articles stipulating otherwise you are an employee at will. You may be fired or quit at any time. A license to be a merchant mariner is very little different from many other professional licenses, whether PE, MD, LLD or plumber in that respect.
While it is obvious that the USCG has the inherent authority to seize and take. O troll of vessels, this regulation, among others, spells it out.
The USCG can and SHOULD seize these vessels and get them safely secured somewhere, and get the crew safely ashore. I have no doubt that the USCG has the a ability to bill Bouchard and/or the vessels to cover its expenses in securing the vessels. I have no doubt that the USCG has the ability to compel the vessels to be auctioned off in order to recover its expenses.
The USCG is very properly concerned about the threat to maritime safety and the environment that these Bouchard vessels pose. But the USCG is just shifting the burden to the unpaid and overworked crews on board. How long can that be safe?
Its time for the USCG to start being concerned about the crews, and get them off.
The USCG has under-regulated and “enabled” Bouchard for far too long. The USCG is partly responsible for creating this Bouchard mess. Decisive action is long overdue. Arrest all of these insolvent, incompetently managed, and unsafe Bouchard vessels and keep them chained to the dock until they are sold to solvent and competent new owners.
Bouchard was very successful for many years. It’s what, a third generation company? What changed? It has to be a lot more than one old barge blowing up? How did Bouchard go so completely to hell?
That’s what I’m asking. When a crewmember joins a ship and signs articles they are required two things. They must obey orders of superior officers and they must remain until paid off. A seaman under articles that leaves before payoff has legally abandoned the vessel.
In this case the seaman must obey orders but what is the equivalent of the articles that requires they remain for the entire voyage or the union agreement that requires they stay until relieved?
In this case no articles and no requirement for proper relief.
It inherently makes sense, on articles or not, that seamen are not allowed to lawfully quit underway or abandon a vessel if that will create a public safety hazard. Can a truck driver quit and jump out of truck and leave it rolling down the road? Can a nuclear power plant operator quit and let the reactor run wild? Of course not. When a person undertakes certain job duties that affect public safety, they have a legal obligation to society to see them through to a certain safe point.
However, that does not mean that the government can shirk its duties. At some point the government must step in. At some point the crew must be allowed off.
It strikes me that the USCG is missing a good opportunity to conduct a safety drill. It’s obvious that the USCG must have the ability to take control of unsafe vessels and bring them under safe control to a safe and secure berth. This is the opportunity for the USCG to put its ability to do so to the test. The USCG should put crews aboard the Bouchard vessels and take them to safe berths. If they cannot do so, some Admirals must be sacked, and the USCG must be fixed.
If an at will employed pilot quits, and jumps out of a flying plane he will at the very least lose his license (read privilege) to be a pilot and will probably be charged criminally.
The same principles apply here. Very little of this has to do with employment law. This is about the responsibilities of holding an MMC. If you bail on a ship in a hazardous situation you may be held accountable for it.
Asking specifically what provides that a crewmember can not terminate his employment relationship? CFR or the like. Not looking for analogies etc.
The CFR cited in the COTP order says the owner or master is responsible.
Not a lawyer etc but I’d say in the case of pilot or truck driver if the employee gives reasonable time to find a replacement then they have no obligation to stay.
72 hrs should be more than enough time.
Well stated and I largely agree.
BTC is the perfect storm. And yes the demise has been a long time coming and both the ABS and USCG have accepted and by inaction supported it.
Like @tengineer1 said up thread. Crew members should give written notice to the master, company and CG that they intend to terminate employment with adequate notice.
The problem of course is that replacements that are willing to work without being paid will be scarce. However unless it can be shown otherwise that is not the responsibly of the crewmember.