Help. Sea service contention. CFR dispute about to be retaliatory termination

I’m having an extremely difficult time on board in the workplace. I work on a uninspected commercial fishing vessel of upper tonnage, (have been in the industry for 20+ years) we are all 1099. We have a person on board whom held a mates license and recently raised it to masters. Most of us on board have a severe issue with this person raising grade to masters as our route is to fish offshore a couple of days and spend three days in town at which point this particular person is at full liberty in town or playing cards in the galley, or just sleeping during watch hours while the main engines are shut down, and the vessel is secured to the dock. Yet they claim full time as mate at time and a half. This person even at that time and a half calculation would’ve barely had enough time to upgrade. This person was able to secure a Sea service letter from the companies operations That showed time when this person flew in to the vessels location for the season, and when they left for the season. Therefore embellishing the sea service days at which the applicant asked for time and a half for all days on the location successfully. I myself have a masters lic upper tonnage and work the deck along with a couple others on board due to seniority but mostly politics, and we have to work underneath this guy as he is taken to the bridge as of just a couple years ago. Being a concern for safety a couple of us quietly had reached out to the Coast Guard Fraud investigations and produced the engine room logs, Among other showing that the time was insufficient yet the applicant preyed on the company To produce a letter for sea service that was not Served. And they are looking into it. We also decided to confront our employer (operations/author) about our feeling as a crew as to how this applicant has gone on without merit to coerce a sea service letter For the purpose to upgrade to his masters, well, spending time absent from the vessel and sleeping on watch for a lot of those days. This was done via email, stating that we didn’t feel the sea service was sufficient considering that this person was spending time at the bars and spending time overnight in town at hotels, and then received Sea service days for this toward their masters. We also obviously asked that it be looked at without retaliation, and from a non-biased standpoint, and be audited. If there’s a mistake made by the applicant, not the author, then disciplinary action be taken. It took a few days, but it was met with the most vicious response of legal gymnastics that you could imagine. There was, as you can imagine an attempt first and foremost for the company to save face and maintain their position. Also, there was a counter attack, as if we were circulating, conspiracies on board the boat, and being insubordinate, and should be met with termination. Sadly, this is just expected, but really shouldn’t work this way in any company. Whistleblowers if you want to call them that are met with combat rather than comfort. It was addressed in the email that it was our understanding that there are provisions in the CFR for time in town while the vessel is shut down however, this should only count for a small period of time and shouldn’t apply since the person was absent. Looking for guidance as to the CFR‘s that refer to sea time while the vessel is completely shut down? Also, any guidance to the CFR’s that would pertain to someone claiming Sea service, while absent from the vessel during periods of their watch?

Has the Coast Guard fraud investigation reached any conclusions yet ?

1 Like

No, this is in progress.

So, you’ve basically accused both a superior ship’s officer and the ship’s management of fraud, and additionally reported this to the CG? And you thought this might go well as a 1099 contractor?

1 Like

No, I didn’t think it would go well. But the facts are facts and can be easily proven. I can cite a case law In which the author of the letter and the recipient were indicted and prosecuted In Texas for a similar situation. Doesn’t matter to me. Their inability to understand it doesn’t change it. You still have someone here that falsified sea time for someone else. The recipient of the letter was absent from the vessel for a lot of this time. I’m asking if anyone knows what the CFR’s are being tied to Dock on daddy’s yacht or basically just being a cabin boy doesn’t earn you time and a half is a mate. Don’t be a company bootlicker. These people broke the law wilfully knowingly. Also, yes 1099 contractor, and I’m on a hitch. It be a breach of contract if they terminate me it’s not a smart move on their part. I’d be happy to see them in court after a termination for reporting a safety concern. I’ll be it, 2-3 years from now that process is slow. This isn’t my first goat fuck.

1 Like

The issue is that a 1099 worker does not have the same protections as an employee of the company. That, and the fraud you allege took place isn’t going to be easy to prove. If the logs show the officer was standing a watch, that is what will document sea service. It won’t matter whether or not the vessel was tied up or underway.

I don’t know if it’s different for the uninspected fishing fleet, but if what you described happened on a deep sea ship tied to a dock the whole time, that person would get credit for every day that ship is tied to the dock. Ship doesn’t have to actually go anywhere.


So you accused the company of something you think is in the CFRs, but don’t actually know what it says in the CFRs?


I think the CFRs are hidden deep in the Himalayas. You must go on a perilous journey if you wish to consult their wisdom.

Why are there always threads with people that refuse to even look in the CFRs hoping something there will save them? Questions about interpretation or case law are one thing. But FFS at least crack them open first.


Thanks for the replies. I am Interested to hear that from sample examples people are claiming that their employer would do the exact same. Here’s an older discussion in Gcaptain and the reason I ask For clarification. Sea time at the dock. According to Navics, The time would count for zero or 1/3 of a day

Do you have a source for that? On most commercial vessels you get straight time from sign on to sign off. It doesn’t matter if the entire hitch was sitting at the dock, it’s all sea time.

Who is Navics?

Here’s the CFR:
46 CFR § 10.232 - Sea service (e) Sea service on vessels that do not get underway. This requirement applies to service obtained on vessels mandated by the Certificate of Inspection (COl) which are in operation but do not get underway or occasionally get underway for short voyages. Service while the vessel is not underway must be credited as follows:
Engineering department. Service may be credited day-for-day for up to 50 percent of the service credit for renewal, raise of grade, and original issue for each day the engineering plant is operational.
Deck department. Service may be credited as follows:
(i) Original issue and raise of grade. Service is creditable on a 3-for-1 basis (12 months of experience equals 4 months of creditable service) for up to 6 months of service credit.
(ii) Renewal. Service in any capacity in the deck department is creditable as closely related service under § 10.227(e)(1)(iv). When submitted in combination with underway service, service is creditable on a 3-for-1 basis (12 months of experience equals 4 months of creditable service) for up to 6 months of service credit.

It is the three for one days that would make him uneligible. This is a specific CFR that refers to Sea service on vessels that don’t get underway often. Plus on top of that there is abandonment and absence. I’ll just list the CFR, The NAVICS discussion will become convoluted. What I’m asking is if anybody knows of any others or is this the only means of calling this turd out for cheating his way to a license upgrade?

I spent 80 of 90 days on a ship at a dock. Got credit for every day.

Does the COI say this?

I don’t see how that CFR applies in this case.

1 Like

Your fishing vessel gets underway. Even if it only gets underway for one day out of every three, this CFR would not apply at all.

The rule is there for ships like Ready Reserve that only get underway on extremely infrequent occurrences.

1 Like

Duly noted. Thank you for the info

I found that this very similar subject was just discussed last November I posted it here Sea Service time