I was the Captain and I did report the issues to the DPA as I thought it was the proper and right way to handle the situation……I was fired 11 days later……
2 Likes
Come on people.
If any of you ACTUALLY think that the Captain and/or Chief did not know about the fire pump, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
We all know how ships are. Everyone knows everything. Block on the lifeboat? I may give you that one. But there’s no way that the fire pump being fucked up was “hidden” from them. The 1 A/E knows…the Mate knows…what else do they all talk about at dinner???
4 Likes
If you think that every report to the DPA or CG is 100% based on factual information I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I got several emails from the DPA regarding crew complaints, all were resolved on board. Had one AB I fired call the CG and report problems in the E/R. CG boarded and found no issues.
In this case here’s the complaint:
On December 29, 2020, Complainant filed a complaint with the USCG reporting that the lifeboat block and releasing gear were inoperable, crew members were in possession of alcohol and drinking onboard, the emergency fire pump was not working, trainees were standing watch unsupervised, and the cargo hold bilge system needed repairs as it was causing flooding
Here’s the results of the subsequent CG inspection:
At 5:45 pm on December 29, 2020, the USCG boarded the vessel and conducted an inspection, in which Complainant participated. The USCG noted in their report a substantial leak in the fire main in the starboard tunnel, a cracked safety rail, and lifeboat blocks in need of replacement.
The CG did not find anything wrong with the emergency fire pump. That’s why the CG cleared the vessel to sail after the inspection.
1 Like
In the hypothetical, what if he had gone to the DPA first and was still fired?
Based on the fact that you refuse to address the issues of the retaliatory management culture, my guess is you will still find a way to defend management and find fault with the mariner.
There are isolated situations of individuals making disingenuous and false reports to the office. I have had to deal with that myself.
However, there are very few SPA cases out there. Whether you realize it or not, your statement(s) insult those mariners (myself included) who did what was right, proper and in the best interest of the safety of our crew and vessel by reporting safety issues within the company and were then fired for doing so.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
Well if he did first go to DPA, they at least couldn’t have fired him for not going through the proper channels, as they did.
I can’t understand how you think it could have been justified to go straight to CG without trying.
Because the law allows for it.
Is it the most career savvy decision to go straight to USCG? Probably not. But it’s legally protected.
Maybe this C/M did go up the company chain of command, at least verbally, and they are saying he didn’t.
What if the C/M did go to the DPA and he was fired. Would he have the OSHA/SPA protection???
I find it funny how everyone is “blaming the victim” and completely siding with management. And we all know office management is more likely to be unethical than ethical.
Yes.
You’re incorrect. The protection applies to “the Coast Guard or other appropriate Federal agency or department.” The DPA would be exactly the wrong person to go to if the C/M wanted legal protection.
You’re right. The protection against being fired for reporting to the company appears to only be for sexual assault.
Maybe that’s why he didn’t.
How do you figure?
There is nothing in the Seaman’s Protection Act that specifically references reports to the Designated Person Ashore (DPA). There is or should I say there was language in the SPA specific to “internal reporting.” During my litigation, that language was there but it appears it may have been removed or modified.
Regarding reporting to the USCG first as opposed to reporting internally first, I would agree that in a perfect world that would be the way to go so as to give the company an opportunity to correct the situation. Unfortunately, given the retaliatory nature of many shore based management organizations there is a real fear of retaliation. I speak from personal experience as I have lived it. Perhaps a better question and topic to address is why did this mariner not have the confidence to report this internally through the management chain. Clearly, he feared retaliation and that fear was realized. If mariners cannot report safety issues without fear of losing their jobs that is very problematic and indicative of a very poor safety culture and a safety management system that is broken. Was Maersk’s only option (which was quite foolish) to fire this Chief Mate?
The reality is none of us commenting here, myself included, truly know what took place and to the best of my knowledge none of us have seen what was produced in the discovery process. OSHA made the ruling based on the evidence produced. Maersk intends to appeal and Maersk’s defense is, in my opinion, very weak as there is nothing that legally prevents a Mariner from making a report directly to the USCG without going to the company first.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
You are correct - I edited my post.
In this case the C/M would have had to rely upon the union for protection against a firing. One advantage of reporting to the CG which is relevant here is the complaint need not be true.
From OSHA’s letter:
Respondent asserts that the evidence, including the fact that the USCG allowed them to sail following the inspection, demonstrates that there were no safety issues on board and therefore Complainant’s complaint was not made in good faith. Again, OSHA disagrees; a seaman only needs to reasonably believe the information is true and relates to a violation of maritime safety.
Why do you bring this point upto imply the statements were not true?. Safety violations were found by the USCG. The severity of the violations can be debated until the end of time, but violations were found.
At 5:45 pm on December 29, 2020, the USCG boarded the vessel and conducted an inspection, in which Complainant participated. The USCG noted in their report a substantial leak in the fire main in the starboard tunnel, a cracked safety rail, and lifeboat blocks in need of replacement.
1 Like
Unfortunately, the lack of ethics you are referring to is not limited to shore based management. There are a number of mariners and “Captains” in addition to shore based management and in some cases DPA’s who are nothing more than company “yes men” and have no qualms about jeopardizing the safety of their crew and vessel for their own personal benefit so as to look favorable in the eyes of management. They put the company and themselves above their crew and vessel and that is unconscionable. I will surmise that it is those types who keep trying to find a way to be critical of the mariner as opposed to being critical of a retaliatory management culture that fires senior officers over reporting safety issues.
Jeff Hagopian
See perfect examples: El Faro, Maersk Alabama.
It’s well known that the capt is a company man. Often times the chief is too. Cowardice/ass kissing is rewarded by the office, sadly.
I never understood that. Most transformed into company men after they advanced to that position too. Like you don’t need to ass kiss anymore…you made it bud.
However, I think older guys have this mentality because when they first started shipping and throughout their careers they had to constantly fight for their jobs. The US fleet has significantly shrunk for their whole careers…. But times are changing.
Old guys: kiss the company’s ass
Middle age guys (if you can find one): are indifferent towards the company.
Younger guys: would rather tell the company to kiss their ass than kiss the company’s ass
I an old guy. I have told companies to kiss my ass. And, I was looking for a job when I got this one.
Right now, companies are making my phone ring and puckering up to kiss my ass. I’m enjoying it while I can.
2 Likes
K.C. said one advantage to reporting to the Coast Guard is that the complaint need not to be true, not that it wasn’t true.
Then again, the report you linked to; a complaint was filed with the Coast Guard alleging amongst other things the emergency fire pump was not working. The Coast Guard in their report made no mention of the emergency fire pump. Do you think the Coast Guard didn’t want to see it run or simply missed it?
The letter from OSHA only provides a sort of outline of events, there’s not sufficient detail to exactly determine what happened.
In a previous post I mentioned that the chief mate’s complaint don’t match the CG findings and the fact that at the end of the inspection the vessel was cleared to sail by the CG.
The captain did fire the C/M for reporting to the CG, which was a bad move but it’s not known why the captain gave the C/M a letter of warning earlier.
From the OSHA letter:
• On September 19, 2019, Complainant participated in the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS) inspection.• In early December 2020, Complainant participated in an ABS inspection on the vessel and reported to the surveyor that there was a leak and that other repairs were needed to the cargo hold bilge system.
• On December 23, 2020, Complainant was given a letter of warning by Captain for failure to properly maintain the log as per his standing orders and not following his night orders for December 12, 2020. Complainant sent an email to DPA1 disputing these allegations and claiming this was retaliation for reporting alcohol consumption on board the vessel.
• On December 24, 2020, Complainant complained to Captain about the alcohol use on board the vessel by and seven crew members.
• On December 29, 2020, Complainant filed a complaint with the USCG reporting that the lifeboat block and releasing gear were inoperable, crew members were in possession of alcohol and drinking onboard, the emergency fire pump was not working, trainees were standing watch unsupervised, and the cargo hold bilge system needed repairs as it was causing flooding
Another oddity, in the chief mate’s complaint to the DPA he stated the letter of warning from the captain was in retaliation for a complaint about drinking aboard. And then according to OSHA the C/M complained about drinking the next day.
We all know this is some ticky tack shit that the Captain was trying to write him up on.
1 Like