FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 3 International Transport Workers’ Federation Campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 ITF, 49/60 Borough Road, London SE1 1DR, United Kingdom www.itfglobal.org FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 4 Foreword For more than 50 years the ITF, through its affiliated seafarers’ and dockers’ unions, has waged a campaign not only to end the flag of convenience system but also to improve the wages and conditions of those seafarers employed on FOC ships. Without the intervention of the ITF, most of these seafarers would have no trade union protection. Judged by the number of crews on FOC ships covered by ITF collective agreements or the amount of back pay recovered by ITF action, the campaign has been remarkably successful. Sadly, however, flags of convenience are still an established feature of the international shipping industry – and in an era of economic liberalism look likely to remain so for the time being. Whatever the economic and political climate, flags of convenience remain highly vulnerable to criticism on the basis of their poor safety record. Even governments which are otherwise not inclined to challenge the interests of shipowners cannot ignore the economic and environmental impact of marine pollution on their own shores. This has been the focus of much ITF campaigning in recent years. Of course, not all marine accidents involve flag of convenience ships; nor do all cases of exploitation of seafarers. That is why the ITF campaign now encompasses substandard shipping in general as well as flags of convenience in particular. The FOC campaign has evolved considerably since it was first launched in 1948 and will continue to do so as the shipping industry adapts to changing global circumstances. One thing will remain constant: the ITF’s determination to ensure that the world’s seafarers receive decent wages, enjoy safe working conditions and can exercise their trade union rights. Credit for the successes of the campaign to date must go to the ITF’s seafarers’ and dockers’ union affiliates, to the team of ITF Inspectors and Coordinators around the world and to the officials and staff of the Special Seafarers’ Department and the Seafarers’ and Dockers’ Sections at our London Head Office. David Cockroft ITF General Secretary FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 5 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Introduction 2004 was another year of achievement for the ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping. The facts and figures in this report, such as those relating to ship inspections, the recovery of back pay and the signing of new collective agreements, speak for themselves. The industrial campaign continues to be an essential component of the fight against flag of convenience and substandard ships, so that seafarers are protected from exploitation by shipowners. In the case of flags of convenience, a fundamental objective of the campaign is the erosion of the competitive advantage which FOC ships have over higher-cost, traditional-flag vessels. One noteworthy development of the past two years has been the creation of the International Bargaining Forum as the single main forum for negotiations between the ITF and shipping employers on wages and conditions for the crews of flag of convenience ships. It has been particularly encouraging to see the IBF continue to expand its membership to include more of the world’s shipowners and managers. Negotiations through the IBF is yet another way that the ITF can give practical expression to its key aim of promoting the well-being and rights of the world’s seafarers. Stephen Cotton Secretary: ITF Special Seafarers’ Department The ITF campaign The ITF campaign against flags of convenience has two elements: A political campaign designed to establish by international governmental agreement a genuine link between the flag a ship flies and the nationality or residence of its owners, managers and seafarers, and so eliminate the flag of convenience system entirely; An industrial campaign designed to ensure that seafarers who serve on flag of convenience ships, whatever their nationality, are protected from exploitation by shipowners. The ITF recognises that there are some ship registers which, though not designated as flags of convenience, share some of the characteristics of FOCs, for example lax enforcement of international safety and employment standards. That is why the ITF campaign is not restricted to flags of convenience and also targets substandard shipping in general. Flags of convenience In July 2004, the Fair Practices Committee agreed to add the flag of Mongolia to the list of ITF-designated flags of convenience. There are currently 29 flags classified as FOCs by the ITF. They are: Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Cayman 3 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 6 Flags of convenience designated by the ITF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BARBADOS BELIZE BAHAMAS What are flags of convenience and why do we campaign against them? BERMUDA A flag of convenience ship is one that flies the flag of a country other than the country of ownership. Cheap registration fees, low or no taxes and freedom to employ cheap labour are BOLIVIA BURMA/MYANMAR CAMBODIA the motivating factors behind a shipowner’s decision to “flag out”. When declaring a national shipping register to be a flag of convenience the ITF also takes into CAYMAN ISLANDS COMOROS CYPRUS account the ability and willingness of the flag state to enforce international minimum social standards on its vessels, including respect for basic human and trade union rights, EQUATORIAL GUINEA GERMANY (second register) GIBRALTAR freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining with genuine trade unions. The ITF also looks at the flag’s social record as determined by the HONDURAS JAMAICA LEBANON degree of ratification and enforcement of International Labour Organisation conventions and recommendations. Another indicator is the safety and LIBERIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS environmental record as revealed by the ratification and enforcement of International Maritime Organisation conventions and revealed by port state control inspections, MAURITIUS MONGOLIA NETHERLANDS ANTILLES deficiencies and detentions. Flags of convenience provide a means of avoiding labour regulation in the country of ownership, and become a vehicle for paying low PANAMA SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE SRI LANKA wages and forcing long hours of work and unsafe working conditions. Since FOC ships have no real nationality, they are beyond the reach of any single national ST. VINCENT & THE GRENADINES TONGA VANUATU seafarers’ trade union. The ITF has therefore been obliged to organise and negotiate on behalf of FOC crews. 4 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 7 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Islands, Comoros, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Germany (second register), Gibraltar, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, São Tomé & Príncipe, Sri Lanka, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Tonga, Vanuatu. The political campaign The elimination of the flag of convenience system and the establishment of a proper regulatory framework for global shipping are the aims of the political campaign waged by the ITF against FOCs and substandard shipping. The political campaign is pursued by the ITF Seafarers’ Section. Most campaign activities centre on the international agencies which regulate the shipping industry and set global standards for seafarers. The ITF is represented on all these bodies, including the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. During 2004 the ITF was party to the negotiations aimed at producing a single ILO convention consolidating more than 60 maritime labour conventions. It is hoped that agreement can be reached by 2006. In addition, the ITF was closely involved in the discussions which led to the adoption in 2004 of the IMO’s International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. Thanks, in part at least, to ITF intervention, the new code contains a clear instruction that the fundamental rights and freedoms of maritime workers, including trade union rights, must be protected. Port security plans, which are to be drawn up as a result of the code, require access to be given to ships in port to seafarers’ welfare and union organisations. The industrial campaign The ITF’s industrial campaign to protect and improve the conditions of employment of seafarers is conducted by the Special Seafarers’ Department at ITF Head Office. It is overseen by the Fair Practices Committee, which is made up of seafarers’ and dockers’ trade unions affiliated to the ITF. The SSD’s specialist staff coordinate and provide information and services to the ITF’s Inspectors and Coordinators around the world. Assistance is also given to affiliated unions and to seafarers to whom the services of a national trade union are not available. The SSD is also responsible for the issuing and monitoring of ITF-approved agreements on flag of convenience ships. The industrial campaign generates income for the Seafarers’ International Assistance, Welfare and Protection Fund, whose accounts are published in this annual report. The Inspectorate In partnership with dockers’ and seafarers’ union affiliates, the ITF maintains a network of Inspectors in major ports around the world. In 2004 there were 131 5 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 8 ITF agreements and certificates The ITF’s maritime affiliates have developed a set of policies which seek to establish minimum acceptable standards applicable to seafarers serving on flag of convenience vessels. The policies form the basis of an ITF standard collective agreement which sets the wages and working conditions for all crew on FOC vessels irrespective of nationality. This is the only agreement normally available to shipowners who run into industrial action. The ITF also approves TCC (total crew cost) collective agreements – known as IBF TCC agreements when concluded with employers represented on the International Bargaining Forum – which take into account factors such as the social benefits available to seafarers in their home country when determining the overall true value of their wages. All FOC vessels covered by an ITF-acceptable agreement are issued with a Blue Certificate, or a Green Certificate in the case of IBF agreements, signifying the ITF’s acceptance of the wages and conditions on board. About a quarter of all FOC vessels are covered by ITF agreements, thus giving direct protection to over 90,000 seafarers. Countries in which ITF agreements were signed in 2004 Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States. Countries in which industrial action took place in 2004 Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, United States. 6 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 9 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Inspectors and Coordinators (in countries were there are several Inspectors) in 43 countries and dependent territories. ITF Inspectors visit ships to ensure that vessels are seaworthy and that crews are covered by collective agreements. The Inspectorate works closely with the local port state control authorities and advises the maritime and port authorities of any deficiencies in ships which have been inspected. In 2004 ITF Inspectors undertook a total of 9,532 ship inspections, compared with 9,104 inspections in 2003 and 8,886 in 2002. Flag of convenience ships accounted for 7,913 inspections in 2004 (7,451 in 2003). Agreements The total number of collective agreements signed by the ITF for crews of flag of convenience ships stood at 6,811 in 2004. This compares with 6,633 such agreements in 2003 and 6,577 in 2002. In total, 1,285 new agreements were signed in 20004, compared with 1,035 in 2003. The number of seafarers covered by ITF agreements in 2004 was 187,218 (178,466 in 2003) and the number of ships was 8,171 (7,886 in 2003). Back pay One of the functions of the ITF Inspectorate and the Actions Unit based at ITF Head Office in London is to recover wages which are owed to seafarers on flag of convenience ships as a result of non-payment of wages or under-payment of wages stipulated in ITF agreements. In 2004 a total of US$22.9 million was collected by Inspectors in back pay for crews. This compares with a total of $24 million in 2003 and $27.6 million in 2002. In addition US$2.2 million was secured by the Actions Unit (US$3.8 million in 2003). Thus, the total amount of back pay recovered in 2004 was US$25.1 million (US$27.8 million in 2003). Industrial and legal action Industrial action, either by dockers’ unions or by flag of convenience crews (or both) was taken in 24 different countries in 2004 in order to recover back pay owed to crews or to secure ITF agreements. In 2003 there was industrial action in 31 countries and in 2002 industrial action took place in 21 countries. Between 2002 and 2004 a total of 55 ITF agreements were signed as a result of industrial action. During 2004, 23 ships were arrested following legal action instigated by an ITF Inspector. Inspectors’ performance In 2004 the ITF instigated an Inspectorate Assessment Programme with the aim of improving the performance of ITF Inspectors. Thirty-one assessments 7 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 10 World fleet, by top 50 flags, on 1 January 2004 No. ships (over 100gt) Average age Panama* 6,302 125.7 0.8 17 2 Liberia* 1,553 52.4 4.0 12 3 Bahamas* 1,297 34.7 -3.1 15 4 Greece 1,558 32.2 11.8 22 5 Malta* 1,301 25.1 -30.9 18 6 Singapore 1,761 23.2 10.0 11 7 Cyprus* 1,198 22.1 -3.9 16 8 Hong Kong 901 20.5 26.5 12 9 China 3,376 18.4 6.4 22 10 Marshall Islands* 515 17.6 19.7 12 11 Norway (NIS 2nd register) 705 17.0 -7.6 16 7,151 13.6 -2.2 13 13 United Kingdom 1,594 10.8 35.0 20 14 Russia 4,950 10.4 0.0 23 15 United States 6,144 10.3 0.0 24 16 Italy 1,504 10.2 6.3 22 425 7.2 1.4 17 18 India 1,028 7.0 14.8 18 19 South Korea 2,604 6.7 -4.3 23 302 6.4 – 10 1,219 6.3 -4.6 24 22 17 Denmark (DIS 2nd register) 20 Isle of Man 21 St Vincent & the Grenadines* Olivier Aubert Annual % increase in gt 1 12 Japan 8 Gross tonnage (millions) 22 Germany 782 6.1 -6.2 23 Antigua & Barbuda* 950 6.0 17.7 12 24 Malaysia 972 5.7 5.6 17 25 Netherlands 1,313 5.7 0.0 16 26 Philippines 1,703 5.1 -3.8 26 27 Turkey 1,113 4.9 -14.0 25 20 28 Iran 382 4.8 17.1 29 Bermuda* 106 4.8 0.0 16 30 Indonesia 2,700 3.8 2.7 25 31 Sweden 581 3.6 12.5 30 32 Norway 1,548 3.5 -7.9 27 33 Taiwan 637 3.5 -18.6 23 34 French Antarctic Territory 116 3.3 10.0 8 35 Brazil 482 3.3 -5.7 24 36 Canada 916 2.8 0.0 29 37 Thailand 671 2.3 21.1 24 38 Kuwait 208 2.3 0.0 23 39 Australia 643 1.9 0.0 21 40 Vanuatu* 352 1.6 14.3 17 41 Belize* 1,040 1.5 0.0 23 42 Finland 280 1.4 -6.7 31 43 Ukraine 829 1.4 7.7 24 44 Saudi Arabia 285 1.4 -6.7 22 45 France 561 1.4 0.0 21 46 Egypt 346 1.1 -15.4 25 47 Mexico 654 1.0 11.1 25 48 Algeria 49 Honduras* 50 Bulgaria 137 0.9 0.0 24 1,143 0.8 -11.1 30 151 0.7 -22.2 28 Source: Lloyd’s Register of Shipping / * Denotes flag of convenience. FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:44 pm Page 11 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 were carried out over the year. Inspectors were selected for assessment if they had less than five years’ experience or if any questions had been raised concerning their performance and it was felt that an early assessment was required. As a consequence, a few Inspectors were given various supplementary training exercises to complete. An additional four assessments were undertaken in 2005, with the remaining evaluations of Inspectors due to be completed in time for the Worldwide Inspectors’ Seminar in September 2005. An assessment programme for Coordinators is scheduled to begin in late 2005. Online training was also provided by the ITF during 2004 for all Inspectors and Coordinators on their various functions and information needs. China The ITF has become increasingly concerned about the huge growth in employment of Chinese seafarers on flag of convenience ships and the impact this is having both on the FOC campaign and on job prospects for members of ITF affiliates – including dockers who are affected by cargo handling by Chinese crews. In February 2004 the China Task Force of the ITF Seafarers’ Section requested the Seafarers’ Group of the Fair Practices Committee to establish a working group of Coordinators and Inspectors to develop recommendations on procedures to be adopted by Inspectors when dealing with Chinese crews. The FPC noted the recommendations of the China Task Force, which were to develop a multi-faceted approach, including dialogue with the Chinese Seafarers’ Union and with the main Chinese operators. It was also recommended that the CSU should be informed of ITF standards and asked how it represents its seafarers on FOC vessels. The ITF should also carry out a study of the Chinese labour market, including the social security benefits for Chinese seafarers. Weeks of action The practice of organising full-scale regional weeks of action against flags of convenience and substandard shipping was phased out in 2002 and 2003. From 2004, regional weeks of action were not scheduled to be held automatically as had been the case in previous years. Instead a more flexible approach has been adopted. Regions are free to submit proposals for ITF weeks of action, and two such weeks were approved for 2004: a joint week of action in Japan, Taiwan and Korea, and a week of action in Australia. 9 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 12 ITF blacklist case study: Polembros July 2002: Polembros Shipping is identified as a potential campaign target. ITF begins to develop campaign plans. March 2003: The Polembros campaign proposal is approved. July 2003: Information-gathering process begins. October-December 2003: Liaison with affiliates and Greenpeace; all shipping companies are notified of the Polembros campaign. April 2004: Meeting with Polembros in Greece. June 2004: A resolution on Polembros is adopted by the ITF Asia/Pacific Regional Dockers’ Section conference in Busan, Korea, Reuters/Alberto Lowe FOC report 05 calling on: – ITF affiliates in the region to take all lawful steps possible in support of Polembros crews; – terminal operators to express their concern about Polembros’ employment practices; and – charterers to observe the example of those companies that have pledged to cease chartering Polembros vessels. June 2004: Stoppages hit the Amber in Kandla, India. September 2004: The Leon V is stopped in Antwerp, Belgium, by industrial action at the locks and by dockers. The event receives media coverage. September 2004: The Leon V is delayed in Narvik, Norway. A boycott warning is issued by the Norwegian unions to Polembros unless an ITF agreement is secured. September 2004: Polembros secures a temporary injunction against Norwegian dockers. October 2004: The Norwegian Appeal Court rules in favour of the Norwegian unions. The boycott is declared legal and proportionate. Polembros is ordered to pay KR108,021 (US$17,311) in legal costs. November 2004: The Mercedes is delayed in Amsterdam by action by dockers. The port state control authorities are tipped off and an inspection finds holes and other defects requiring attention. As a result the vessel is detained for six days. FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 13 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Blacklisted companies Since 1995 the ITF has compiled a blacklist of companies and individuals – shipowners, managers, crewing agents or other employer-linked bodies – which seriously abuse seafarers’ rights. Initially the blacklist contained only companies and individuals associated with flags of convenience but in 1999, following the decision to expand the scope of the ITF campaign against FOCs, it was agreed that the blacklist could include national-flag operators. In addition, it was agreed that companies which had gone bankrupt could be placed on the blacklist and that the list should identify individual directors. The blacklisted companies in 2004, with the date when placed on the blacklist, were: Black Sea Shipping (Blasco), Ukraine, September 2000 Karsel Ship Management, Turkey, July 2004 Neva-Delta St Petersburg, Russia, November 2002 Polembros Shipping, Greece, June 1997 Var Orient Shipping, Philippines, December 1999. International Bargaining Forum In 2002 the ITF agreed that there was a need to establish a fully representative international negotiating forum with the objective of increasing the number of vessels covered by ITF agreements and of encouraging more shipowners and managers to negotiate with the ITF. In 2003 the International Maritime Employers’ Committee (IMEC) and the International Mariners’ Management Association of Japan (IMMAJ) agreed to cooperate in a new negotiating structure with the ITF. Together with the ITF, the IMEC and the IMMAJ created the International Bargaining Forum (IBF), effective from May 2003. The ITF agreed to defer the increase in the benchmark monthly wage (to US$1,350) in order to enable it to negotiate with an expanded group of shipowners on the IBF. This paved the way for a new round of negotiations. The ITF submitted a claim for an IBF TCC (total crew cost) agreement with the aim of improving key elements of the seafarer’s life and, following a series of meetings, achieved several objectives, such as: extended leave periods; increased access to communications; increased sickness and compensation payments; establishment of a joint fund to benefit seafarers’ welfare; improved access to medical attention; a US$3,421 a year wage increase for an AB; greater flexibility for ITF affiliates to negotiate conditions which match local circumstances. The IBF TCC agreement became effective on 1 January 2004. By October 2004 the employers’ side of the IBF had doubled its membership, with a total of over 3,000 IBF agreements signed that year. Among the additions to the 11 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 14 True nationality of major flag of convenience fleets on 1 January 2004 by deadweight tonnage (dwt) Panama 000 dwt Liberia 000 dwt Greece 22,250 9,703 Japan 82,795 4,863 2,622 5,442 Norway Germany Bahamas 000 dwt Malta 000 dwt Cyprus 000 dwt Bermuda 000 dwt 27,641 21,500 506 1,645 105 18,262 0 9,248 582 7 58 22 8,172 947 17,175 773 907 5,453 China 8,736 2,872 222 248 216 0 United States 2,566 5,792 9,896 533 10 171 Hong Kong Korea Singapore Taiwan United Kingdom Russia Denmark 8,631 1,863 284 0 37 593 15,072 539 17 11 98 0 2,150 4,177 799 210 30 0 11,695 1,847 0 220 0 0 612 742 1,275 73 530 2,602 35 5,429 13 1,083 1,215 0 416 276 555 13 0 0 Italy 58 898 345 599 5 0 India 181 507 107 0 106 0 94 7,077 2,975 0 0 0 160 0 82 0 0 0 Saudi Arabia Malaysia Iran 0 0 0 273 225 0 52 141 63 1,254 0 0 Switzerland 5,204 373 106 852 102 3 Netherlands 296 130 1,947 34 219 273 Belgium 574 793 178 127 9 0 Canada 15 266 374 31 314 499 Turkey Sweden 20 1,024 681 8 30 5,761 278 0 0 0 31 0 Brazil 562 763 0 0 0 0 France 277 92 634 0 26 7 Philippines Spain 301 95 683 0 125 0 Indonesia 556 79 82 26 0 0 Cyprus 636 96 522 55 1,062 0 Monaco 648 508 669 163 0 0 Australia 166 418 191 64 0 134 Thailand 50 0 17 0 0 0 Ukraine Others Total 60 105 0 437 27 0 18,150 8,002 5,199 5,650 3,627 1,042 186,860 82,085 47,750 40,998 35,332 6,488 Source: Compiled by the UNCTAD secretariat on the basis of data supplied by Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay. 12 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 15 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 employers’ side were the Korean Shipowners’ Association and the Danish Shipowners’ Association. The year ended with the ITF preparing to resume negotiations in June 2005 for a review of the IBF TCC agreement effective from 1 January 2006 Publications The ITF continues to publicise and communicate its activities in print by way of one-off and regular publications. In 2004 two new editions of “Message to Seafarers” were published. In addition a new issue of “ITF Seafarers Bulletin”, now in its 19th year of production, appeared in eight different languages. The ITF’s policies and activities are also described on the ITF website – www.itfglobal.org – where there is a section on the ITF campaign against flags of convenience. 13 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 16 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Seafarers’ International Assistance, Welfare and Protection Fund: Income and expenditure account for the year ended 31 December 2004 31 December 2004 £ 31 December 2003 £ 17,236,168 (400,000) (383,752) 16,865,953 Income Remitted by shipowners and collecting unions: – Welfare contributions and crew membership fees – IBF fund Investment income net of Gift Aid Receipts awaiting collection written back Other income Rent receivable 24,464 154,720 (131,127) 845,696 276,701 154,000 16,631,600 18,011,223 4,143,827 1,322,832 808,333 364,18 6,742,536 533,113 112,090 194,720 3,865,535 892,988 752,001 5,447,835 6,844,117 294,091 174,800 167,899 Total functional expenditure 14,221,636 13,439,266 Legal fees and advances written off/provided Special projects Realised (gains)/losses on investments Write down investments to market value at 31 December 2004 Write off debt due from ITF Seafarers’ Trust Foreign exchange losses Depreciation 1,395,707 76,657 (1,521,720) 352,307 153,811 1,143,407 1,998,840 (28,057) 830,806 (3,857,678) 12,700,000 688,682 1,333,659 Total expenditure 15,821,805 27,105,518 Operating surplus for the year Fund balance at 1 January 2004 809,795 33,225,564 (9,094,295) 42,319,859 Fund balance at 31 December 2004 34,035,359 33,225,564 Total income Expenditure Headquarters staff costs Headquarters running costs Meetings, conferences and activities Publications and public relations Inspectorate representation (including regional office FOC costs) Legal and professional fees Assistance and donations General expenses 14 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 17 ITF campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping Annual report 2004 Seafarers’ International Assistance, Welfare and Protection Fund: Balance sheet at 31 December 2004 31 December 2004 £ 31 December 2003 £ 5,556,868 21,689,369 5,859,579 20,820,355 27,246,237 26,679,934 10,063,722 368,639 8,052,798 (838,324) (8,957,713) 8,267,189 1,794,249 8,451,421 (572,496) (9,494,733) 8,689,122 8,445,630 Total assets less current liabilities Provision for interest on back pay 35,935,359 (1,900,000) 35,125,564 (1,900,000) Net assets 34,035,359 33,225,564 Represented by: Welfare fund 34,035,359 33,225,564 34,035,359 33,225,564 Fixed assets Tangible assets Investments at market value at 31 December Current assets Cash at bank Cash held by investment managers Debtors Due to general fund Creditors: amounts falling due within one year Net current assets 15 FOC report 05 18/10/05 6:45 pm Page 18 Glossary AB – able bodied seafarer (the rating for whom the ITF negotiates a benchmark wage rate) Paul Box/reportdigital.co.uk CSU – Chinese Seafarers’ Union dwt – deadweight tonnes FOC(s) – flag(s) of convenience gt – gross tonnes FPC – Fair Practices Committee (the ITF committee comprising dockers’ and seafarers’ union affiliates which oversees the campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping) IBF – International Bargaining Forum (the forum in which the ITF and employers’ organisations negotiate wages and conditions for FOC seafarers) ILO – International Labour Organisation IMEC – International Maritime Employers’ Committee IMMAJ – International Mariners’ Olivier Aubert Management Association of Japan IMO – International Maritime Organisation SSD – Special Seafarers’ Department (the department at ITF head office which runs the industrial campaign against flags of convenience and substandard shipping) Olivier Aubert TCC – total crew cost 16 UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
© Copyright 2024