Union dispute in Maersk terminal in Tacoma

Change low graphic options | Change language | Skip content to navigation

Page context: Unions in Maersk > Latest News > Union dispute in Maersk terminal in Tacoma

19 March 2008

Union and citizen groups accuse Maersk of accepting anti-union standards at the Port of Tacoma, USA.

Security guards at the Maersk-owned APM Terminal in Tacoma, USA, are fighting for their choice of union.

For seven months guards employed by the Securitas company have demanded to be represented by the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) – but it seems this is not as easy as it sounds.

“The guards have decided that they want the ILWU to represent them, but Securitas won’t accept this. As a result, the workers have no collective agreement. Their wages are low and their protection is minimal,” said Peter Olney, ILWU Organizing Director.

Lower wages without union

In August 2007 the Securitas guards voted on their choice of union. They chose the ILWU to represent them - but since the union already organises the port workers at Tacoma, Securitas cannot be forced by law to recognise the workers’ choice.

Terminal operator, A.P. Moller-Maersk has a moral responsibility to act, according to Peter Olney. “Nothing happens in the port without the approval of Maersk. We hope that the company will use its power to tell Securitas to accept the workers’ union choice,” he said..

He asserted that the wages of the Securitas workers in Port of Tacoma are $11.50 an hour, less than half of that for ILWU-organised security guards in some other US ports.

Community pickets at the port

The dispute has caused local action. On November 7th 2007 and February 21 pickets made up of local citizens temporarily closed the APM terminal in Tacoma. Wendy Hall from the local Jobs With Justice group commented:

”We want Maersk to ensure that the labour rights of the workers are respected. We live in Tacoma and pay taxes to the port. It is only fair to demand decent conditions for the workers.”

On November 7th, 150 local citizens closed the port for three hours and on February 21st 80 people showed up to support the workers.

Maersk won’t interfere

Maersk Inc. in the US disclaims any responsibility for the dispute:

“ILWU has no legal right to demand recognition under US labor law as it represents the longshoremen employed at the terminal. What the ILWU is doing is attempting to coerce APMT into requiring Securitas to assist the ILWU in organising the guards employed by Securitas,” said Chuck O’Connor, Senior Vice President of Maersk Inc

He added: “This coercive activity is both illegal and contrary to the long term job security of the ILWU longshoremen employed by APM Terminal in Tacoma. Further it will not succeed as APMT will not interfere with the labor relations of its contractors.”

Still, Peter Olney of the ILWU is certain that a solution can be found:

“ILWU and Maersk has a mutual interest in ensuring that workers employed at the terminals receive benefits, compensation and excellent training. When it comes to security guards, nothing is more hazardous than a high turn-over. Maersk employs ILWU organised guards in he ports of Los Angeles Beach and Oakkland, and we have an excellent relationship with Maersk there,” he said.

Section home:
Unions in Maersk

Transport International Magazine

Full graphics version

accessibility | site help | site map

ITF House, 49-60 Borough Road, London SE1 1DR | +44 20 7403 2733 | mail@itf.org.uk