2.   HEALTH & SAFETY         

 

Port accident statistics

Statistics compiled for the first time by the United Kingdom Department for Transport suggest that about 1 in 100 port employees is likely to suffer an accident in a given year.  This is the first time that such statistics have been compiled on this methodological basis.  They therefore do not provide a basis for identifying any trends.  The accident rates estimated at 1.2 per 100 by this study is less than half the figure estimated by Port Skills and Safety Ltd an organisation for health, safety, skills and standards established by port employers, which is reported to put the number at of 2.8 per 100.  The Section is interested in getting an accurate picture of port accident numbers and would appreciate any information that affiliates may have on this issue (e-mail noiret_danielle@itf.org.uk)

 

MUA twistlocks campaign success

 
The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) has been successful in its campaign to end the use of manual twistlocks in the Port of Botany in Sydney, Australia.  Sydney is the first Australian port to have done away with manual twist locks.  However, the twistlocks campaign is a national one.  National Secretary Paddy Crumlin, also acting Chair of the ITF’s Dockers’ Section said, ”This is all about workers’ safety – human lives.  It’s worth the effort.  We have to ensure this success is achieved everywhere before the job’s done.”  Ships the union campaigned to change will sail to other ports also benefiting workers there.   

The MUA determined to launch a campaign against manual twistlocks at the National Delegates Conference in 2004.  The union was also developing an international campaign with the ILWU in the USA, which had successfully lobbied authorities so that ships with manual twistlocks were refused entry into port.  The ability of the MUA’s Port Botany branch to get the workers and management behind the campaign were key factors in its success.  Getting all ships to have semi-automatic twistlocks made the job safer and easier.  Productivity has improved and the ships spent less time in port therefore paying less in charges.  Shipping companies needed some convincing but eventually came on board.

3.      INDUSTRY TRENDS

 
• At the end of October 2005, a potential takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World (DPW) was reported in the British press.  It was anticipated that this could spark off offers by other port operators.  The Secretariat immediately issued an urgent e-mail alert to all affiliates asking those organising in P&O to designate a contact person to whom the Secretariat could direct updates of significant developments. 

In November 2005, Dubai Ports World made a formal offer for P&O Ports and the directors of P&O unanimously recommended that stockholders vote in favour of the offer.  According to the maritime press, DPW offered 443 British pence (US$ 0.783) per share in an all-cash bid for P&O.  Both P&O and DPW emphasised that the takeover was not a cost-cutting exercise.  DPW said that it didn’t anticipate job losses.  There didn’t appear to be much consultation with the workforce globally.  However, affiliates in Australia and the UK reported that they were getting the message that little change was anticipated.

At the beginning of December 2005, Temasek Holdings, owner of the Singapore port group PSA bought a large number of shares in P&O.  However, it refused to make its intentions clear.  Temasek finally revealed its hand in early January 2006, offering £3.6bn (US$6bn) for the company, 6% more than the DPW offer.  At the time of writing, DPW had issued a statement stating that it remained confident that it would still win P&O.  Some analysts predict a bidding war.  The Secretariat is monitoring the situation and has been issuing updates of significant developments to members of the P&O contact list.  If you would like to be added to this list or to receive all updates that have been issued, please e-mail noiret_danielle@itf.org.uk.

• A review of the ISPS Code one year on by Fairplay Magazine draws attention to apparently big differences in implementation between countries, ports and even companies.  For example, there is a huge disparity between ports in the US and EU and those in developing countries.  In addition, security in some ports is perceived as having become an obsession for some agencies to the exclusion of all else.  According to the Independent Commission of Shipping, tight security is being used as an excuse to discourage shore leave – an issue that the ITF Seafarers’ Section has been campaigning on for some time.  There is also concern over the misuse of the ISPS Code provisions for setting security levels on board ships to deny access to welfare personnel, such as chaplains.  The experience of ITF affiliates is a number of countries is that the provisions are also being misused to interfere with dockers’ and seafarers’ trade union and human rights.

<< previous page | continue reading >>