An everyday tale of intimidation and illegal tactics to break a peaceful strike by seafarers on board a flag of convenience ship. By Aldis Brokans...

In June 2003 the owner of the Liberian-flagged Taganroga, Latvijas Kuniecba (LK), handed its ship over to the management of the Latvian company Aquaship. The new company tore up the existing contracts in which union-approved wages had been stipulated and proposed that new ones, providing for pay cuts of between 15 and 45 per cent and drastically reducing seafarers’ social guarantees, be signed. The proposed wages were most peculiar. The monthly salary of the Ukrainian Second Mate was set at US$1200, while that of the Latvian Third Mate was set at US$2000, and of the ratings a mere US$700.

On 30 June 2003 the Latvian Seafarers’ Union of Merchant Fleet (LSUMF) sent the LK management a written request for clarification of the situation, but received no reply. On 2 July the LSUMF sent letters to the shipowner and the ship’s manager and operator with the intention of starting talks to settle the dispute, but got no reaction. On 3 July the union sent notification that, should its offer of negotiations be rejected, it would be forced to resort to the drastic but completely legal step of strike action. At 08:00 on 8 July the crew went on strike. Of the 20-man crew, only three refused to take part in the action.

No peace talks took place – but active countermeasures by Aquaship and the ship’s charterer were not long in coming. On the night of 8 July, new seafarers with suitcases appeared on the gangway, ready to replace the Latvian crew. A couple of hours later the police arrived, called out by Aquaship. The police explained there had been no violations of law or public order, and that therefore they had no right to remove the peacefully striking seafarers from the ship. The Taganroga was later visited by frontier-guards, who tried to find something illegal in the seafarers’ action, but their efforts were to no avail.

At 03:00, when the entire arsenal of psychological-pressure techniques had been exhausted, the seafarers went off to rest. The psychological terror had born some fruit however: the number of strikers was reduced to 14.

The following morning, two tugs appeared alongside the Taganroga and attempted, contrary to regulations on shipping safety and the safety of seafarers, to tow the ship away along with all the striking seafarers. However they failed to move the ship from its mooring.

Two burly guards from a private security company then took up position on the gangway, with instructions not to let any union representatives on board. Next, two representatives of Aquaship came on board, and spent three gruelling hours attempting to brainwash the crew-members. The seafarers’ request for union representatives to be present at these “confidential” talks were ignored. This was a gross violation of ILO convention 135, which stipulates that the representatives of employees shall be entitled to visit their places of work.

As a result of the protracted campaign of psychological pressure, most of the Latvian seafarers lost their nerve and agreed to work for the miserly wages offered by Aquaship. Four seafarers, however, were prepared to stay on strike, as they could not accept the terms that were being offered. In the end, it was decided to call off the strike, and the proud foursome disembarked the ship with their heads held high.

While all this was going on on board the Taganroga, loading operations were being undertaken on the nearby Razna, which had also been handed over to the management of Aquaship. The company had replaced most of the Latvian crew with Ukrainian seafarers and, for fear of a possible strike, had positioned our old friends of the burly build on the Razna’s gangway. All were dressed in black, with orders not to allow the crew-members to meet with any union representatives. There may have been no need for them to spend their money on such an expensive service, since Ukrainian seafarers, due to their lower standard of living, will usually agree to work for lower wages.

The Razna and Taganroga have since put to sea and the seafarers are working on Aquaship’s terms. However the union continues its campaign to defend the interests of Latvian seafarers. The LSUMF is determined to ensure that wages on all the company’s ships conform to the requirements of our collective agreement with LK, and that no “management” dare alter them as it sees fit. X

Aldis Brokans is chief editor of the LSUMF journal Jurneiku Vestnesis where the original version of this article appeared (issue no 6 (54) 2003).