 |
|
HEAD OFFICE REPORT: Monthly Day Meeting Tuesday 28 October 2003 BHPB SHIPS Members recall only too well the basis on which BHPBilliton represented the ‘transfer’ of BHP-employed seafarers to Teekay: A ‘special-relationship’ would exist between BHPB and Teekay and this would be made concrete by BHPB and Teekay forming Teekay Australia as a Joint Venture company in which BHPB would hold a 30% shareholding; Teekay Australia would be the ‘preferred shipping partner’ of BHPB from now on, and could expect to get all of BHPB’s shipping business in Australia in future.
Was that only 18 months ago? If our members can remember it so well how can BHPB have so easily forgotten? In August 2003, two of the last BHPB staff, who had any connection with BHPB’s involvement in shipping, met with the Teekay and the 3 maritime unions and told us that:-
AIMPE reported this to members and Teekay reported to employees in almost identical terms. Members are deeply concerned to learn that since then :-
Does BHPB even remember, let alone VALUE, that it owns 30% of Teekay, that it signed a Deed in relation to the entitlements (including Redundancy) of its ex-employees, and that it made promises about directing it’s business to Teekay? DRYDOCK SAFETY PROCEDURES & WORK PRACTICES
Having earlier this month discovered that when the vessel goes into dock employees are no longer protected by the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 AIMPE initiated a Bargaining Period in connection with this. Teekay refused to negotiate, saying they relied on the ‘No-Extra-Claims’ provisions of clause 33 of the Teekay(BHP)/AIMPE enterprise agreement AIMPE relied on the exceptions contained in that clause, and in particular 33.1 (d) as follows:- “33.1 …..Within the term of this certified Agreement, the parties are at liberty to negotiate and reach agreement on variations based on: (a) Any changes to legislation relating to choice of superannuation fund membership that are enacted during the life of this Agreement. (b) Any changes to legislation such as the Navigation Act or the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. (c) Any changes to “industry standards” agreed through ‘Shipping Reform” or similar. (d) Review of work-practices by the parties (e) The company recognizes the importance of training to assist with the forward manpower planning of its fleet.. The parties agree that a discussion will be had with key maritime employers and maritime unions as to the most cost effective way to train seagoing employees in the future. The employment conditions of trainees/cadets will be subject to the outcome of discussions around new cost effective training arrangements. 33.2 Other than as expressly provided for within this clause, it is agreed that there will be no claims by either party to change any condition(s) of employment for the term of this agreement.” The Commission has today heard the parties in this matter, in connection with the Application by Teekay and BHPB-Freight for orders under Section 127, and the Commission has expressed the view that had the wording of 33.1 (d) been simply “…(d) work-practices…” then the claim would have been permissable, but no 2-party Review has been taking place so on current wording of 33.1 (d) the claim is ruled out. Accordingly the Commission has ordered that no industrial action take place in this matter. The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers therefore withdraws our notice of Protected Industrial Action and recommend to members to work as normal. The matter of Dry Dock Safety & Work Practices will now need to be pursued via AMSA as the Inspectorate under the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993
MARINE ORDERS 3You may remember that there was a meeting of the 3 maritime unions with MISA and Offshore employers, held at AIMPE Head Office Thursday 10th April 2003, in which there was clear agreement that there must be no reduction of Engineer entry standards, dilution of national (STCW-compliant) standards by State (non-compliant) systems and that current MO 3 standards of training for all seafarers must be maintained. In the months that followed shipowners and AIMPE convened a Technical Committee, chaired by Director Professional Standards Mr Jim Mallows, and they considered the issues in-detail before presenting their conclusions. AIMPE has now written to AMSA, enclosing a letter from the Australian Shipowners Association which clearly states the position of the industry is that NO changes at all are to be made to the Engineer qualifications/requirements of Marine Order 3. CEMENTCO SHIPPING- Prosecution under OH&S Act Earlier this year AIMPE discovered that Cementco Shipping had aborted the asbestos-removal program in AIMPE was so concerned that seafarers had unknowingly disturbed/cut/drilled/removed materials that contained Asbestos, and that Cementco Shipping had taken no measures to warn them and implement protective procedures, that AIMPE took the unusual step of formally requesting AMSA to investigate/prosecute Cementco Shipping for substantial breaches of the Occupational Health & Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993. AMSA have spent several months collecting evidence from all persons who may have knowledge of the matters alleged by AIMPE. AMSA will now conduct the formal Investigation. PATRICKS SHIPPING AIMPE’s WA Branch Secretary is in the final stages of determining whether the issues on MV KIMBERLEY (in particular) are yet capable of an amicable resolution. We expect to be in a position to report back to members in Patrick Shipping and Patrick Norwest Shipping by mid next month. WOOLLYBUTT FPSO E.B.A.AIMPE members have succeeded in several significant last-minute improvements to their conditions of employment including:- · Adoption of principle that ALL Technicians(Second Engineers & Electricians) can “progress” from Technician to Specialist(First Engineer & Inlec), similar to Griffin/Jabiru/Challis. · Improvement on the Griffin/Jabiru/Challis ‘progression’ model by substituting fixed/objective criteria require to “progress” from Technician to Specialist as possession of Class2-Certifiicate plus 12 months company-service. · Creation of the position of Lead Maintenance Specialist at $5,000 above other Specialists AIMPE expects to meet with Vanguard/Total/ABB as well as MUA, AMOU and AWU by early November to complete negotiations to produce a 12-month enterprise agreement for this new floating production storage and offtake (“FPSO”) facility off the NorthWest Shelf of Western Australia. Consistent with the new policy direction of the Federal Executive, the AIMPE will only sign agreements for a period of 12 months. MARITIME SECURITY BILL The House of Representatives has passed the First Reading of the Maritime Transport Security Bill despite the strong reservations of the Federal Opposition. In the Senate the Bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee. A joint submission has been made by AIMPE and the MUA expressing concerns about the welfare of seafarers under the new security regime. The Senate Committee hearings took place in AMS TUGS – PORT BOTANYAustralian Maritime Services commenced operations in their third port – Port Botany – on 4th October. This followed over two weeks of familiarization by the crews on the tugs and a day of Deck Safety Training for the engineers. The company has stationed two tugs – Peng Chau and Shek O – in the port and has employed four crews to operate them. Salary will the same as the salary paid to the Adsteam Sydney tug crews and discussions have been held to commence negotiations with AMS for an agreement to cover the vessels. On 23rd October there was a meeting of the NSW Waterways manning committee held on board the vessels. A number of issues were discussed during the meeting including the operating procedures and manuals, training and training manuals, safety equipment including life jackets and overboard retrieval system and communications systems. There was extensive discussion about the alarm extension panels and eventually agreement to install same. ADSTEAM TUGS – PORT BOTANYAdsteam has approached the three maritime unions to alter its working roster for Port Botany to ensure that it has the maximum ability to respond to the new competitive environment in the port. This includes the possibility that tugs will run down from Port Jackson to Port Botany to supplement the three tugs that Adsteam currently stations in Botany. Discussions are on-going. ADSTEAM TUGS - PORT KEMBLAAs part of their cost reduction strategy, Adsteam have initiated a meeting in Port Kembla to consider further crew reductions in the Illawarra gateway. Despite suggestions from ACCC INVESTIGATES CONTAINER TRADE RIP OFFWith some of the cheapest crew costs around the world, the operators in the Australia/East Asia trades have apparently decided its time to bump up their charges. Not by 5% or 10% but by 100%. Profiteering ? Well the investigation announced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be interesting but it will be miraculous if they take any action. “The ACCC will investigate a series of price increases announced by companies carrying cargo by ship from North East Asia to Price increases announced for July, August and October suggest increases of 100 per cent over market rates that existed in June. “If implemented, these price increases could represent a substantial hike in costs to Australian businesses importing goods from The companies involved apparently are: ANL Container Line Pty Limited (ANLCL) All our good friends !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry Saga of Alcem Calaca Asbestos.
ASBESTOS NEGLIGENCE: MV ALCEM CALACAAIMPE members on MV ALCEM CALACA have just finished an eleven (11) day strike on the vessel in the Cementco Shipping chartered the foreign-registered 1979-constructed MV ALCEM CALACA for a period on the Australian coast with foreign-crew to test the capacity of the ship’s self-discharge equipment to handle cement and other cargoes as required by Queensland Cement Ltd (now Cement Australia Pty Ltd). The ship was then to be re-registered in Cementco Shipping say that they did ask the owner of the ship (Belden Shipping) if she was Asbestos-free and were assured that the ship had no Asbestos on board. Cementco Shipping say that they believed this to be true. On 7th January 2003 the Queensland Branch Secretary of the AIMPE inspected the vessel whilst the Foreign-crew were still on board and asked the Manager of Cementco Shipping, how much effort the Manager had spent in establishing the belief that there was no Asbestos on board because during AIMPE’s brief inspection AIMPE noted large quantities of a substance which appeared to be Asbestos were immediately evident throughout the machinery-spaces. As a result AIMPE on Cementco Shipping then delayed the change to Australian-crewing whilst they undertook sampling,testing using an experienced Asbestos-specialist firm “QUEENSLAND BUILDING MAINTENANCE” and removal of asbestos using a different firm “ENVIROSITE & CIVIL PTY LTD”. This process was completed, according to the Report itself, on 28th March 2003 and AIMPE can only speculate as to when the Report was handed over to Cementco Shipping; however it is inconceivable that Cementco Shipping would have re-flagged under the Australian registry and taken over the formal Management/Manning of the vessel without active management of the Asbestos-issue and knowledge of the outcome. Hence it must be assumed that Cementco Shipping knew there was still substantial White and Brown Asbestos in machinery spaces and Accommodation at least from end March/1st April 2003 After asbestos-removal procedures on MV ALCEM CALACA were completed on The Chief Engineer, other aimpe members and other crew members understood all Asbestos to have been removed from the MV ALCEM CALACA. However, unbeknownst to it’s employees, Cementco Shipping chose NOT to remove all Asbestos. Cementco Shipping’s management did NOT inform the ship’s Engineers/ Crew/ Contractors that asbestos remained on-board. Cementco Shipping had a comprehensive Asbestos Report in it’s possession yet took no initiative to make employees aware of its existence or to initiate labelling or appropriate counter-measures and procedures to attempt to ensure employee safety. As a result employees (and Contractors) carried out duties which had them with no personal protective equipment (“PPE”) drilling, cutting panels, removing panels and removing gasket material and lagging which contain asbestos. [Details of some of these instances can be found on page 2 & 3 of the 5-page hand-written Strike-resolution made by Engineers on the vessel on Sunday 13.7.2003 and handed to the ship’s Master that same day]. The sole initiative of Cementco Shipping was on 2.7.2003 when the Master asked the Chief Engineer to sign an ISM-code approval form, the effect of which (in the Institute’s opinion) would have been to transfer responsibility to the Chief Engineer. The form speaks of an Asbestos Materials Report & Register and of the importance of the entire crew being familiar with that Report yet the Chief Engineer (and the remainder of the crew) had no knowledge of it. The form speaks of the presence of Asbestos which it claims would be safe if left undisturbed yet there was no labelling in place so that even had the Chief Engineer (and the remainder of the crew) been aware that not all Asbestos had been removed they would still not know where the Asbestos was located. As the Chief Engineer had no knowledge of the matter he refused to sign the form and sought assistance from AIMPE. This sole initiative of Cementco Shipping was repeated on 3.7.2003 when Cementco Shipping’s Engineer Superintendant asked the Chief Engineer to sign an approval form or to prepare an alternative document in his own words to the same effect. The Superintendant made no enquiry of the Chief Engineer as to whether he had been provided with the Asbestos Materials Report & Register. The Superintendant made no enquiry and gave no instruction in the matter other than pressing the Chief Engineer to sign the ISM-code form! Cementco Shipping’s Engineer Superintendant also travelled on board the MV ALCEM CALACA from Gladstone (departing 3.7.2003) all the way to Townsville without taking any measure to make employees aware of the existence of Asbestos on board or to initiate labelling or appropriate counter-measures and procedures to attempt to ensure employee safety. The Chief Engineer was not provided with any information as to the type of asbestos on board or where it was located (even when he finally got the Asbestos Materials Report & Register away from the Master’s desk the Chief Engineer found the Asbestos Materials Report & Register difficult to understand and very unclear as to location of Asbestos….it was not until Sunday 13.7.2003 that the Chief Engineer together with an AIMPE official were able to come to terms with the Report). The Chief Engineer was not provided with any procedures, risk assessment guidelines, work-permit-guidelines, personal protective equipment or training in relation to Asbestos. After contact between the AIMPE members and their Institute the Chief Engineer was advised to sign no documents and to find out what the onboard status was in relation to a ship the AIMPE had also understood to be Asbestos-free. The Chief Engineer subsequently made inquiries of the Master who hunted around his (the Master’s) desk and amongst a pile of papers revealed an Asbestos Report which he then handed to the Chief Engineer. Other than this belated, reluctant revelation (at the instigation of the Chief Engineer) the Master took no action to implement any onboard awareness or procedures or implement any part of the Asbestos Report and it’s Recommendations In a telephone conversation with AIMPE Federal Secretary Henning Christiansen on Monday 14.7.2003 Cementco Shipping’s Manager claimed that he had personally hand delivered the Asbestos Report to the Master some 6 weeks ago. Henning Christiansen asked why during that period either the Manager or the Superintendant had in relation to the Asbestos Report:- · failed to convene any shipboard Safety Committee meeting or shipboard Management Committee meeting? · failed to convene any shipboard seminar on the contents of the Asbestos Report and training on how to deal with it? The Manager had no reply.
After a Strike of eleven days the attached Memorandum of Agreement was reached with the company, being an excellent result from here-on. However, looking back at the last three and a half months of negligence, AIMPE has written to AMSA and demanded that Cementco Shipping be prosecuted for breaches of the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY [MARITIME INDUSTRY] ACT 1993. In a first step of this AMSA has posted an ‘Improvement Notice’ giving the company 21 days to rectify their breach of Section 11 (…proved a safe workplace…) Section 12 (…consult and reach agreement with the union on a safety policy…) and Section 13 (…regarding work by contractors…) of the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY [MARITIME INDUSTRY] ACT 1993. The vessel is now sailing, still with the asbestos on it for 21 days whilst the Institute’s asbestos-expert travels on board it doing continuoius air-monitoring in the accommodation and engine-spaces to ensure the crew’s safety. After 21 days all the asbestos (except for agreed items such as labelled-wall-panels in the accommodation) will be removed. Henning Christiansen FEDERAL SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY [MARITIME INDUSTRY] ACT 1993; Section 12 MARINE ORDERS 61 & 58; Safety Management System 1. The company agrees to provide to each employee or contractor who has worked on MV ALCEM CALACA to date with a letter as per the attached model letter. 2. All asbestos will be removed from the ship (except for as provided in item 3 & 4 below) including the lagging on all hot water pipes in the Accommodation and in particular all asbestos removed from all machinery-spaces of the vessel including all exhaust trunkings and all panelling and all asbestos-containing materials/jointing/packing etc in the ships spares/stores however fire-doors containing Chrysotile/White-Asbestos may be retained provided they are boldly and clearly marked by the asbestos-professional as containing Asbestos and not to be drilled/pierced/cut or damaged in any way. Asbestos packing in penetrations through fire walls will, if there are pipes of any kind going through that penetration (e.g. hydraulic pipes) be removed and replaced with non-asbestos packing to a standard to comply with Classification Society (ABS) fire ratings. 3. Asbestos packing in penetrations through fire walls, if there are no pipes of any kind going through that penetration (e.g. hydraulic pipes), may be retained provided they are clearly and boldly labelled. The company will conclude with AIMPE a satisfactory agreed procedure for the removal (as they need replacement) of existing packing/jointing in pipes/pumps/valves etc and a labelling system to warn Engineers/Ratings/Contractors that the joint/gland must not be opened without that individual being issued with an Asbestos-Work-Permit authorised by the Chief Engineer (who must have received agreed/suitable training for Risk Assessment etc) and provided with suitable grade of PPE, instructed in its use and the proper decontamination procedure plus proper disposal procedure. 4. In the ship’s Accommodation the Chrysotile/White-Asbestos bonded between laminated panels may be retained provided the cover-strip over the edges are removed by a mutually acceptable asbestos-professional and the edges sealed with a suitable substance (e.g. silicone) that also prevents the chafing/fretting that may currently occur due to vibration and provided they are boldly and clearly marked by the asbestos-professional (in a manner similar to Attachment 2) as containing Asbestos and not to be drilled/pierced/cut or damaged in any way. If these bonded Chrysotile/White-Asbestos laminated panels are only found in alleyways then some flexibility will be had on the need for silicone-sealing of the edges if the aluminium cover-strips cannot be readily removed. If these alleyway panels have to be removed to gain access to pipes or electrical cabling or ships-aerial-wiring then those particular panels should be replaced with non-asbestos panels so that ships staff can safely do that task in future. 5. Cementco Shipping agrees that particular attention will be given to the ceiling panels in the Rating’s cabins which contain holes similar to a ‘peg-board’. o Test the composition; if any form of Asbestos then they must be removed entirely as they have too many openings to seal; NOTE: these panels look similar to those in the Engine Control Room which have been identified as containing Brown Asbestos( Amosite)! o If tests show these panels to be free of Asbestos then test the dust resting on the upper surfaces; any hint of asbestos (e.g. Amosite from lagging on all hot water pipes in the Accommodation) and these panels must be replaced. 6. For the Asbestos that remains after all the above, provide a proper Asbestos-Register with spaces for recording of Asbestos-Work-Permit approvals and the impact on the asbestos condition, plus regular condition-monitoring and re-labelling. 7. Until the process set out in this agreement is concluded/achieved, all panels will be assumed to contain asbestos and Engineers will not open/disturb any substance that is considered may be asbestos-containing. An occupational Hygienist from Environmental & Safety Professionals [“ESP”]( a division of Enbviro-net Australia Pty Ltd) has been engaged by AIMPE from Tuesday 22.7.2003 to label all asbestos on the vessel and produce a comprehensive Asbestos Register for the entire vessel without reliance on previous reports whilst travelling on the vessel for the voyages Newcastle-Gladstone-Melbourne-Gladstone- Newcastle ( approx 21 days from departure Newcastle) and conduct Air-monitoring in numerous sites throughout the accommodation and machinery spaces throughout the entire voyage to guarantee employee safety. ESP is also engaged by AIMPE for the oversight of Asbestos-removal and amending Labelling and the Register accordingly as set out in 8 below. The company will re-imburse AIMPE the entire cost of engaging ESP throughout. 8. At the end of the journey described in 7 above the Asbestos-removal will be carried out by an asbestos-professional of the company’s choosing under the oversight of ESP with ESP also amending Labelling and the Register accordingly.. During the removal period the company and AIMPE will also confer to ensure that item 6 above has been satisfactorily achieved. The vessel will resume normal service once the parties are agreed the above has been satisfactorily implemented. Signed this 23rd day of July, 2003 For and on behalf of Cementco Shipping (Nigel Smith, Manager) (Robert Ashton, Newcastle Branch Secretary) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (Cement Australia/Cementco Shipping letterhead) (addressed to each individual seafarer or contractor who has worked on ALCEM CALACA at any time 1.4.2003 to 13.7.2003) 23 July 03 Dear (name) Re: Your employment on MV “ALCEM CALACA” Cementco Shipping had been assured by the ship-owner that there was no asbestos on the vessel prior to our charter. However the vessel ALCEM CALACA was found to contain Chrysotile (white asbestos) and in some areas Amosite (brown asbestos) in a number of areas in the machinery spaces and accommodation spaces. Cementco Shipping engaged asbestos specialists to remove asbestos and in some places seal it in-situ. Current air monitoring suggests that there is no contamination. However, for your information, it is possible that in the past, the asbestos may have been disturbed (although there has never been any evidence of that happening) and persons on board may have been exposed. If you have any further queries please contact me direct. Yours sincerely Nigel Smith Manager Cementco Shipping
Asbestos Turns Ship Around.
ast Friday morning The vessel was inspected in Not being entirely convinced by these results AIMPE took two samples, one from each main engine exhaust manifold and submitted these for testing. The results confirmed the presence of asbestos. The company was notified immediately and discussions were held in an effort to put in place a process that would make the workplace safe and permit the vessel to continue its charter. After long and careful consideration the company decided that the best outcome was to turn the vessel around and send it back to AIMPE and the offshore oil and gas industry need to develop a strategy for conducting sampling and testing for asbestos which will ensure as far as is practicable, that vessel machinery spaces are free of asbestos before mobilization with Australian seafarers. This ought to start with the premise that takes into account the age of the vessel and the country where it was built. Clearly, for a vessel twenty years old or more the likelihood of there being asbestos used for insulation is fairly high and therefore the number of samples taken for testing needs to be increased. This is not the first time AIMPE has been provided with test results declaring no asbestos only to discover it later when we conduct our own tests. It’s high time we had in place procedures that minimize the risk to exposure of this hazardous material; current sampling practices are not working!
|
|
