Campaign against flags of convenience and substandard

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
`