The seafarers have become hostages of situation

Russian seafarers frequently encounter cynical cases of deceit when crewing companies recruit them, while concealing the fact that the vessels they are assigned to have serious promlems.

Crew members of Elbrus (IMO9206671) faced a similar situation, when found out that their vessel had been under arrest for more than a year. The tanker's crew members, most of whom are members of the Seafarers' Union of Russia, turned to SUR for assistance. They sent a letter to the Chairman of the Black and Azov Seas Territorial Organization of SUR, Alexey Belyakov, and described the situation in which they found themselves hostages: “11/06/2023 we arrived at the port of Al shuqaiq (Saudi Arabia) by boat. We learned that the vessel was under arrest when we were already on board. That's when we learned that the crew had been reduced (there are no 4th Engineer and Motorman). We are at a roadstead in the port area, since the vessel has been under arrest since June 22, 2023. SID and medical certificate of one of the motormen have expired. Based on the available information, a crew change is possible, but the shipowner refuses to arrange it, citing its high costs. After the end of the basic contract, the company promised to arrange the crew change within a month, then they referred to overcoming migration procedures with the assistance of the Georgian consulate. For the supposed crew change, they asked us to re-sign contracts lasting 1+/- 1 month from the date of the end of the basic contract. At the moment we are on board the vessel with neither contracts no hope of returning home. Some crew members have been staying on board for more than 13 months. The company holds us on board the vessel against our will. We have repeatedly written to the company demanding repatriation, but the company ignores us. We ask you for help and assistance with our repatriation.” 

Commenting on the crew's appeal, the BASTO SUR Chairman Alexey Belyakov noted that he is currently keeping the situation under control, but it's very difficult to settle the issue of the crew's repatriation. The genuine (beneficial) shipowner is located in the UAE, he contacts only via satellite communications, and is unwilling to communicate directly with the seafarers. A message from a company representative indicates that the port authorities are to blame for everything, as they do not give permission for the crew change. 

With reference to the terms of the contract, they note that shipowners are obliged to arrange a crew change only if it is possible practically and legally. But apparently the shipowner doesn’t want to spend money on the repatriation of crew, since the required cost for a boat to take the seafarers to their point of departure is $120,000. Therefore, the shipowner asks the seafarers  to remain on board the tanker until the situation with the arrest of the vessel clears up.

“There are no complaints about the provision for the crew,” Alexey Belyakov says. — The food is OK, there are no problems with fresh water either. But the moral environment is on edge. Some of the crew members  are ready not to go to work, which could lead to an emergency situation on board the tanker staying near the oil port. It’s a shame that the vessel was arrested for ram into the pier, which took place a year ago, and the current crew arrived there already in November 2023, and have nothing to do with that incident at all. If the vessel is arrested, why should our seafarers suffer for it? In this situation, in order to help the crew, SUR notified the consul; referring to the appeal of the crew members, we are currently  preparing a claim against the crewing company that  plays such unfair game. But time passes, there is no respond from the consul yet, and the seafarers are forced to remain on board the vessel.”

The seafarers suggested arranging the crew change in a nearby port, but it is located 50 nautical miles from where their vessel is currently moored. According to the company, “this is economically unprofitable,” and in general, according to the contract, a crew change is possible only in the port where the vessel called to complete the voyage, that is, it turns out that the shipowners are not obligated to make a crew change at any other port. The fact that the seafarers' contracts have expired, they stay on board illegally, and some crew members are seriously ill are not of a priority for the company. The main argument is that it is expensive and impractical. 

While legal proceedings are ongoing, a crewing agency Aquamarine does not respond to requests from BASTO SUR. Another serious disadvantage is that there is no collective agreement on board the vessel, and the contracts are not provided with international insurance coverage.

Unfortunately, appeals to the Flag State Administration of Cameroon also remain unanswered. 

In an effort to sort out this long-running case, the Seafarers' Union of Russia takes actions in all directions: through appeals to the consulate, to the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation. SUR believes that the maritime authorities of any country must respect the right of crew members to dismissal, since the maximum period of stay on board allowed by the Maritime Labor Convention during which a seafarer can work continuously on board a vessel is 11 months. Some crew members already exceeded that term. It is hoped that the seafarers' appeals will be heard, and all crew members who have been staying on board over the time limit will finally be able to return home.

Photo: marinetraffic.com/melanle roger