Definitive Report - Report No 30, 1960

Case No 173 (United States of America) - Complaint date: 30-JAN-58 - Closed

1. 46. The complaint of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions (Cardiff) is contained in three communications dated 30 January, 1 March and 9 June 1958. The Government of the United States forwarded its observations on the complaint in two communications dated respectively 31 March and 12 August 1958. The observations of the Greek Government are contained in two letters dated 2 April and 2 August 1958.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• General Allegations relating to the Treatment of Greek Seamen
  47. 47 It is alleged that Greek shipowners trample on the rights and freedom of Greek seamen, being aided in this by the anti-union action of the authorities of the United States and Greece, who cause seamen to be arrested and repatriated by force, persecution being meted out especially to those whose names are on black lists in the possession of the said authorities. Both governments contend that these allegations add nothing to allegations made in previous cases.
  48. 48 The Committee examined similar allegations relating to arrests and deportations and the use of black lists in earlier cases relating to the United States and Greece, As the present allegations consist of brief general statements which add nothing to the matters which came before the Committee in these cases, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Two Crew Members of the S.S. "Atlantic Starling "
  49. 49 It is alleged that when the Atlantic Starling, a Greek ship flying the Liberian flag, arrived in Baltimore on 8 December 1957, the American authorities took off two members of the crew, Nikolaos Livitsanos and Ioannis Beis, and deported them by air to Greece before they could even collect their clothes and the wages due to them. The complainant declares that the owners and captain of the ship made false statements to the authorities to persuade them to take this action, in order to intimidate the rest of the ship's company, who were demanding improved conditions and better treatment. The Government of the United States declares that its authorities made no actual intervention but that the men were not allowed to land because Mr. Livitsanos belonged to an organisation proscribed under the law of the United States and Mr. Beis could not satisfy the Immigration Service that he was a bona fide crewman. The ship's agents decided to pay off the men concerned and the Government, in accordance with normal practice in such cases, made the agents responsible for transferring them to New York and repatriating them. The Greek Government declares that it has no responsibility for matters relating to a ship flying a foreign flag but that, in any case, a statement by the Greek Ministry of the Interior, dated 29 March 1958, shows that there was then no record of the two men ever having arrived in Greece.
  50. 50 It would seem that the persons concerned were questioned by the immigration authorities of the United States and forbidden to land in accordance with legal procedures applicable to all aliens which the Committee has already examined in a number of earlier cases. In Case No. 95 relating to the United States, following the reasoning in Case No. 71, the Committee, while it expressed the reservation that if the application of the measures complained against were to result in workers being dismissed or otherwise prejudiced because of their trade union affiliations they might infringe the principle that workers should have the right to join organisations of their own choosing, took the view that the questioning of alien seamen before their admission to the national territory was a matter related to the sovereign right belonging to any country to decide who shall or shall not be admitted to its territory and, referring specifically to certain earlier decisions, considered that it was not called upon to deal with the general questions of aliens not covered by international Conventions ; in such circumstances the question being primarily one of the admission of aliens rather than of respect for a general human right, particularly cogent evidence of an infringement of trade union rights would be necessary. The Committee followed the same reasoning in Case No. 138 relating to the United States and Greece. In the three cases mentioned the Committee considered that the complainants had not offered sufficient proof to show that trade union rights had been infringed and that the allegations made did not merit further examination by the Governing Body. So far as the questioning of alien seamen and the resulting decision that they must stay aboard ship are concerned, the present case appears to add no new elements to those already examined.
  51. 51 At a later stage, the shipowners decided to pay off Messrs. Livitsanos and Beis and, although it is contended that the purpose of this was to intimidate the crew, who were not satisfied with their conditions, it is not alleged that the measure either interfered with their freedom of association or restricted the freedom of their union as their bargaining agent. The consequence of this paying-off, which meant that the men, already forbidden entry to the United States, had nevertheless to leave their ship, was that the Immigration Service made the shipowners responsible for transferring them to New York and repatriating them. In Case No. 70 relating to the United States and Greece, the Committee had to consider the situation in which persons on board ship are ordered to be deported by the shipmaster or company concerned and came to the conclusion that the complainants had not offered sufficient evidence to show that any infringement of trade union rights had occurred in connection with such deportation in accordance with laws and regulations relating to aliens in general. The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body to decide that the case did not call for further examination. In the present case, so far as the Government of the United States is concerned, the Committee has, for similar reasons, come to the same conclusions.
  52. 52 In this particular instance the Committee considers that no evidence has been offered to show that the Greek Government or its representative authorities in the United States intervened in order to bring about the deportations alleged.
  53. 53 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Conduct of the Captain of the S.S. "Atlantic Starling"
  54. 54 The captain and chief officer officiating in the Atlantic Starling at the material time are alleged to have committed various crimes. Apart from maltreating the crew and forcing sick men to work, it is contended, the real reason for the action taken by the captain to get rid of Messrs. Livitsanos and Beis was to draw attention away from their own acts-conspiring with Algerians to murder one previous captain and discrediting another by keeping him in an intoxicated condition, with a view to securing their own promotion, and murdering the second officer. Neither Government alludes to these matters. These charges fall entirely within the domain of the criminal law and there would seem to be no evidence before the Committee to suggest that any question of trade union rights was involved. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the S.S. "Alberta"
  55. 55 On the pretext that the ship was going out of service but with the real intention of signing a new crew at lower wages a few days later, it is alleged, the captain of the Alberta, at Chester, Pennsylvania, dismissed his whole crew, at a time when they were trying to secure the payment of moneys due. The complainant alleges that 60 armed police took up positions in order to confine the men to their ship and that they were prevented from contacting their trade union representative and legal adviser. When arrangements had been made, states the complainant, the men were taken forcibly to New York. Here they passively resisted re-embarkation until their trade union representative arrived with the union lawyer, who confirmed that they were legally entitled to 22 days' wages in compensation. But nothing could be done, the complainant alleges, because they were then placed on the Arosa Sky, en route for France and Greece, one man, suffering from malaria, not even being given time to see a doctor.
  56. 56 The Government of the United States declares that the captain of the ship, which arrived at Philadelphia in April 1958, asked permission to pay off and repatriate his crew. This permission was granted because the captain said that the ship was to be taken out of service. While arrangements were being made, the captain was told to keep the men on board. When the time came to disembark they would not at first do so but, after speaking with officers of the Immigration Service, the crew boarded the omnibus to proceed to the Arosa Sky, which was to take them home to Greece. According to the Government, three men remained as residents, being duly qualified, and one was kept in hospital, the remaining 20 being repatriated. Subsequently, the Alberta was manned by a new crew and, states the Government of the United States, if its authorities had known that the Alberta was to be restored to service, " undoubtedly the repatriation of the original crew would not have been required ". The Greek Government denies any responsibility for incidents aboard a ship flying a foreign flag.
  57. 57 It is necessary here to distinguish between a number of specific issues. In the first place it would seem that the actual deportation, from the point of view of the Government of the United States itself, which had given permission for men to be paid off in the belief that their ship was going out of service, was effected in accordance with the same laws of general application as was the deportation of Messrs. Livitsanos and Beis, which has already been considered. In the instance of the deportation now being considered, however, it is alleged that a specific trade union, right was infringed in that difficulties were placed in the way of the men contacting the representative of their union and its lawyer in order to secure their aid in obtaining payment of wages due, which is admitted in the majority of countries as a legitimate function of trade unions on behalf of their members. The Government of the United States makes no reference to this point. When the Committee examined the cases of persons alleged to have been deported in Case No. 70 relating to the United States and Greece, it came to the conclusion that the allegations then made did not call for further examination only after it had satisfied itself that the persons concerned had enjoyed all judicial guarantees provided for by law in the case of foreigners in general, a principle again stressed by the Committee in Case No. 138 relating to the United States and Greece. The Committee considers that there is no evidence to show that members of the crew could not have had recourse in the present case to the same legal procedures, in order to challenge the legality of their deportation, as were shown to be available when it examined Cases Nos. 70 and 138. So far as the Government of the United States is concerned, therefore, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination. In doing so, however, the Committee draws attention to the desirability, when repatriation ensues in consequence of dismissal, of no obstacle's being placed in the way of those concerned exercising the right to avail themselves of the aid of their trade union and, if necessary, of the courts, in order to establish and enforce any legal claims in respect of moneys due in connection with such dismissal.
  58. 58 The Greek Government denies any responsibility because the ship was flying a foreign flag ; the Government makes no observation with regard to the allegation that the old crew was paid off in order to make it possible to sign a new crew at lower wages or that obstacles were placed by the agents made responsible for the custody of the dismissed men in the way of contact with the representative and lawyer of the union to which they belonged and whose aid they had a right to seek in respect of a matter in which they were in dispute with their employers. But it would seem from the reply of the Government of the United States that the captain, acting on behalf of the Greek shipowners, obtained permission to pay off and repatriate the original crew on the ground-and only on the ground-that the ship was to go out of service, which, manifestly, was not the case. While the Greek Government may not be answerable for the acts of Greek shipowners in respect of the crews of their ships when they are flying foreign flags and calling at foreign ports, the Committee considers that the action of the shipowners themselves in this particular case is open to criticism. While it may or may not be legitimate, according to circumstances, for employers to pay off a crew in order to secure less expensive labour, it would seem to be an interference with the collective bargaining rights of employees if this process is carried out and difficulties placed in the way of contact between the employees and their union only by means of misleading the authorities of a foreign State so as to cause them to order a repatriation of the employees which, according to the Government of that State, would not have been required if the intention of reactivating the ship had been revealed. Subject to this observation, however, the Committee considers that, in the absence of evidence of responsibility of the Greek Government itself for any infringement of trade union rights in this instance, there is no ground for pursuing this aspect of the matter further.
  59. 59 In all the circumstances, therefore, subject to the observations made in paragraphs 57 and 58 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the S.S. "Marcella "
  60. 60 It is alleged that the crew of the Marcella, who were in dispute with their employers over questions relating to wages and hours of work, were arrested by the American authorities, on 30 April 1958, and deported to Greece in the S.S. Olympia. The Greek Government again denies responsibility because the ship was flying a foreign flag. The Government of the United States declares that the ship reached Jacksonville, Florida, on 11 April 1958, manned by 11 Greek seamen. Eight members of the crew were repatriated because the ship was to be inactivated, three remaining to work on the ship until it was scrapped, when they also were repatriated to Greece.
  61. 61 Although the complainant states that the employees concerned were in dispute with their employers, it would seem from the evidence that their services were dispensed with because the ship was in fact being scrapped and that, with the end of their employment, the men were repatriated in accordance with the normal procedure relating to aliens in general which the Committee has already considered. The Committee considers that the complainants have not offered sufficient evidence to show that any trade union rights were infringed in this instance and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 62. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body, subject to the observations contained in paragraphs 57 and 58, to decide that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.