AD Ports launches Erkport JV, but loses out over Alsancak terminal
It’s been a couple of days of mixed fortunes for fast-growing UAE ports and logistics ...
© Khunaspix Dreamstime.
Australia welcomed a new terminal operator to its container shipping industry on Friday when Melbourne Port Corporation announced that Filipino box port operator ICTSI had won the concession to build and operate a new facility at its Webb Dock.
However, news of the contract, which represents a first on a number of levels, met with a mixed response – with the government of the state of Victoria hailing the deal as a breakthrough in terms of increased competition within Australia’s largest ...
Comment on this article
Jennifer Sargent
May 08, 2014 at 11:35 pmGreetings, Mr. van Marle,
Thank you for your interest in this issue. The statement below is inaccurate, and I’ll explain why below.
“ICTSI has found itself at the centre of the bizarre spat at the US west coast port of Portland with the over two jobs monitoring reefer containers awarded to workers from an electricians’ union.”
In fact, the ICTSI did not “find itself” anywhere, but rather created quite a mess in Portland by knowingly signing conflicting contracts with the port and with the employer association that negotiates with the ILWU. ICTSI joined the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) when it won the concession at Terminal 6 in Portland in 2010. In joining with dozens of West Coast employers in the decades-old PMA, ICTSI agreed to the terms of the ILWU-PMA collective bargaining agreement, which covers jurisdiction among other issues in 29 ports in California, Oregon and Washington. ICTSI signed its PMA application and stated in writing that it had no outside labor obligations. ICTSI then violated the ILWU-PMA agreement to which it is a party by assigning work to outside workers.
PMA joined the ILWU in arbitration and in court, demanding that ICTSI abide by its obligations as a PMA member. In addition to collective PMA action, individual carriers including COSCO, Hanjin, Yang Ming and others demanded that ICTSI abide by the ILWU-PMA contract and stop assigning work to outside workers.
Perhaps ICTSI is accustomed to writing its own rules in countries with fewer legal protections, but its attempts to do so in the U.S. have created problems for workers, carriers, and the public that relies on the port for regional exports.
This issue is covered extensively at our news web site, longshoreshippingnews.com, or you can also contact me for information. I’d be happy to keep you updated on the progress of this ongoing issue. Thank you again for your interest.
— Jennifer Sargent
In San Francisco: 415-775-0533
John Hunter
May 11, 2014 at 12:50 amI’m not sure the Australian maritime union (MUA) needs to worry. This will be a brand new facility, so any jobs created will be in addition to existing jobs. Any employees who choose to join the MUA will therefore be additional members and represent additional revenue to the MUA. Employees in Australia have freedom of association – if they want to join the MUA they are free to do so, but if they don’t, they don’t have to. There is no port-wide agreement between employers, stevedores and union. Condemning ICTSI before they have even started operations on the basis of events elesewhere is like everyone else condemning the unions because of their actions elsewhere. It seems a situation is being created out of nothing.