An employer broke the law by implementing a safety policy that required employees to come to it first before going with regulatory authorities with safety concerns, the Department of Labor has determined.
As a result of the agency’s investigation, the employer will change its reporting policy and provide compensation to an affected employee.
The target of the investigation was Maersk Line Limited, which is one of the world’s leading providers of marine cargo services.
Safety Policy Was Not Followed
A seaman reported a number of safety concerns about a Maersk vessel to the U.S. Coast Guard in December of 2020.
The seaman said:
- Gear that was used to release lifeboats was not working properly.
- A trainee was left alone while on ship’s watch.
- Crew members had alcohol and possibly consumed it while onboard.
- There were leaks that needed to be repaired.
- There were deck sockets that needed to be repaired or replaced.
The employer quickly suspended the seaman and then terminated his employment in March of 2021 because he did not follow its safety policy of notifying it before he reached out to the Coast Guard.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) determined that the termination of employment violated the federal Seaman’s Protection Act. It said seamen may report safety concerns directly to the Coast Guard and do not need to follow any company safety policy that requires them to go to their employer first.
WEBINARS
Maximizing Value with Voluntary Benefits
Are Your Employees Financially Stressed? Learn How Voluntary Benefits Can Help Many employees are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling with medical debt, and delaying necessary care due to costs. Unfortunately…
Provided by Unum
OSHA Condemns Safety Policy
In July of 2023, the Department of Labor reported that OSHA had ordered Maersk to reinstate the seaman and to pay damages. It also ordered the employer to revise its safety policy to make it clear that employees can go straight to outside authorities to report safety issues.
Maersk challenged OSHA’s findings, and an administrative hearing was held in June of 2024.
Following the completion of the hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement near the start of July of 2024.
Under the agreement, Maersk agreed not to discharge or discriminate against any employee for engaging in protected activity, such as reporting a safety issue.
It also agreed to remove all negative information relating to the seaman’s termination from his personnel file and to provide a neutral employment reference upon request.
Employer Will Take Steps
The employer further agreed to:
- Remove any existing requirement that employees notify the employer before contacting the U.S. Coast Guard with concerns that are related to safety.
- Refrain from retaliating against any seamen to contact the Coast Guard.
- Provide all of its supervisors with training relating to the requirements of the revised policy.
- Distribute an OSHA fact sheet relating to the Seaman’s Protection Act to seamen about its U.S. flagged vessels for the next two years.
Under the specific terms of the settlement agreement, the employer further explicitly agreed to comply with the provisions of the federal Seaman’s Protection Act and all of its implementing regulations in the future. Nor will it discharge or discriminate against any seaman because they reasonably refuse to perform duties for reasons that are related to safety.
In addition, Maersk agreed by separate agreement to provide the affected seaman with a monetary payment.
Employees Have Option
“This case is an important affirmation that all mariners have the option to contact the U.S. Coast Guard directly for addressing a safety concern,” said Rear Admiral and Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy for the U.S. Coast Guard Wayne Arguin. “Safety requires a team approach. The size, complexity and importance of the marine transportation system demand that everyone work together to prevent casualties and minimize supply chain disruptions.”
The agreement expressly disclaims any admission by Maersk that its prior safety policy violated any provisions of the law.
