wage matters not within his exclusive jurisdiction.
The evidence indicates quite clearly that the principal controversy between the ship owner and the crew in this case arises out of claims for extra pay for opening and closing the hatches on the S/S Syros under a custom existing at the time of the collective agreement of 1943 and still prevailing, and the refusal of the crew to perform that work without extra pay. It appears also that three of the respondents, prior to their services on the S/S Syros, had asserted claims for wage bonuses for continuous service under the Cardiff Agreement while serving on the S/S Kyvernitis. Claims of both of those classes were in effect outlawed by the Athens Agreement of 1947, to which the respondents and their union were not parties, which agreement was adopted and is sought to be enforced by the Ministry of Mercantile Marine. A real issue is therefore raised as to the present legality and enforceability of the Cardiff Agreement, the basis of the custom under which the respondents have claimed extra pay, and the effect to be given to the Athens Agreement of 1947 and adopted by the Ministry, with respect to seamen's wages or compensation.
Without a judicial determination of the rights of the respondent seamen to the compensation claimed, their conduct in refusing to do extra work without extra pay, and in claiming the bonus under an agreement they deemed to be still in force, has been characterized as unlawful disobedience for which they must be deprived of their seamen's credentials, repatriated and punished. That members of the crew protested against the actions of the Greek Government in a matter in which a large part of the Western World took issue, that they collected funds for their union, made some complaints as to the ship's food and concertedly solicited the Master to reinstate Zannos, were not of sufficient importance to induce the Master to impose disciplinary measures. Nor are they deemed sufficient to change the character of this dispute from one involving claims for compensation, to one involving mutiny or other disorder on the vessel for which this Court might provide an aid to punishment.
We conclude therefore that the differences between the Master, officers and crew of the S/S Syros arise out of claims for compensation for services and not out of disorders or other matters having to do with the internal order of the vessel of which the petitioner has exclusive charge, and we reach the following,
Conclusions of Law.
1. This action is founded on the Treaty concluded between the United States and the Kingdom of Greece on November 19, 1902, 33 Stat. part 2, page 2122.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition and to grant the relief requested is founded on Revised Statutes, §§ 4079, 4080 and 4081, Act of Congress, 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 256-258.
3. The disputes cognizable under the Treaty and Revised Statutes are limited to disputes between the Master and the Crew arising on the vessels at sea or in port as to which exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in the respective Consular officers.
4. That exclusive jurisdiction of the respective Consular officers over wage disputes was abrogated and vested in the Federal Courts by the LaFollete Act of March 4, 1915, Chap. 153, 38 Stat. 1164.
5. General crimes and offenses against each of the contracting nations not occurring aboard the particular vessel on which the offending seamen may be employed, are not cognizable either under the Treaty or under Revised Statutes, §§ 4079, 4080 and 4081.
6. Wage disputes between the Master and Crew having been withdrawn from the exclusive jurisdiction of the consul by the LaFollete Act of 1915 are not cognizable under the Treaty.
7. All charges based upon acts arising on the S/S Kyvernitis or any place other than the S/S Syros cannot form the proper basis for these proceedings.
8. The dispute which occurred on the S/S Syros relating to the payment of extra compensation for opening and closing hatches was a wage dispute and as such is not cognizable under the Treaty.
9. The other charges filed against the seamen for illegal collections of monies on behalf of the OENO and the newspaper 'Naftragatis', forming a ship's committee, formulating and circulating a telegraphic protest on behalf of their ten leaders who were sentenced to death, do not constitute a dispute between the Master and the crew and as such are not cognizable in these proceedings.
10. An order may be entered dismissing the petition at the cost of the petitioner.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.