Grievance Hearing Example

01 September 2014

In-route to Ravenna, Italy

Grievance Hearing Report

Subject: CE _____________ Repatriation

Hearing is conducted by Capt. Befalhavare, for the dismissal of________________, Chief Engineer, of legal age, Indonesian, born in Palembang with Seaman’s Book No. W_______for unsatisfactory performance of his duties and responsibilities since he joined last 03rd of July 2014 Gavle, Sweden onboard MV ________, IMO No. _______ with callsign ________.

The reasons made basis for his dismissal from MV ________ are as follows:

1. Unawareness of International Rules having admitted that it is his first time to work outside Asia.  Such lack of knowledge could endanger and/or impede the vessel's operations contrary to what is stipulated in his Job Description to wit:  

“Compliance of the engine room department with International Regulations, company guidelines and legislation concerning safety, environment, working and resting hours and labor circumstances.” Change over sulfur content regulations of MARPOL.

Where, after bunkering in Skagen Roads last 11th of July 2014, the Master informed him about the ETA to SECA Limit and asked CE to change-over from Low Sulfur to High sulfur when passing SECA limit. He disclosed that he has no idea what is SECA limit. He further added that since it is his first time to trade here in Europe he has NOT encountered this kind of change over. These International regulations are specified in Marpol Annex VI, Reg. 14 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3). As such, the lack of awareness of MARPOL regulations will jeopardize not only the voyage but the vessel’s entire operations as well risk to the ship in case of inspection by PSC.

2. Defiance of the Master’s orders as opposed to his job description:  “Follow the master’s order, the regulations of the shipping company and charterer strictly.”

Where, the Office sent an email regarding proper sampling to be conducted during bunkering and CE was ordered to take proper samples to be sent to the GMT testing laboratory.  He deliberately provided false samples to the Master where he “Marked the High Sulfur HFO Fuel sample with Low Sulfur HFO fuel sample” which was sent thru the agent in Turkey. When the results came and the vessel failed, CE admitted sending the wrong sample. He did not follow the order given by the office thru Master but instead provided false info to the Master.

In addition, during change over from High Sulfur content to Low sulfur content, voyage _______ (Kherson to Moerdjik); his calculations did not meet the regulations as the vessel exceeded the SECA Limit. The master repeatedly reminded CE about this matter but still he didn’t follow the Master’s instructions. In case of spot inspections/accidents, the owner’s will be fined when the vessel is found within the SECA limit.

3. Failure to CONDUCT his monthly routines onboard. 

Where, upon Superintendent Sjitze_______ visit to the vessel, he conducted rounds and inspection of the entire vessel.  He made queries from CE and found out that the latter was not conducting his monthly routines contrary to what is reflected in the Marad Maintenance system where he methodically marked the items “done/complied.” Consequently, he admitted that is not familiar with this type of equipment. 

Conclusion:

This report has been fully discussed to the crew and the implications of the said dismissal, and therefore made basis for his disembarkation.   

To: CE ____________

As per advice by the Master of MV _________; after thorough deliberation with the officers and with proper notice to _______Shipmanagement BV; as well as Superintendent Mr. Sjitze observations during his visit last 18th August 2014 at Moerdjik, Netherlands, you are hereby ordered dismissed from your duties to be repatriated in Ravenna, Italy.  

This dismissal will be effective as soon as your reliever embarks the vessel with your flight details.

Sincerely yours,

Capt. Befalhavare

Master /MV _______

Groningen