Date:26/12/2005 URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/12/26/stories/2005122601210600.htm

Back Seamen's PF: NUSI strike threat rocks the boat

N. K. Kurup

The NUSI was the first to seek government support in making good the SPF loss. But, now, it is the FUSI, which is hogging the limelight. So the NUSI's position is understandable. No trade union can afford to lose credit for something it has done for its members.

LAST WEEK quite to its surprise and shock, the Indian National Shipowners Association received a letter from the National Union of Seafarers of India (NUSI) informing them of its plan to go for an agitation. The NUSI wants an assurance from the Director-General of Shipping on recouping of the Rs 93-crore loss suffered by Seamen's Provident Fund (SPF) in securities trading in 2002. The NUSI has threatened an indefinite strike if it did not get a positive response from the DGS. What has baffled INSA officials is that the NUSI letter came barely 10 days after the Bombay High Court directed the Union Government to come out with a decision on the SPF losses. The NUSI is also a party to the case, which is scheduled for hearing on January 16.

So what prompted the NUSI to make this unexpected move?

Some background may help better understand the circumstance and issues involved.

In 2002, the SPF had lost Rs 92.74 crore in securities transactions, allegedly entered in violation of the government guidelines. The government had taken some actions then — sacked the SPF Commissioner, ordered a CBI probe, reconstituted the SPF board and tightened investment norms. The Shipping Ministry had also worked out two or three alternative schemes to make good the losses. But, somehow, it could not get all stakeholders — the unions, the government and the shipping companies — to agree to even one of them. The NUSI had in the meantime planned a strike demanding recouping of the shortage in the SPF account, but it was deferred following an assurance from the government.

In November, the Forward Seamen's Union of India (FSUI) decided to go on a strike on the same issue. It served a strike notice on the INSA and others. Fearing the repercussions of a strike at a time when the freight market is booming, the INSA moved the court seeking a stay on the strike.

After the case was admitted for hearing, the NUSI also joined as a party to the case. At the last hearing on December 12, counsel for the Government told the court that the government had agreed to consider the issue of recouping SPF loss if the unions agreed to a structural reform of SPF and a one-time settlement. And the unions had agreed to the suggestion and in view of that the court directed the government to come out with a decision on the SPF loss in four weeks. The court had also told the respondent (FSUI) to defer its strike plan till January 31, 2006.

While everyone was waiting for the government decision, the NUSI on Thursday announced its indefinite strike plans. An NUSI spokesman said that the court directive to respondent in the on-going case is applicable only to the FSUI and not to the NUSI. "NUSI has been demanding, pending the enquiry, that the money lost in the SPF fraud should be recouped along with interest. We want to ensure that the Government takes a positive decision, which will help thousands of seamen get back their PF — their only retirement benefit," he said.

The NUSI was the first to seek government support in making good the SPF loss, immediately after it was reported. But, now, it is the FUSI, which is hogging the limelight. So the NUSI's position is understandable. No trade union can afford to lose credit for something it has done for its members. This becomes all the more relevant when the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC) is trying to accord majority status to one union.

Though unrelated to the SPF case, the verification of union membership by the RLC at the request of shipowners may deepen the inter-union rivalry. It is understood that the FSUI is yet to submit the details sought by the RLC. Unfortunately, the shipping lines would suffer from any action by unions that disrupt shipping service. In the case of the SPF, the shipowners are in no way responsible for the loss suffered by the Fund in securities trading. It is clearly a fraud committed by some individuals. Of course, seafarers should not lose their savings.