by Phil Shifflin, Esq.

Director of SCI’s Center for Mariner Advocacy

from the December 2025 Quarterly Activity Report

As the Director of SCI’s Center for Mariner Advocacy (CMA), I am privileged to lead an organization that consistently steps in to defend the rights of seafarers facing unfair treatment. One recent case stands out as a testament to our commitment.

An Indian seafarer reached out to me seeking assistance because his contract was being terminated four months early, and no one had told him why. The seafarer had asked for the reasons for his early termination from both the vessel’s master and the manning agency, but both had ignored his request for an explanation.

I reviewed his employment contract and noted that he was covered by a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) and that his contract was an ITF (International Transport Workers Federation) contract. Although the seafarer was unable to forward a copy of the CBA, I thought it was likely that the CBA included provisions that would be applicable to the early termination. I determined that the vessel’s next port of call was Houston, TX, where I have a good relationship with the local ITF inspector (we had collaborated on previous seafarer cases). Since this was an ITF contract, the ITF inspector would likely be able to gain access to the CBA and be in a stronger position to enforce the CBA provisions. After getting the seafarer’s permission, I shared the details of the case with the ITF inspector. The ITF inspector then made inquiries to the company about apparent violations of the CBA provisions related to the early termination. In response to this inquiry, company representatives presented documents to the ITF inspector that appeared to fulfill the CBA process requirements. The documents alleged that the seafarer in question had failed to satisfactorily perform certain duties that resulted in a pollution incident occurring, and this was the reason his contract was being terminated early.

I then shared these documents with the seafarer, who advised that he had never seen them before and believed they were created after the ITF inspector made the inquiry. The seafarer further denied being the individual who caused the pollution incident; rather, it was another officer on the vessel who had previously sailed with the vessel’s master, and as such, they were good friends. In short, the seafarer now understood why no one would tell him the reason he was being sent home early. The blame for the pollution incident was being attributed to him, even though that was not factually correct. The seafarer had documents (logs, emails, etc.) to support his version of the events. Once the vessel moored in Houston, TX, and armed with this information, the ITF inspector visited the vessel, conducted his own inquiry, and found the seafarer’s version of the events to be credible. When confronted with the facts, a company representative, who had not been previously involved, withdrew the documents that attributed the oil spill to the seafarer and prepared a new evaluation of the seafarer’s work that accurately reflected the seafarer’s satisfactory performance.

Considering the circumstances, the seafarer elected to depart the vessel early because he no longer felt he could work with the Master and the other officers, since they had tried to hurt his career to protect another. The seafarer was very thankful to the Center for Mariner Advocacy and the ITF inspector for working collaboratively to find the truth and to help protect his career.

SCI’s Center for Mariner Advocacy has always worked to assist seafarers who are dealing with a wide range of on-the-job challenges such as abandonment, repatriation, shore leave, injuries, living conditions, contract disputes, and wages. The seafarers whom CMA assists are often in very vulnerable situations and feel like they have no-one else to turn to.