The Hindu Business Line : ‘Ensuring safety net for workers, the key’

We have good understanding among trade unions, irrespective of political affiliations. We discuss issues affecting the Port and agree on a plan of action to not only protect labour rights but also uphold public interest.

M.M. LAWRENCE, CHAIRMAN, JT FORUM OF TRADE UNIONS, KOCHI PORT

V. Sajeev Kumar

With the technological advancements in port operations, trade unions have a role to play in ensuring a secure safety net for workers, on the lines of ILO conventions. In this context consultations between employers and workers form are of particular significance before introducing newer technologies in container terminal operations. Mr M. M. Lawrence, Chairman of the Joint Forum of Trade Unions in Cochin Port Trust, spoke to Business Line on the current role of trade unions in the port sector.

What is the role of trade unions in the port sector, especially in Kochi, in guiding workers, given the current technological advancements?

Well, fortunately, the problem of labour redundancy in ports consequent to adoption of new methods of cargo handling is now well-recognised. Globally, trade unions, governments and employers have jointly worked out solutions to address this problem.

In fact, in Kochi Port changes have come late. In a way, the slow pace of adoption of new technology has given all stake-holders here in the Port a great deal of leeway. This leeway has been available to all — shipping interests, port authorities and workers.

Now, the time has come to act. As I mentioned earlier, there is already international consensus on this problem. There exists an ILO Convention and its associated recommendations.

Specifically, Convention No. 137, concerning social repercussions of new methods of cargo handling in docks, was adopted in 1973. One of the key safeguards assured through this Convention to dock workers is a minimum assured period of employment or a minimum income. This Convention came into force in 1975. Therefore all stake-holders have obligation to honour the Convention.

The approach of trade unions in Kochi port has been to secure to workers some form of safety net while new technology is being adopted through consultation between employers and workers. Such consultations are an integral part of agreed norms under the Convention.

That was how we addressed this problem and attempted a solution. For example, we have a certain number of pools of dock workers to whom a certain guaranteed employment or income is assured. In certain other cases, employment /income is secured through notional booking and similar practices.

In extreme cases of redundancy, voluntary separation plans offered by employers have helped mitigate the harshness of redundancy.

With privatisation becoming the order of the day, several private firms are now running container terminals by incorporating modern methods. What is your approach in such a situation when terminals are dictating terms?

Well, privatisation is not new. In fact, during early stages of development, ports were all private, especially in major seafaring nations. Several ports sprang up on sea-coasts and on the banks of rivers.

Indiscriminate use of waterfronts became so rampant that it led to the realisation that sea coasts, bays and waterfronts are unique public assets that require some form of regulation.

The first port that was vested under a public trust came about with the creation in 1858 of Mersey Dock and Harbour Board of Liverpool. Shortly therafter, the British Government noticed that East India Company in India was acquiring far more waterfront assets in Bombay than what was required for operating the Port. Not only was the Company stopped from further acquisitions, Bombay Port Trust was created in 1879, vesting all waterfront assets to this trust.

Around the world, now public trusts or municipalities or local governments run the ports. Probably, the sole exception is in the UK, where the Thatcher Government during 1980s auctioned away ports, as if they were unwanted assets.

The Port officials, who, in many cases, formed companies to acquire the ports, were helped with loans, which the Government provided.

Thus, it is evident that, when the private sector failed in ports, public authority stepped in. Now, something like the reverse is happening. At the same time, there is no evidence of public authority failing. However, the private sector desires to be in profitable areas of port operation, such as in container terminals.

We do not hold the view that public authority in ports must be disbanded. At the same time, we oppose indiscriminate privatisation. Case by case, through consultation, it has to be determined to what extent privatisation may be necessary. There is nothing sacrosanct one way or the other.

Worldwide, experience indicates that top-ranking container ports, including in Singapore, are run by the public sector.

At the same time there are several competing container terminals in private sector. So we have open mind in this respect as to who should run the container terminal — that is, whether private or public sector.

If a private container terminal is inducting modern technology, it is welcome. The only condition is that induction of technology must be through consultation with labour and there should be no hardship to labour.

It is true that private terminals are dictating terms. We shall oppose such terms because ours is a sovereign democratic republic.

There are laws here to curb the growth of monopolies and to promote competition in business. What is happening is that one operator is dominating in India in the container terminal business. Privatisation must be within the ambit of Indian law and its acceptance should be through general consensus.

What has been the role of your union in reaching a consensus on various issues with other unions?

We have good understanding amongst trade unions, irrespective of political affiliations. We do meet and discuss issues affecting the Port as often as is necessary. We also agree on a definite plan of action where we need to not only protect labour rights but also to uphold public interest. We have been doing this; we shall do so in future too.

Frequent strikes in Kochi Port have tarnished its image. What steps have you taken to avert such incidents in future?

I do not agree that strikes have become the order of the day. Of course, some stray incidents or provocations have led to work stoppages. I doubt whether such provocations had come about spontaneously. For example, D.P. World has been operating the RGCT since 2005. During 2005 and 2006 there was hardly any strike.

How is it that provocations have been on the rise in 2007? I do not know whether such happenings have any connection with the global acquisitions of D.P. World.

The fact is that D.P. World got a foothold in Indian port through its acquisition of RGCT in 2005. Now they have container terminals in Chennai, JNPT, Mundra and Visakhapatnam ports. In addition they have container terminals in Colombo Port. The Company now has given subtle hints that it may walk away from Vallarpadam project. What is the stated reason? Frequent strikes! All these developments deserve to be looked into in detail.

With the commissioning of the single-point mooring (SPM), Kochi has to suffer financial loss for at least two years. The port management is making all efforts to woo more cargo. Given the situation, what is the role of trade unions to attract cargoes like bulk and break bulk to the port?

You rightly mentioned the problem. Sadly the port administration and the Chairman of Port Trust do not perceive the problem in all seriousness.

Even for securing SPM of Kochi Refineries Ltd (KRL) within Kochi Port, it was the trade unions that acted together. Had not the trade unions acted decisively, the entire revenue from crude would have been lost for the port for ever.

Now, what about bulk cargo? The port has no bulk cargo un-loader. There is no adequate facility to store bulk cargo. No facility to evacuate landed cargo fast.

Private sector players improvise in their own way to handle bulk cargo. We have been demanding the setting up of modern bulk cargo handling facilities. Our demand is falling on deaf ears. If we go on strike raising this demand, that too may lead to adverse publicity. So, we do everything short of strike.

I do not hold the view that the management of the port is marketing aggressively. Create facilities. Levy charges fairly and reasonably. Cargo will flow naturally. There is no need for unhealthy competition between ports. That is not marketing!

Do you have any suggestions to streamline the port operations?

Yes. The Port Trust is the licensor and India Gateway Terminal is the licensee. IGT is licensed to levy charges subject to a ceiling set by TAMP. The licensee must give the Port Trust due revenue share. The licencee has no right to levy charges not approved by TAMP. Similarly, the licencee has no exclusive right to any item of revenue. All these must be properly enforced. That is not being done.

The Port Trust must concentrate on bulk and break-bulk cargo. This is the only area of operation now left within the direct ambit of the Port Trust.

You rightly mentioned the problem. Sadly the port administration and the Chairman of Port Trust do not perceive the problem in all seriousness.

Now, what about bulk cargo? The port has no bulk cargo un-loader. There is no adequate facility to store bulk cargo. No facility to evacuate landed cargo fast.

Do you have any suggestions to streamline the port operations?

The Port Trust must concentrate on bulk and break-bulk cargo. This is the only area of operation now left within the direct ambit of the Port Trust.

More Stories on : Interview | Trade & Labour Unions | Shipping

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
IATA revises forecasts

Glittering showpiece in the Middle East

Pile-up of problems at CCT

WCO to address security concerns

Concor plans full-fledged CFS

Indian approves VRS for 12 cabin crew

‘Ensuring safety net for workers, the key’

Raking in problems