SandBar 6:4, January, 2008

Seaman Bound by Employment Contract

Skowronek v. American Steamship Company, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23926 (Oct. 12, 2007).

Terra Bowling, J.D.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that an injured seaman is bound by maintenance rates in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing his employment.

Background
A maintenance fee is paid by ship owners to cover the cost of food and lodging of ill or injured seamen while they are unable to work. In September 2004, Larry Skowronek was working aboard an American Steamship Company vessel when he suffered a heart attack. Skowronek remained out of service for almost two months while he was recuperating. The company paid Skowronek $56.00 per week as a maintenance fee, in accordance with the CBA between his union and his employer.
      Skowronek filed suit, arguing that instead of the $56.00 rate for ill crew members he should be awarded the CBA’s $300 per-week rate for injured crew members. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Skowronek summary judgment.

Fair Deal
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit examined whether the maintenance rate for ill crew members was enforceable under the CBA, in light of the injured crew member rate of $300 per week. The court acknowledged that federal courts generally enforce negotiated maintenance rates in a CBA, even if the rates do not cover a crew member’s daily food and lodging expenses.
      In a previous case regarding negotiated maintenance rates, the Sixth Circuit held “when a benefits package includes an express reference to a precise rate of maintenance, it must be presumed that this rate was arrived at by negotiation.”1 The court concluded that these negotiated rates are the “result of give and take collective bargaining between parties” and should be binding.2 Therefore, the court presumed that the rates in Skowronek’s CBA were negotiated and binding and did not speculate whether $8.00 per day was sufficient to provide Skowronek with food and lodging.
      The court held that when a maintenance rate is negotiated, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the rates were not legitimately negotiated, that the agreement was unfair as a whole, or that the union did not adequately represent him. Skowronek did not present evidence to prove any of these issues.

Conclusion
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The court found that the maintenance rates were the result of the collective bargaining between the parties and, therefore, should be binding. The court also held that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the rates were not legitimately negotiated, that the agreement was unfair as a whole, or that the union did not adequately represent him.
      One judge dissented, finding “the collective bargaining agreement presently before the court contains an unusual provision that discriminates between ill and injured seamen. This provision is inconsistent with the common law of admiralty, and at odds with the reasons why courts originally developed and protected seaman’s right to maintenance.”3  

Endnotes
1.  Al-Zawkari v. American S.S. Co., 871 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 1989).
2.  Skowronek v. American Steamship Company, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23926 at *9-10 (Oct. 12, 2007).
3.  Id. at *20.