Manning and redundancies

An update here in the middle of summertime
Manning and redundancies
That 2022 should become a bad year, is absolutely confirmed now. And those who have been affected in the hardest way, are of course all those who now don't have a permanent job.

First some history. Back in March, the company presented us with a very detailed plan showing how many positions they should keep employed on each rig, month by month and during the various projects until October. This led to 124 redundancies.

We managed to postpone a large part of the redundancies by one month. This was an attempt to keep as many as possible employed on the day for the merger with Noble.

We had been assured that about 40 of Noble's third-party employees would not be permanently employed, and it was of course the plan that we should demand the right to re-employment for all dismissed into the "new company", this should happen based on the Norwegian rules for company mergers and seniority. 

However, IE's lawyers could not with a hundred percent certainty confirm that all the dismissed would have the right to reemployment into "the new company"  but we had a clear plan for claiming it. (This was also supported by the company and written into the minutes of the individual termination discussions)

Unfortunately, it seems that those jobs will not be relevant to us, because they are now planning to sell "Noble Lloyd Noble" to Shelf Drilling, if everything will be approved. 

The redundancies and thus the submitted manning plan are based on the fact that Intrepid does not have any contract after October, and the plan is also based on that Intrepid should have been stacked for a few months during this summer. This has created a higher need for manning than the original plan. And this is of course also a reason for why MAF now receives many inquiries from dismissed members who want to know more about their rights.

But with the current situation, where no new contracts have been signed, and where the company has not yet secured the options for extending manning on Inspirer, then we cannot go to the company and claim that they shall start to reemploy.

We therefore have to accept that the company right now is hiring on temporary contracts and has more use of overtime work than normal. It is not illegal what they are doing, because this is a temporary need for manning, and the basis for the initial redundancies is still unchanged when looking forward to October.

We have a big understanding for all the frustration this creates for many. We are following the situation all the time, and we will of course claim for re-employment as soon as we have the opportunity.

Some also ask if we can claim for "permittering" but also this will require that there is work at the other end. So at present time this is not possible.

We see a much higher use of third-party employed on Invincible in Grenaa, denmark. This is also a part of the company's original plan, and we must very strongly point out that MAF has no right at all to claim that Invincible shall be manned by MDN-employed during the yearstay. But of course we will prefer that the rig is only manned by MDN-employed, especially considering those who have now been laid off.

Quarantine and compensation
We have not received anything new from the lawyers at IE since we published the last update on the MAF page in May.  https://www.mafsiden.no/home/quarantine-issues-may-22

Last month we were asked to provide an estimate of how many days everyone has been in quarantine in total. We have made a rough calculation and sent it to Industri energi.

The lawyers are working on the case, but we clearly believe that it's still going too slowly.

We brought a number of quarantine related claims into the main negotiations, and again into the mediation. But sadly it was swept aways during the last minutes of the mediation.

Unfortunately, only MAF and one more club, also from Industri Energi, had brought quarantine related stuff into the negotiations, and therefore it was not possible to obtain a majority.

It is important to point out that if we had got something into the protokol, it would only have been valid for future situations.

Overtime trips are often canceled on the day of the agreed departure.
We have received many inquiries about this. HR are contacting employees and asking if they can travel out on extra trips on overtime payment.  But it happens very often that the day before departure they have found another solution, and the agreement has therefore been canceled.

The company is allowed to cancel agreed overtime, without compensating as long as the employee has not reached the place of departure(heliport). But when cancellations  happen so often as we now experience, then we think that we need to change some unwritten procedures for how HR are making agreements with the employees.

We have also received inquiries from some who have been out on their normal trips, and have been asked to stay on board for a longer time. The agreements have been confirmed, the travel plans have been changed and in addition many have also changed or canceled private agreements at home. Then later HR canceled the agreement.

If HR wants to use this practice, then we believe that they at least have to make it clear to each individual when it's a request for overtime and not a confirmation.

We have discussed the case with the company but have not yet reached an agreement.

"Nordea Liv" Pension saving (This maybe only relevant for the Danish)
This case started with inquiries from several members who thought they had been cheated for a "Vesta" pension saving (later taken over by "Nordea Liv")

Based on the feedback we have received, we can now state that this "Vesta" pension saving (today "Nordea liv") was a supplementary pension that employes from abroad received in the years from about 1990 to 1999, if they didn't already had a "PFA" or another pension saving for foreigners.

Until 1999, the criteria for getting the "PFA'' pension saving was controlled by the company. Some got the "PFA" pension already at the time of the transfer to Norway, and others only got it if they later after the transfer to Norway signed a contract with Maersk in Copenhagen for International employment. 

The "PFA "pension saving, became mandatory for all employees living in Denmark, after it was included in Appendix 4 to the agreement in 1999, that the company's total pension contributions must on average be the same per. foreign employed as for

the Norwegians.  (Those who lived in the UK got "Scottish Life" pension savings instead, or maybe other solutions)

We do not find reason to investigate further on this case, but we thank all the members who have blown the dust off their well-preserved documents from the 1990,s to contribute to the clarification.

MAF wishes all our members a good summer, hoping that the current manning situation will soon change for the better.
}, []);