Source: https://www.lipcon.com/work-in-progress/lindo-v-ncl-bahamas-ltd/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:28:16+00:00

Document:
HomeWork in ProgressLindo v. NCL Bahamas, Ltd.
Lindo v. NCL Bahamas, Ltd.
The attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, actively advocate on behalf of passengers and crewmembers aggrieved by ship owners. We take it upon ourselves to help shape the law in a way that protects individual’s rights. This is so important to the firm that Partner Michael Winkleman recently filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals. In this brief Mr. Winkleman explains to the court the dire necessity of protecting existing law so that cruise lines can be prevented from forcing their employees to arbitrate disputes under foreign law. Mr. Winkleman’s brief explains the implications of this, including denial of access to U.S. courts, denial of rights under U.S. statutory law, and the deplorable conditions allowing this change would encourage at sea.
The undersigned counsel of record for Amicus Curiae Port Ministries International, in compliance with FRAP 26.1 and 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1, certifies that the following listed persons, parties, and corporations have an interest in the outcome of this appeal.
1.Whether seafarers, long time wards of the admiralty courts, and a favored class by congress, should be subject to arbitration clauses which effectively deny them all of the rights afforded to them under U.S. law?
2.Whether the depraved conditions faced by foreign seafarers as a direct result of the enforcement of arbitration provisions, violate the longstanding policy of protecting seafarers as Wards of the Admiralty Courts?
Douglas Frantz, Sovereign Islands/ A Special Report; For Cruise Ship’s Workers, Much Toil, Little Protection, New York Times, December 24, 1999..18.
1.Whether seafarers, long time wards of the admiralty courts and a favored class by congress, should be subject to arbitration clauses which effectively deny them all of the rights afforded to them under U.S. law?
Deuteronomy Chapter 24, verse 14.
I.LIFE AT SEA FOR THE SEAFARER SINCE BAUTISTA; THE PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROVISIONS IN SEAFARER’S CONTRACTS.
Pursuant to FRAP 29(c)(3), Port Ministries International (“PMI”) is a thirty-six member association of seafarer’s ministries and individuals serving international seafarers with locations in many ports in the U.S. PMI’s purpose is evangelism and to meet the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of seafarers. As such, PMI comes face to face with foreign seafarers on a daily basis. They tell their stories; they share their hardships. It is the singular goal of PMI to make this Honorable Court aware of the practical realities faced by seafarers as a direct result of the enforcement of foreign arbitration provisions.
To start, PMI finds it troubling that the majority opinion in Lindo v. NCL makes no mention of the actual plight faced by foreign seafarers working aboard cruise ships. PMI respectfully asserts this exceptionally important issue should only be considered with the practical reality of seafarers in mind. This is not a cold, legal issue regarding the enforcement of an agreement between sophisticated businesses, this is the ‘life and death’ struggle of foreigners lured to work with U.S. based cruise lines with the promise of economic prosperity and the dire circumstances they then face.
The dissent by the Honorable Judge Barkett in Lindo recognizes the entrenched legal and legislative tradition of protecting seafarers as wards of the Admiralty Courts. In discussing the public policy exception at issue in Lindo, and specifically, whether the exception can be considered at the “agreement enforcement stage” or the “award enforcement stage,” Judge Barkett states sets out an “extreme example” that based on the majority opinion, “the Convention would require a court to compel arbitration in a dispute involving the sale of slaves, despite knowing full well that any resulting arbitral award would be unenforceable as a matter of public policy.” Lindo Opinion, p. 30.
Unfortunately, Judge Barkett’s “extreme example” is, in fact, the reality faced by seafarers as a direct result of this Honorable Court’s enforcement of foreign arbitration provisions in Bautista. Judge Barkett hit the nail on the head because the enforcement of these arbitrations provisions has become a green light to what is most akin to slavery on the high seas. What follows are examples of what really goes on at sea.
1. Post Bautista; the ‘Bait and Switch’ of Reshma Harilal; lured to the U.S. with the promise of one job, but forced to take a far lower paying job on arrival. And when she refused to take the lower paying position, Carnival refused to return her passport, refused to let her leave the ship and forced her to work against her will.
Ms. Reshma Harilal, a citizen of South Africa, was lured by Carnival to travel from South Africa to Florida to join a Carnival cruise ship to work in the position of Stateroom Stewardess. Harilal borrowed $1,800 to travel from South Africa to Florida to work on a Carnival cruise ship for a position she thought was guaranteed.
As soon as Harilal arrived in Florida and boarded the cruise ship, Carnival forced her to sign a “Seafarer’s Agreement” indicating her position was Stateroom Stewardess. Harilal had no choice to but to sign the Agreement because she believed that Carnival would not provide her job if she did not sign the Agreement. She understood that she had no bargaining ability with regard to the Agreement. To make matters worse, Harilal had to sign the Agreement because she had no money to get back home to South Africa. As such, if she did not sign the Agreement, she would be stuck in a foreign country with little or no money. Appx. 1.
After Harilal signed the agreement, Carnival informed her she would work in a lower position as an Assistant Stateroom Stewardess earning approximately $250 to $300 every two weeks instead of approximately $1,500 every two weeks as a Stateroom Stewardess. According to Harilal, approximately fifteen or sixteen other crewmembers in her department were also forced to work lower paying jobs. Appx. 1.
Harilal refused to work in the lower position at the lower rate of pay and requested Carnival return her passport so she could leave the cruise ship and try to return home. Carnival refused to return Harilal’s passport to her in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1592. Carnival forced Harilal to stay on board the vessel against her will. These events occurred while the vessel was docked at Port Canaveral, Florida, in the territorial waters of the United States.
On February 12, 2008, Harilal filed suit in the Southern District of Florida alleging violation of several U.S. statutes regarding Forced Labor, Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, and Unlawful Conduct with Respect to Documents in Furtherance of Trafficking, Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, or Forced Labor. Appx. 2.
2.POST BAUTISTA, THE CORE OF RCCL’S “EVOLUTION OF HOUSEKEEPING” IS FREE LABOR AND FORCED LABOR.
On May 27, 2011, Kenneth Downer, a Jamaican citizen, filed a proposed class action on behalf of all stateroom stewards aboard RCCL’s vessels (estimated at 2000 seafarers) for violations of the Seamen’s Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. §10313, and violation of Federal Laws against forced labor and/or Peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1595. Appx. 7. The complaint details two schemes created by RCCL which deprived its seafarers of their earned wages and forced them to work for free. Downer (referring to all class members) alleged: i) that RCCL created a fleet-wide system on its ships whereby the stateroom stewards were forced to pay other crewmembers from their own wages, in order to complete their job duties; and ii) that RCCL created a fleet-wide system whereby the stateroom stewards were forced to clean crew cabins without pay if they did not perform well.
Pursuant to their employment contracts, the vast majority of Downer’s wages were from tips received by passengers. For a seven (7) day cruise, Downer was, on average, entitled to receive approximately $1,100.00. Furthermore, under the contract, Downer was entitled to receive $50.00 per month paid directly as wages by RCCL. Accordingly, RCCL found a way to get free labor by forcing their own employees to pay roughly 15% of their own wages ($150 for two helpers each embarkation day) to get the job done on embarkation days.
As to the second scheme, starting around 2008, RCCL implemented a program referred to as “The Evolution of Housekeeping,” which created a rating system for stateroom stewards. Under the rating system, every two weeks, RCCL rated the stateroom stewards. And those stewards with the lowest ranking scores were forced to work, without pay, for two weeks or more, cleaning what was known as “the back of the house.” Cleaning the back of the house meant cleaning staff and officer staterooms, for free in direct violation of their contracts of employment. As part of the “Evolution of Housekeeping,” RCCL eliminated the positions which were previously responsible for cleaning staff and officer staterooms. RCCL designed this system so that at the end of every two week period there would be enough Stateroom stewards to perform the duties of the phased out positions. In other words, the stewards were effectively subject to forced, unpaid labor on a rotating basis.
In short, after Bautista, RCCL made some significant changes to its Housekeeping Department. First, RCCL forced its stateroom stewards to hire and pay roughly 15% of their wages to “helpers” on embarkation day. Second, RCCL eliminated positions and instead forced the stateroom stewards to do the same job for free. Apparently, to RCCL, the “Evolution of Housekeeping” is a nasty combination of free labor and forced labor.
This is the real, practical effect of this Honorable Court’s enforcement of these foreign arbitration provisions: Slavery and Forced Labor. This is also the exact type of unscrupulous conduct that the Seamen’s Wage Act was designed to prevent and deter. Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 572 (1982). And this is precisely why this Honorable Court should grant en banc rehearing in Lindo.
3. WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURS IN ARBITRATION. THE SAGA OF LOBO V. CELEBRITY.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1592
 §10313
 §1595
 v. 
 V.