Opinion ID: 702549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: maintenance benefit

Text: 24 Baldassaro also contends that the daily maintenance benefit, consisting of $8.00 a day during the time he was unable to work, was insufficient. The duty to provide maintenance attaches once the seaman enters the service of the ship and it is a duty that no private agreement is competent to abrogate. 31 The rate at which maintenance is to be paid is supposed to reflect the cost of food and lodging in a particular area, comparable to that received on board the vessel. 32 The right to maintenance cannot be abrogated, but it can be modified and defined by contract. [T]here is a fundamental difference between contractual regulation of the rate of maintenance payments and contractual elimination of such payments altogether. 33 Baldassaro claims that $8.00 a day is unreasonable and so insufficient as to abrogate his right to maintenance. 25 In a similar case the Third Circuit accepted the argument made by Baldassaro in this case and concluded that a seaman is not bound by a maintenance rate set in a CBA if he can show higher daily expenses. 34 The court relied on the principle announced in De Zon, indicating that a maintenance rate could be so low as to abrogate it, and the court relied on its conclusion that the labor laws do not preempt the traditional doctrine of maintenance rights. The court therefore concluded that the traditional doctrine allowing for maintenance could require a court to ignore the terms of a CBA. 35 26 Three other circuits have rejected this rationale and held that the CBA or contract controls. 36 This Circuit has not addressed this issue. We have awarded higher maintenance rates to seamen when there was no union contract. 37 27 We agree with the First, Sixth and Ninth Circuits. As the Ninth Circuit noted in Gardiner, Congress viewed collective bargaining as a key instrument in its effort to promote industrial peace ... [T]his court will not lightly embrace the repudiation of contractual obligations enumerated in a collective bargaining agreement and will 'choose the rule that will promote the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements.'  38 As in Gardiner, there is no allegation in this case that the CBA as a whole is unfair or that this seaman was not adequately represented by the Union. The adequacy of the maintenance rate should not be examined in isolation by the court because the determination of its adequacy in relation to the whole scheme of benefits has already been made by the union and the seamen who voted for the contract. 39 28 In conclusion, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Baldassaro's negligence claim as barred by the discretionary function exception, and the court's amended judgment with respect to Baldassaro's maintenance claim. 29 AFFIRMED.