CREW MEMBER'S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST VESSEL OWNER SUCCESSFUL WHERE VESSEL OWNER TERMINATED CREW MEMBER WITHOUT EITHER PERMITTING HIM TO WORK DURING THE CONTRACT'S "NOTICE PERIOD" OR PAYING HIM FOR SUCH PERIOD OF TIME.
CAPTAIN HARTMUT RATHJE, et al., Plaintiffs vs. SCOTIA PRINCE CRUISES, LTD., Defendant
Civil No. 01-123-P-DMC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4078
March 13, 2002, Decided
DISPOSITION: Judgment entered in favor of Sjostrom and against Defendant on Count I of the complaint, in favor of Defendant and against Rathje and Persson, on the Plaintiffs' claim surviving summary judgment and against Defendant on all of Defendant's counterclaims.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, former captain, chief engineer, and superintendent, brought a claim in admiralty for breach of contract/wrongful termination against defendant vessel owner and a pendent state-law wage claim. The owner filed a counterclaimed against each plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty and a motion for summary judgment on their complaint.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs asserted that the vessel owner breached their respective employment contracts by wrongfully terminating them and by failing to pay them their wages and vacation and days off, which they would have earned or accrued had they worked for the notice periods contained in the contracts. The court granted in part and denied in part the vessel owner's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the pendent state law claim. The court entered judgment for the superintendent and against the captain and chief engineer on their breach of employment contract claim and for each plaintiff on the owner's counterclaims. The court found that the owner breached the notice provision of the superintendent's contract by terminating his job without either permitting him to work during the nine-month notice period or paying him for that time. As the captain and chief engineer resigned without the notice that was required by their employment contracts, they were not entitled to the notice-period pay. The owner's counterclaims failed because no evidence existed that plaintiffs had engaged in self-dealing or that they had failed to maintain properly the vessel's accounts.
OUTCOME: The court entered judgment for the superintendent on his breach of employment contract claim against the vessel owner and awarded him compensation. The court entered judgment for the owner against the captain and chief engineer. The court entered judgment for plaintiffs on all of the owner's counterclaims. The court granted the owner's motion for summary judgment in part and dismissed plaintiffs' pendent state law claim.
