"Vacation Pay" Held Not To Be A Wage Within The Meaning Of 46 U.S.C. §10313 And Collective Bargaining Agreement Reducing Union Members' "Vacation Pay" Valid Because It Does Not Deprive Union Members Of A Remedy For Recovery Of Wages.
STAVROS E. FANOS, On Behalf of Himself and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAERSK LINE, LTD., MAERSK SEALAND, A.P. MOLLER GROUP,MAERSK, INC., WILMINGTON TRUST, EXPANDER TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EXPEDITERTRANSPORT CORPORATION, EXPRESSER TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EXPORTER TRANSPORTCORPORATION, and EXTENDER TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-02-119
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFTEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2991
February 21, 2003, Decided
February 21, 2003, Entered
DISPOSITION: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment DENIED. Plaintiff's claims DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman brought the instant action for seamen's wages and penalty wages under 46 U.S.C.S. § 10313 against defendants, shippers and charters. The seaman moved for partial summary judgment and the shippers and charters moved to dismiss. The parties' relationship was governed, in part, by a collective bargaining agreement.
OVERVIEW: Defendant shipper successfully bid on a contract to provide ships and after the contract was awarded the charters agreed to bareboat charter each of the ships. The viability of the seaman's claim for wages and penalty wages depended on whether the vacation benefit provided in the collective bargaining agreement was a "wage" within the meaning of 46 U.S.C.S. § 10313. The court's narrow holding was that the seaman's vacation benefits, which were separate from his base wages and were payable some time after discharge through an independent entity upon application by the seaman, were not wages under 46 U.S.C.S. § 10313. Alternatively, the court held that even if the seaman's vacation pay were a wage, the seaman's wage penalty claim would fail because the pay was not wrongfully withheld. In agreeing to reduce union members' vacation pay by approximately one day per year, the seamen were not deprived of a remedy which the master or seamen otherwise would be entitled for recovery of wages. Vacation pay was not a "remedy" in this case, it was a contractual right, which was validly modified by an agreement between the union and the employers.
OUTCOME: The court granted the shippers and charters' motion for summary judgment and denied the seaman's motion for partial summary judgment and accordingly did not reach the shippers and charters' motion to dismiss.
