The company that chartered the cargo ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was recently sanctioned by regulators for blocking its employees from directly reporting safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard — in violation of a seaman whistleblower protection law, according to regulatory filings reviewed by The Lever.
Eight months before a Maersk Line Limited-chartered cargo ship crashed into the Baltimore bridge, likely killing six people and injuring others, the Labor Department sanctioned the shipping conglomerate for retaliating against an employee who reported unsafe working conditions aboard a Maersk-operated boat. In its order, the department found that Maersk had “a policy that requires employees to first report their concerns to [Maersk]… prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities.”
I’m not involved in the industry in any way so I would obviously have no access to their contract, but if the contract stated Maersk was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the ship while it was chartered by them, then I can fully understand holding them at fault. That would be similar to us leading a car, for all intents and purposes, it’s our car and our responsibility to ensure it’s safe to drive, if we remove the brakes and kill a family of 6, that’s entirely in us. But going back to enterprise, I don’t look at the maintenance records and inspect if they fully or correctly installed the brakes before driving off the lot. And this is where I go back to not knowing shit about their contract, maybe it was in there and they neglected to perform an inspection, or maybe it was in there and the documents were altered, we might or might not find out in the future. My whole comment was that this reporter wrote this article as click- bait, Maersk may have been found to be silencing whistle-blowers, but it doesn’t seem to me like that has any bearing on this incident in particular.
There are different types of standard charter agreements in the shipping industry. In a “barebone” charter the ship is chartered without a crew and the company renting it is responsible for staffing, maintenance, etc. What Maersk used, at least according to sources reporting initially, was a time charter, where the owner of the ship provides the crew and maintenance, and Maersk only tells them where to go and what cargo to pick up, as well as providing supplies (e.g., fuel). So I agree that the reporting seems clickbaity and misleading.