BLOWOUT

Our darkest day rememberedPiper Alpha 25th Anniversary Special Edition

PIPER ALPHA 6 JULY 1988

Issue 86 • SUMMER 2013

BLOWOUT

Lest we forget

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

1

Editor:Jake MolloyProduction: RMT PublicationsAdministration:OILC BranchLetters to the Editor:Blowout wants to hear from itsreaders and all comments arewelcome, member or not. Lettersmust include writer’s signature andaddress. Letters may be shortened.Names will be witheld at writer’srequest.

Published by:RMT/OILC49 Carmelite Street, Aberdeen AB11 6NQTel: 01224 210118, Fax: 01224 210095, E-mail: blowout@oilc.org.

C O N T E N T S

Piper Alpha 25thanniversary special editionPages 2 – 5: Personal reflections ofJuly 6th 1988. We look back to thetragic night through the words ofoffshore workers.

Pages 6 & 7: In the aftermath ofPiper disaster the Offshore IndustryLiaison Committee (OILC) is formed.We reflect on those early days.

Page 8: RMT’s General Secretarytakes workforce concerns to the topof the HSE 25 years after Piper andthe creation of the Offshore SafetyDivision. Read Bob’s letter.

Page 9: HSE respond to RMTconcerns; and new training forSafety Representatives should allowthem to meet Lord Cullen’s vision.

Pages 10 & 11: Details of the newOPITO approved training courses foroffshore safety representatives.

Page 12: Politics with a wee ‘p’.Regional Organiser Jake Molloyargues trade union politics areholding back workforceengagement.

Page 13: OCA plot againstworkforce engagement. We look atthe OCA’s work on preventing tradeunions from providing a voice forworkers.

Page 14: Fire in the night. We bringour reflections of Piper and ourreview of what’s happened andwhere we are today to a close withnews of a film being released tomark the 25th anniversary of thetragic events.

Page 15: Aviation news. Good bye toan old friend.

Page 16: Philippines workersmitigate risk? We report on claimsabout exploitation of Filipinoworkers and the justification forbringing them to the UK sector.

Piper Alpha 6th July 1988ReflectionIn this special edition of Blowout we

look back to the tragic night throughthe eyes of workers who were offshoreat the time and who have sincecontributed to the ongoing debatearound improving health and safety inour sector.ReactionWe also look back to the reaction of

workers in the aftermath of the disasterand specifically to the creation of thecampaign group OILC. In its infancythe group made up - of workers andfor workers – took the lead in fightingfor improvements. Later it became atrade union in its own right and todayit is part of the National Union of RailMaritime and Transport Workers(RMT) forming the basis of the unionsOffshore Energy Branch.ReviewWe bring things up to date with

concerns raised in the last few weeksabout the restructuring of the Healthand Safety Executive and specificallythe creation of an “Energy Division”which will incorporate the OffshoreSafety Division. This distinct divisionof HSE came into being after the Piperdisaster and has overseen safetydevelopments in the sector since 1991.We also look at the issues which we

believe continue to hold realimprovement back, as inter unionpolitics and the resistance ofemployers to trade unions prevents thefull and meaningful engagement ofworkers in all aspects of theiremployment.RemembranceSee page 19 for details of the

“Rededication service” to be held atthe Piper memorial in Aberdeen’sHazlehead Park on Saturday July 6th.

Page 17: Extra work! Employers askyou to put the hours in, but at whatcost?

Pages 18 & 19: Briefly and yourletters.

Inside back: Membership form

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

2

This was the Piper Alpha platform before thedisaster. (Right) The platform was producingover 100,000 barrels of oil on July 6th 1988and there was around 33million cubit feet ofgas flowing over the installation.

Ronnie McDonald

Ihad found myself blacklisted byAMEC (yet again!) for trade unionactivities having been an OCA shop

steward on a couple of Brae Field hook-ups. I did manage to get offshoreemployment elsewhere, but I had nointention of taking this passively. Icontacted the national officer of the tradeunion signatory to the OCA agreementand brought his attention to what wasbeing done in his union’s name. As timepassed, word was passed down that Iwould be considered for employment onthe next hook-up, due to start later thatyear.And so it was that on the afternoon of

4 July 1988 I was instructed to mobilisenext morning to Shell’s Tern hook-up.Even after 25 years the dread is very realas I remember the other phone callreceived that day. Wood Group hadoffered me a place on the Piper Alphamaintenance contract just procured fromOccidental. I nearly said yes. Only theon-going rumpus to get re-employmenton the hook-ups caused me to pause.How close did I come to death?Actually, refusal of Wood Group’s offer

was as much due to my experience ofprevious employment with them. Then itwas a stingy uncaring outfit with ahistory of arbitrarily cutting the wages ofits offshore employees. Indeed, it was onthis very basis that the Occidentalcontract had been procured.Remuneration for Wood Groupoperatives was significantly less than theout-going contractor’s employees hadenjoyed.Of course, all the contractors were at it:

a big Dutch auction driving down payrates to hardly more than four pounds anhour in some cases. Bring your ownhardhat and boots. Buy your job bypaying for your own survival training. Notravel time, pay your own fares. Notknowing when, or to what extent, thenext pay cut would come. As for safety,the bosses had decided to gamble withthe lives of their offshore employees.Wood Group in 1988 epitomisedeverything that was rotten to the coreabout the offshore employment regime.It was with not a little relief that I toldthem to stuff it.The East Shetland Basin on the evening

of 6 July; my mate Jim and I had just

landed an 800 tonne module onto thesupport frame of the Tern jacket,effectively kicking off the Tern hook-up.With the weather benign and the moonshining, the expectation was that workwould continue through the night. But ataround 21.30 operations were suspendeddue to heavy radio traffic to the south.Piper Alpha was the source.News came down from the radio shack

in fits and starts, some of it notbelievable, but by midnight the sheerincredible enormity of the tragedy wasevident. In the couple of hours tomidnight between 150 and 180 of ourfellow offshore workers had been killed.Not able to take it in, I said to Jim, “Youknow, I was asked to go to Piperyesterday”. In sadness and shock, hereplied, “I’m not long off it”. He hadbeen run off due to the previousmaintenance contractor losing out toWood Group.In the days following I recollect Jim was

deeply affected. We all were, but he moreso. He had served on Piper Alpha for 4years and many of the dead were goodfriends. Others, neighbours in Aberdeen,had left behind families known to him.The process of change was at firstimperceptible, but did gather pace: thecollective awareness that the whole rottenregime had to change and that they asoffshore workers had a part to play inchanging it.

Ronnie McDonald is the former GeneralSecretary of OILC.

Personal recollections of 6 July 1988

Jake Molloy

Iwas working on the Brent Deltaplatform on the night of July 6th1988. I’d gone there in November

1986 after the Chinook disaster whichclaimed the lives of 45 workers, most ofwhom were off Brent Delta. I think thelads onboard Delta were only just aboutover that event when Piper happened.It was 9pm and I’d just finished my

obligatory 15-hour shift on the night. Itwas the only way to make any kind ofliving at the time, as after the 1986 oilprice crash wages were at an all time lowwhich for me was £4.25 an hour! Threehours on the end of a needle gun or elsepainting deck heads didn’t seem that badat the time and given we rarely had radioreception in our 4-man cabin, (no TV’sback then), the three hours a night gotyour time in.I had a shower and checked my phone

card, which you had to buy at the time,and I had about 4 or 5 minutes left on it.So I headed off to sit in the queue for thephone and on the way I passed the radioroom. Alex the radio op’ shouted; ‘Jake,there’s something happening down onthe Piper, reports suggest there could beas many as six guys dead after anexplosion!’ I went to the phone andcalled home, then on the way back to mycabin I stopped to listen at the radioroom to all the chatter on the emergencychannel. I only listened a few minutes asI remember thinking it was getting

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

3

serious and I didn’t need to know all thisbefore I went to bed.I went up to my cabin and as I pulled

the bunk curtains shut I told the ladswhat I’d heard at the radio room, therewas a silence. The morning brought aneven greater stunned silence around theplatform; as I headed for breakfast therewas a crowd around the radio in thelounge outside the mess, some with tearsin their eyes and gasping in disbelief –over 100 dead or missing – one ladturned and said.It was a day or two before the

newspapers started arriving and withthem came the first images of what wasleft of Piper. The question for most was;how could a platform just disappear?Then the lists of names of thoseconfirmed dead and missing started to beproduced; everyone knew someone, itwas a desperate time and the grief wasoverwhelming.Around the same time there was a gas

blast on the Brent Alpha and pictureswere circulated around. A few monthslater the Ocean Odessey had a blowoutkilling the radio operator. Any remaininggrief was turning to anger as workers,myself included, started to question thewhole safety regime of the industry. Bythe time a massive blast ripped throughthe gas compression module on BrentDelta on January 1st 1989, the ‘battlelines’ were being drawn up.

Jake Molloy is currently an RMTRegional Organiser and is the formerOILC General Secretary.

The fires take hold on Piper and already any chance of escape from the platform iscompromised by the direction of the smoke which is drifting over the helideck, the primaryescape route from any installation.

David Robertson

On the 6th of July 1988 I was dueto head home on field break aftermy 2-weeks of 15-hour shifts on

Brent Bravo, knackered! As was normalthough in the Brent Field at the time – itwas delay, after delay, after delay. As Iremember it we got off in the earlyevening, with absolutely no chance ofgetting to Aberdeen that night, but wewere heading for Shetland at least andmost likely Sumburgh, and best of all, wewere off! As it turned out we were divertedto Unst where we had to spend the nightat Britain’s most northerly hotel – thefamous or ‘infamous’ Hagdale Lodge. Ithad originally been an RAF radar stationwith accommodation cobbled onto it, notexactly the best ‘digs’ you could hope forbut nevertheless a place to get your headdown before the onward journey south toAberdeen in the morning and home. On the upside the Hagdale included a

cosy wee bar which was fine for the nightand an evening of jollification! We werejust relieved to be off the rig and a goodnight we had too! There was no TV oranything like that in the bar so we had noidea of what would await us in themorning. After a good night’s kip we were ready

for some breakfast in the morning beforestarting the journey home. This placebeing pretty remote and with staff sparseon the ground, we had to make breakfastourselves. Some of us went into thekitchen to make up toast for the lads andin there somebody noticed a wee portabletelevision and switched it on. The shockamongst the group of lads in that kitchen

As the fires develop the smoke increases and a dense black cloud of toxic fumes is engulfingthe entire accommodation area where many workers were already dying of smoke inhalation.This is why every installation today must conduct smoke and gas ingress tests on theiraccommodation modules.

Everyone knewsomeone, it was adesperate time andthe grief wasoverwhelming

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

4

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

that morning was something I’ll neverforget. We stood there in silence as wewatched the world’s worst oilfield disasterunfold before our eyes and Piper Alphadestroyed.Most of us knew we had friends and

workmates on the Piper that night, wewere construction, black trades and weknew there was a lot of work happeningon Piper. Breakfast didn’t matteranymore, we just wanted to get home. Itwas a long flight back to Aberdeen, itseemed longer than usual and it wasdeadly quiet. The normal craic youassociate with getting off seemed to diethat morning along with all those poorsouls on Piper. I had worked on the PiperAlpha myself, as I’m sure others in thegroup that morning had as well. In thissilence it was like everyone was alonewith their own thoughts and worries,some of them knowing they could havebeen there. There was a list of namesrunning through my head of who mightbe there and I was certain a few goodmates were gone. In the days and weeks that followed I

found out I was right about a few lads -and all I have now is seeing my oldmates’ names on the Memorial in therose garden when I visit Hazelhead Parkin Aberdeen. It was a really bad time forall offshore hands, but it did give us theincentive to do something about oursituation. The OILC was born as a directconsequence of this terrible event, anevent which had the most devastatingeffect on families from all over the UK.

David Robertson is a former OILCOrganising Committee member.

Mike Craig

On the night of the 6 July 1988 Ihad not long begun my offshorecareer as a Radio Operator and

my lack of confidence appreciated therelative quiet that a nightshift in theRadio Room would bring. I had little todo during my 12 hours on other thanprepare the reports that would be sent bytelex the following morning, arrange theodd ship-shore call home for a fellowcrew member, and observe the 3-minutesilence periods on the internationalcalling and distress radio frequency of2182 KHz.These 3-minute silence periods,

commencing every hour and half hourthroughout the day and night, wereallocated as such so that ships in distresswith weak signals could be betterreceived above the usual buzz of trafficthat would otherwise be heard comingfrom the various stations transmittingwithin a radius that spanned hundreds ofmiles at night. Like all those before it that evening, the

commencement of the 3-minute watch at

The OILC was born as adirect consequence ofthis terrible event, anevent which had themost devastating effecton families from all overthe UK

10pm was duly respected, and all thatcould be heard was the usual highfrequency hiss and occasionalelectrostatic crackle that was common bythat time of night. Two minutes of theperiod passed before the relative silencewas broken by a concerned transmissionto Wick Radio from the Master of theLowland Cavalier, broadcasting news ofthe first explosion on Piper Alpha.Thereafter, the radio operator on thePiper was heard sending a series ofalarmed Mayday messages, and thewhole horror of the disaster began tounfold. It was a long and harrowingnight, and in the morning, themagnitude of what had passed wasbecoming ever clearer. Despite an armadaof vessels searching the area, there wasn’tgoing to be any more survivors. Thedeath toll was enormous, the burns andinjuries of the survivors were horrendous.

I knew I wouldn’t sleep, but I still I layin my bunk thereafter. Numbed by theevents from the previous watch, thetransmissions on the emergency channelstill milling around in my head. Ireflected on the panicked messages fromthe R/O, bound by his duty to send themayday and felt a deep empathy with hisposition. I dearly wished he hadmanaged to escape the confines of what Ipictured the Radio Room to be. Iwondered if he was one of the ‘luckyones’ – as few as they were. I consideredwhat I would do in the same situation,and how I might try and escape; then thevery stark reality, that I had chosen a verydangerous industry to work in, hit mehard. I felt scared.This fear was further compounded 10

weeks later when Timothy Williams, afellow Radio Operator, was killed whenmy sister rig Ocean Odyssey blew up. Hewas ordered out of the lifeboat back tothe Radio Room by the OIM to continuecommunications, who thereafter orderedan evacuation of the rig, and left him todie.My training and expected duty in a

major event was no longer an exercise, itwas real, and so were the consequences.In retrospect, those early years,particularly during periods of sleep, werefraught with moments of terror assudden loud bangs and violentshuddering, common on rigs constructedof steel, would make my adrenalin rushin preparation for an event. Nonetheless,

The main gas riser bringing gas from the Tartan Alpha platform ruptures and a ball of fireengulfs the platform. Today, the Emergency Shutdown Valves installed on the risers of yourinstallations ‘should’ prevent this scenario occurring, assuming they are properlymaintained.

5

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

I reasoned that I needed the wages, andwould have to stick it out, but made apromise to myself that if I was ever in adodgy situation, I would look aftermyself and my shipmates as best I could.Some of you may be surprised to learn

that there was in fact a safety committeeon Piper Alpha the night it exploded, butit was a committee in name only. Beingcomprised exclusively of oil companystaff, the bulk of the workforce made upof contractors’ employees wereunrepresented. Without training, and inthe absence of effective regulations toprotect and empower them, and withoutan effective enforcement agency in placeat the time, the committee wasineffective. Indeed, many reps hadresigned in protest.Despite serious concerns from the

workforce about safety on Piper Alphawith its history of fire, explosion andindustrial death, no effective mechanism

existed for the workforce to address theserious issues that eventually caused thedisaster. This, combined with thecorporate greed of a company that paidonly lip service to safety, madecatastrophe certain.I firmly believe that if Piper Alpha had

had in place the elements to support anactive and functioning safety committeethen the disaster may have been averted.

The above is an excerpt taken from apresentation highlighting the importanceof developing effective safety committeesoffshore, given by Mikey Craig to SafetyRepresentatives at Murrayfield on the20th Anniversay of the Piper Alphadisaster. Previously, Mikey was a veteransafety rep, former Chairman of the OILCand elected member of the RMT Councilof Executives.

I firmly believe that if Piper Alpha had had inplace the elements to support an active andfunctioning safety committee then the disastermay have been averted

The Piper Alpha Memorial at HazelheadPark in Aberdeen, commemorates the 167workers who lost their lives in the PiperAlpha disaster.

All that remained of the once proud PiperAlpha on the morning of July 7th 1988 was

A Module, the well heads area of theplatform. The accommodation block along

with the rest of the platform lay on theseabed and 167 men were lost.

6

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

Insurmountable challenge? Why and when the OILC was

formed is clear enough. InDecember 1988 in Aberdeen

half a dozen workforce reps and three full-time union officialsmet with the employers to review the Offshore Construction(hook-up) Agreement. The employers were happy to recognisetrade unions during the construction and commissioning phasebecause it offered stable labour costs. However, on first oil, theunions were automatically derecognised and pay cuts imposed.Fair enough: times move on; the next project beckons. Except

that in the three-year period to December 1988 pay cuts hadbeen frequent and severe with hourly rates for skilled craftsmenhardly more than £4 per hour in some instances. Drilling andcatering employees were equally mistreated, whereas personnelemployed directly by the operators were not. It was obviousthat the offshore workforce needed effective unionrepresentation.Contractor employees (90% of the offshore total) soaked up

the abuse: to speak out was to invite NRB (not required back –arbitrary dismissal). The employers were blasé and made noattempt at the December 1988 talks to disguise their self-satisfaction saying the situation was not likely to change.Workforce reps were angry and the full-time union officialsconfessed powerlessness.Mind you, we did get a free lunch and

the employers on departing did leave thedrinks trolley in the room. However, thebevvy got declined and the tradeunionists instead spent the rest of theday discussing possibilities for a moredignified, safer and fairer future forcolleagues offshore.In the run up to the 1988 OCA talks

the union negotiators had againattempted to put safety on the agendabut the employers would have none of it.According to the employers the subjectwas outside the terms of the hook-up agreement. The samerequest by the unions in a previous year had similarly beenrefused. Safety is a matter for the operators, said the contracting

employers. None of your business, said the operators. Theshared presumption seemed to be that offshore workers shouldcarry on dying year in year out but have no right oropportunity to have a conversation about it. But Piper Alphahad changed this and workforce subservience on this particulartopic was no longer on offer.The roots of the safety fiasco offshore went deeper than just

plain neglect. The legislative position actually facilitatedmarginalisation of the workforce. In 1977 the SafetyCommittee and Safety Reps Regulations were the first madeunder the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act but wereexcluded from application offshore. The strenuous oppositionby the operators (UKOOA, now O&GUK) saw to that. Theyfeared that “trade unions would use the regulations as a ‘Trojanhorse’ to penetrate the industry”.UKOOA’s preference was for voluntary safety committee

arrangements. But where were the voluntary committees?Practically none had been formed in the 10 years to 1988 and,where they did exist they excluded contractors’ employees,some ninety per cent of the offshore population. Facts on theground told the story that the operators and contractors had

little interest in safety dialogue,voluntary or otherwise.Since the death of our 167 colleagues

killed on Piper Alpha the for-hire PR gurus and politicalapologists for the operators and contracting employers hadbeen busy crafting a narrative for public consumption that thecatastrophe had been unforeseen and unforeseeable. But theworkforce knew otherwise.The alternative workforce narrative emerged, slowly and a bit

fragmented at first. Intense media interest ensured that eachsuccessive incident, near miss or safety scandal was quicklyconveyed to an increasingly incredulous public. A rotten safetyregime overseen by a government department whose corefunction was to ensure uninterrupted production, andfundamental components of modern safety law deliberatelyexcluded: it was a European parody of a banana republic.Contractor employees were always conscious that jackets were

on shaky nails, often legitimately as requirements for servicesdid fluctuate. However, this tenuousness was amplified byfrequent rotation of employers who every one or two yearsferociously underbid each other in a race to the bottom. In thishire and fire regime employees were reluctant to speak out onsafety or any other legitimate issue. Marginalised unions

assured continued powerlessness. Intothis mix was thrown the NRB.What to do to make the trades unions

more effective? One obstacle was tradeunion credibility, not great in tea shacksup and down the North Sea. Bridges hadto be built to muster confidence in theunions. This would necessitate union-minded colleagues sticking their necksout and speaking up — a potentiallycareer-threatening mode of behaviour onmany production platforms and onvirtually every American owned drillingrig in the 1980s.

And so in December 1988 the OILC (Offshore IndustryLiaison Committee) was born to do exactly what the namesays: liaise between offshore workers and trade unions in a bidto kick start the campaign for basic human rights including theright of representation on health and safety. Regular well-attended meetings across the UK in 1989 and 1990 providedfresh opportunities for offshore workers to inform the tradeunions what was wanted.During the TUC conference in Blackpool April 1989 the

OILC presented its ‘one-table approach’ document thatpresented the apparently revolutionary notion that the seventrade unions, each describing itself as an ‘offshore union’,should work together within a coherent joint framework toorganise the offshore oil and gas industry.The operators and the contractors made it plain they had

no intentions of conceding trade union recognition beyondthe existing arrangements. The choice for the trade unionswas clear: remain in the trenches or come out and fight.Without exception the national officers of the various‘offshore unions’ said they were up for the fight — so long asOILC, and not them, led the troops over the top. This wasentirely understandable and acceptable because falling foulof the anti-trade union legislation could cause a union tohave its cash and assets sequestrated. OILC not at that time atrade union was immune from such attack and in any case

Ronnie McDonald

The operators and thecontractors made itplain they had nointentions of concedingtrade union recognitionbeyond the existingarrangements

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

7

didn’t have assets.Preliminary skirmishes in the form of

unofficial strikes offshore took place inthe summer of 1989 to very great effect.Alarmed, the oil operators led by Shellunderwrote spectacular pay hikes in anattempt to placate the workforce. In theseventeen-month period to April 1990,the Offshore Contractors Council (yes,the very ones who had cursorilydismissed the hook-up unions inDecember 1988!) trumpeted thatmember companies had awarded payrises in the period of forty-seven percent. Scaffolder and painter gradesachieved nearer seventy per cent.Staggering statistics!But the main goal of across-the-board

recognition for trade unions was as fardistant as ever. A procession of big guns from the labour andtrade union movement addressed OILC meetings up and downthe land urging the troops over the parapet in the upcomingencounter. On the eve of battle in mid-1990 one such FieldMarshall of the movement, Bill Morris, General Secretary of theTransport and General Workers Union, addressed 300 offshoreworkers in the AEU’s Glasgow halls. He argued justification forthe upcoming action (pursuit of an all-industry agreement)and pledged his union’s unequivocal support.The industrial action when it came was dramatic and burst its

way onto the national stage as few had done since the miner’sstrike of 1984-85. This assertion is made on the basis ofcolumn inch reportage in the London and Scottish-basedquality print media and on the extent of television and radiocommentary by national opinion-formers such as Panorama,Newsnight and the Jimmy Young Show on Radio 2, the UK’smost listened to radio programme. By all accounts OILC wonthe media war.But the real guts, the true heart of the dispute, were those

thousands of courageous and principled offshore workers whoput their livelihoods on the line in pursuit of fairness, justiceand a safer workplace.The unofficial strikes and the sit-in occupations of

installations offshore went on through the summer of 1990and were brought to an end by a civil action brought by Shellat the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Lord Cameron didn’t giveShell’s arguments based on a notion of trespass much credence.In fact at one point he was disparaging. Nevertheless hisLordship did order that the dispute be pursued onshore, andnot offshore, on a ‘balance of convenience’.A ‘balance of convenience’ means in non-legal language that

one party holds disproportionate advantage over the other andthe court should intervene to re-establish balance. Plainly Shellwas hurting and the OILC action was within an ace of a result,were Shell’s court pleadings to be believed. The court didbelieve. A year or so later in conversation with this writer asenior Shell executive remarked: “Had Cameron not evictedyou bl**dy lot on the Friday, we would have sanctioned talkswith unions on the Monday”.So, the unofficial actions of 1989 and again in 1990 did not

achieve the primary objective of getting unified trade unions aplace at the table (OILC didn’t want a place). However, it wasstill ‘game on’ and the holy grail of trade union unity offshore

was nearly secured during the 1991 TUCConference held in Glasgow. The universally respected Mr Alex

Ferrie, Confederation of Shipbuildingand Engineering Unions, (CSEU) offeredhis good offices to facilitate a similarinter-union institution for the offshoreindustry. All the national officers wereenthusiastic and prepared to commitexcept one, Jimmy Airlie of the AEU.Airlie’s priorities lay with winning the

inter-union competitiveness stakes andon that basis he scuppered the proposal,marking this as the very instant at whichthe main objective of the struggle — theone-table approach — toggled from‘project in progress’ to ‘failed’. The corpse did get a bit more flogging

over the summer of 1991 but Airlie wenton to sign his deal with the offshore contractors, calling a pressconference to announce that all along he had considered theOILC to be wreckers. Moreover, he regretted the ‘trouble’caused and made clear in the strongest vernacular terms that hehad played no part in it.Airlie’s OCA deal explicitly excluded collective bargaining just

at a time when a massive refurbishment programme hadcommenced offshore that was scheduled to last four years. Theoperators and the contractors above all craved industrial peace.So why did Airlie surrender that most cardinal of trade unionfunctions, the ability to bargain, just at a point whencircumstances had dealt him a potentially winning hand? Evenaccounting for the collapse of the one-table approach.Part of the answer is easy to find. OILC’s 1990 action had

contributed to a change in the law. The Employment Act 1990in effect now gave the trade unions ownership of any unofficialindustrial action carried out by members. The offshoreoperators and contracting employers would in future haveopportunities to sequestrate Airlie’s AEU in the event of furtherbelligerence on the part of the OILC. Repudiation of membersparticipating in unofficial action would be the union’s onlylegal defence. Airlie had decided to backdate his repudiation.To paraphrase, OILC had become “mad, bad and dangerous toknow”.The campaign for the ‘one-table approach’ failed. However,

evidence that it had been a goal worth pursuing is to be foundin the record of the Cullen Inquiry into the Piper AlphaDisaster. Two offshore unions, the T&GWU and the MSF jointlyfielded the legal team headed by the eminent Hugh CampbellQC. It was his forensic questioning of Occidental and thehapless Department of Energy more than any other that gaveshort shrift to attempts to portray the disaster as an aberrationin an otherwise well managed and adequately regulatedindustry. In this respect the unions can claim an importantcontribution to the reconstructed regime we find 25 years onfrom Piper Alpha.The seven unions of 1988 are in effect now three. Yet, incredibly,

the ‘one-table approach’ continues to elude, the offshore workerstill short-changed by the curse of inter-union competitiveness.Many unresolved and yet to arrive challenges confront offshoreworkers in the four decades remaining of oil and gas productionon the UKCS. Will a unified trade union approach to organisingthe industry forever be a challenge too far?

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

8

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

Judith HackettChair – Health & Safety ExecutiveRedgrave Court, Merton RoadBootle, Merseyside L20 7HS

22nd May 2013

Dear Ms Hackett

Impact of Health & Safety Executive restructuring on offshore safetyI write to formally raise with the HSE the serious concerns of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers over the

impact on the offshore safety regime of the recent restructuring of the HSE and the negligent manner in which we believe this processhas been handled. The RMT represent over 7,000 members who work in a variety of capacities and grades in the North Sea oil and gassector.As you will be well aware, in 2013 we commemorate the lives of the 165 offshore workers and 2 seafarers that were lost in the Piper

Alpha disaster of 6th July 1988. Following this catastrophic accident, the Thatcher government appointed Lord Cullen to inquire intothe causes and propose remedies to an offshore health and safety regime that contributed to what remains the worst accident, in termsof numbers of deaths, in the history of the offshore industry worldwide. The Cullen Report, published in November 1990, made 106 recommendations to improve and promote a health and safety culture

in the North Sea that would prevent the possibility of another Piper Alpha. The recommendations (23-26) around the offshoreregulatory regime are summarised below:• There should be a single regulatory body for offshore safety;• The single regulatory body should discharge the safety functions in relation to fire-fighting and life saving appliances;• The functions of the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy (DEn) which are concerned with the

regulation of offshore safety should in future be discharged by a discrete division of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) whichis exclusively devoted to offshore safety.

• This division should employ a specialist inspectorate and have a clear identity and strong influence in the HSE. The Thatcher government endorsed all 106 recommendations from the Cullen Report and the Offshore Safety Division (OSD) was

created within HSE as a direct result of this.It was with great alarm and dismay, therefore, that the union learnt at a meeting of the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee on 19th

March 2013 of the HSE’s intention to abolish the OSD and transfer the specialist offshore inspectors to a new Energy Division,comprising specialist inspectors from mines and gas and pipe installation, as well as offshore, with effect from 1st April.Prior to the announcement at this meeting, RMT was only aware of a general plan to restructure HSE with no details as to how it

would affect the safety regime for offshore workers. We cannot find any evidence of the HSE consulting trade unions or the offshore oiland gas industry over the planned abolition of the OSD and pooling of specialist hazardous industry inspectorates which directlycontradicts the Cullen recommendations that have been repeatedly endorsed and upheld by successive governments, both Conservativeand Labour. We note the recruitment drive underway in the HSE to attract new safety inspectors with offshore expertise, as well as the minimum

21% pay increase for offshore safety inspectors introduced in October 2012 and unprecedented in this time of austerity and ideologicalhostility toward the public sector from the government.However, we are also aware that HSE’s recruitment drive and pay increase are long overdue responses to longer term problems in terms

of morale and retention within the OSD. The abolition of the OSD will do absolutely nothing to improve the chances of these policiessucceeding. In fact, this hazardous move can only threaten the safety culture of continuous improvement that is vital to the offshoreregime and the specialist stand-alone inspectorate recommended by Cullen.You will also be aware of the imminent introduction of an EU Directive on offshore safety. Whilst this will not be as disruptive and

damaging as the EU Regulation on offshore safety originally proposed by the European Commission, a Directive will still requireadjustment of the legislative framework underpinning the offshore safety regime. For example, the HSE’s work in enforcing the offshoresafety regime in the North Sea will feed into a mandatory EU Offshore Authorities Group and the HSE will be required to be moretransparent over the work it conducts in response to accidents in the offshore sector and the measures in place to prevent them.As a result, the HSE’s actions in this matter are at best premature. In reality, however, RMT fear that the break with the Cullen legacy

represents a threat to the safety of the offshore workforce. Indeed, a recent survey of 5,000 offshore workers by industry recruitmentcompany OilandGasPeople.com reveals that 75% of the workforce believes that abolishing the Offshore Safety Division will undermineoffshore safety. In addition, 62% of respondents thought that the end of the OSD would make another Piper Alpha more likely. The repeated problems this year with the Cormorant Alpha platform and the prolonged major gas leak from Total’s installation in the

Elgin field in March 2012 confirm the importance of a dynamic, preventative and specialist safety inspectorate in the offshore sector.They also illustrate that the importance of the OSD or similar stand alone inspectorate within HSE can only increase as the infrastructurein the North Sea oil and gas sector starts to creak with age.RMT calls upon the HSE to take the appropriate steps, with immediate effect, to re-establish a specialist safety inspectorate for the

offshore sector, with a separate identity and workforce, as proposed by Cullen. We look forward to your early reply on this serious issue.

Yours sincerelyBob Crow, General Secretary

Offshore Safety Division – no more!In our recent edition of Enough is Enough we expressed our concerns about the recent change to the structure of the HSEand specifically the change which will see the Offshore Safety Division become a part of a newly created “Energy Division”.Our concern was aired at the recent STUC congress and the entire union movement supported an emergency motion

condemning the change. At a National level our union has now opted to take the matter to the top of the HSE and below wereproduce the letter sent by our General Secretary, Bob Crow.

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

9HSE response

“Jake Molloy makes a number of points about theimplications for offshore safety of a recent reorganizationwithin the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). He says thecreation of an HSE Energy Division, by far the largest part ofwhich will deal exclusively with offshore safety, is a profoundchange to offshore inspection, investigation and enforcement.It isn’t.All HSE’s offshore programmes are completely unaffected by

the change. These programmes are a matter of public recordcontained in HSE’s business plan. Jake goes on to say that thechange will dilute the expertise of offshore inspectors. Theopposite is true. The new division will supplement expertise bythe addition of on and offshore pipeline experts.Jake says there will be a reduction in expertise. But HSE has

been, and remains, committed to expanding its offshore

In response to Jake Molloy’s column in the Daily Record, Aberdeen edition, where Jake expressed concerns about thechanges to HSE, we reproduce below the “right of reply” from the HSE;

specialist resource. We are advertising for such posts currently.Finally Jake fears that this signals a downgrading of theimportance HSE attaches to offshore safety. It doesn’t.The Cullen report was, as Jake says, a key moment in offshore

safety. But he focuses on three out of a total of 106recommendations, and this minor internal reorganization doesnot put HSE’s implementation of the whole Cullen ‘package’ injeopardy.According to most national and international assessments

made in the wake of Deepwater Horizon, we have a world classregulatory regime, which is being now adopted as the modelfor Europe. Our commitment towards a safe workingenvironment for offshore workers remains as strong now asever.”

HSE Deputy Chief Exec Kevin Myers.

And not a minute too soon!

In our last edition we reported on aseries of ‘pilot’ courses which wereto be run with a view to developing

a ‘standard’ for developmental trainingfor Offshore Safety Representatives.This would be the first recognisedstandard applied to any SafetyRepresentative training since thecreation of the five-day basic coursewhich accompanied the “OffshoreInstallations (Safety Representativesand Safety Committees) Regulations1989” (SI971) introduced in late 1989,as a direct consequence of the PiperAlpha disaster.We are delighted to report the

OPITO ‘standard’ has now beendeveloped and the courses havealready begun. What’s more, thecourses are being run by Det NorskeVeritas (DNV) one of the mostrecognised verification authorities onthe planet! These people ensure theoperators of your installation arecomplying with their safety obligationsas set out in their respective safetycases, so who better to train our SafetyReps in the skills of identifying MajorAccident Hazards; Understanding riskassessment; Carrying out inspections;and investigating incidents.As far as we’re concerned this

training hasn’t come a minute toosoon, in fact if we’re being honest we’dargue it should have come nearly 25

years ago! However, in light of what ishappening with the Offshore SafetyDivision of the HSE right now, there’s apressing need for well informed, welleducated, confident and competentSafety Representatives like never before.The HSE didn’t visit your installationthat often in the past and we fear theirvisits will only reduce still further withthe restructuring reported elsewhere inthis edition.In the aftermath of the Piper Alpha

disaster the SI971 regulations gaveworkers certain powers and functionswhich had never previously existed; thepower to conduct investigations; thepower to carry out inspections ofinstallations; the power to assess risksand make representations to theinstallation manager up to andincluding the right to force the OIM toregister concerns with the HSE. Whenwas the last time you saw your SafetyRep exercise these powers? And if you’rea Safety Rep reading this; when was the

last time YOU used any of these powers?The findings of Lord Cullen’s Inquiry

into the Piper disaster are crystal clearand resonate as powerfully today as theydid all those years ago. At para 21.74, Hestates;

“The representation of the workforcein regard to safety matters is importantnot merely for what it achieves oninstallations but also for the effectwhich it has on the morale of theworkforce – in showing that their viewsare taken into account and that theyare making a worthwhile contributionto their own safety. For this purpose it isclearly advisable to have statutoryprovisions which are well known,universally applied in similarcircumstances and effective inoperation.”You can’t make a “worthwhile

contribution” if you’re not familiarwith the most basic of principles putin place to safeguard you and yourcolleagues. We suggest you to take thefollowing pages of this edition ofBlowout along to your next SafetyCommittee meeting and tell yourSafety Committee Chairman and theother Safety Reps that this is the kindof training each and every one of youshould be undertaking. And youshould emphasise this is not for yourpersonal benefit; it’s for the benefit ofeach and every worker and for thebenefit of installation owners!

Safety Rep Training

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

10

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

11

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

12 Politics with a wee ‘p’On May 9th this year our Regional

Organiser was asked to address aConference organised by

Aberdeen University looking at thePolitics of Oil and Gas in a ChangingUK. Jake Molloy was the only tradeunion speaker over the two days, albeitthere were a few trade unionistsattending along with politicians,academics, industry reps and the publicat large as it was open to the public. Jake told the audience he was going to

talk about the ‘politics’ of oil and gasfrom a workers perspective lookingspecifically at ‘engaging’ oil and gasworkers. Before doing so he made thepoint the views he would express werehis own, and not those of the tradeunion movement. Jake felt he wasreasonably entitled to hold these viewsas he’d been around the industry forover 30 years and for much of that timehe’d been ‘banging the drum’ aboutworkforce engagement. He told theaudience; “The engagement of theworkforce is fundamental to bringing aboutimproved performance both in terms ofproductivity and moreover, in a majoraccident hazard industry like the offshore oiland gas industry, enagagement will deliver asignificant improvement in safetyperformance.”

To achieve meaningful engagementwith workers Jake suggested the ‘politics’had to be dealt with and the Politics hewas referring to had a capital ‘P’ as wellas a lower case ‘p’. The capital ‘P’ he saidwas health and safety regulation andemployment law legislation - or‘government dictated’ politics. The wee‘p’ was the ‘politics’ of trade unionrelations with employers and theorganising of workers. He argued that health and safety

matters and industrial relations issuescannot be ring fenced as two separateand distinct aspects of employment,because they are inextricably linked. Theworking time argument around rest, paidleave, and working hours was just oneexample of this. He said he thereforefound it incomprehensible that we canhave a health and safety representativesystem which is built on the principal ofdemocracy; where Safety representativesare elected by their peers; whilst at thesame time those same workers areexcluded from any form of democraticprocess to select and or elect trade unionrepresentation of their choice! Jake told the audience; “there are almost

30,000 offshore workers employed in thesector today; of that number around 75%

are ‘supposedly’ covered by trade unionrecognition agreements providing forcollective bargaining. However, not one ofthose workers has ever had the opportunityto decide if they wanted to be represented bya trade union nor indeed were they giventhe right to decide which union! In myhumble opinion this is tantamount to adenial of basic human rights and it certainlydefies several International LabourOrganisation conventions on the right ofassociation and organising.”Several existing recognition

arrangements were put in place by theemployers with their preferred unionpartners for the sole purpose ofexcluding workers from the process, Jaketold Conference. He went on to say thiswas and remains a fundamental failureto engage workers, and that the offshoreworkforce was indisputably being denieda voice in one of the biggest singledecisions affecting them in this industry.He told delegates that Government

legislation on trade union rights, andspecifically the Employment RelationsAct 1999 was flawed, as it allowed thepeople being affected by it, theworkforce, to be excluded from theprocess of deciding on trade unionrecognition. This in turn meant thatcollective bargaining arrangements wereweakened due to the fact workers weren’tand still aren’t involved. Jake said; “ifthere was meaningful engagement andinvolvement of workers they could exertgreater influence over issues such as thosewhich currently divide workers, and believeme there are far too many to mention here.Suffice to say the existing arrangementsallow employers to effectively applydiscriminatory practices in virtually everyaspect of employment from pay to pensions,sick pay to leave entitlement, promotion andredundancy selection!”The effect of the existing weak

arrangements is an imbalance in power,he claimed, which served as a significantdeterrent to meaningful engagement of

workers. Put simply; if a worker feels hispromotional prospects could be affectedor worse still his continuingemployment could be in jeopardybecause they challenge an instruction,are they likely to challenge, he asked?With meaningful engagement in all

aspects of employment workers coulddrive the safety agenda to greater effect.Being fully involved would bring about agreater balance of power and wouldlegitimately allow workers to raise andaddress health and safety issues. With animproved balance of power workerswould be more willing to air issues andexisting fears about retribution could bedispelled. Remember, Jake said, thisindustry has been stalked from day oneby the fear of NRB – Not Required Back.He acknowledged the unions hadworked with the industry to put in placea process to provide redress should thisoccur today, but he claimed that a robustcollective agreement would go muchfurther than a ‘guidance’ document.With meaningful engagement comes

confidence and with confidence comes adesire to learn and get involved heargued. And if there was any doubtabout the need to improve workforceengagement we need only consider thefact that today the offshore industrycontinues to see the need to improveworkforce engagement as a major issueto be tackled, and that’s 25 years afterthe event which put us on that road, thePiper Alpha disaster.Jake concluded by saying he felt there

was no political will to changeregulation and legislation at agovernment level, either now or withScottish independence. This means weare reliant on the employers and theirunion partners to change the politicswith a wee ‘p’ and make a difference forworkers. Considering the content of thefollowing article – OCA plot to avoidworkforce engagement – we don’t seethat happening any time soon!

Jake Molloy, Regional Organiser

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

13

In a memo seen by the RMT EnergyBranch we’ve found the OCA tryingto warn offshore employers about the

risk of trade unions gaining recognition!That’s right, the OCA want to ensure thatoffshore workers never ever have a voiceand a meaningful input into mattersaffecting their day to day conditions ofemployment, as that’s just a step too farwhen it comes to ‘engaging workers!Some readers might struggle with thatidea, after all the OCA has the“Partnership Agreement” with theirpartner unions, the unions of theirchoice. So who are they plotting against?To help explain we’ve lifted a fewextracts from the OCA memo whichmight help you understand what theOCA was doing just a few weeks backand in this Piper anniversary year;

“OCA, in collaboration with PinsentMasons LLP, cordially extend a warminvitation to an informative and topicalEmployment Law Seminar, to be held onWednesday 8 May 2013 in the EuropaLounge, Pittodrie Stadium, Aberdeen,commencing with Registration at 08:45.Hot Rolls, Tea and Coffee will be availableon arrival.

Our Guest Speakers will be discussingamongst other subjects, Union Recognitionand the possible impact on the Oil and GasIndustry:

Relevant legislation –TULRCA 1992 –states that a union cannot make a validstatutory recognition request if anotherunion is already recognised (to any extent)for collective bargaining purposes. This wasthe basis of the successful defence to anapplication taken by the OILC seekingrecognition by an OCA member some 10years ago.

However the Central ArbitrationCommittee recently ruled this exclusionbreached the right to freedom of associationunder Article 11 of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights.

They have since rewritten the legislation sothat a recognition agreement with one tradeunion will only block another union’srequest for statutory recognition if it coverscollective bargaining on pay, hours of workand holidays – any other form of recognitionshort of this doesn’t count.

There are some additional aspects to thenew case relevant to the Oil and GasIndustry which may not be immediatelyobvious:

• The QC appearing for the Union seeking recognition was John Hendy who also appeared for the OILC.

• The argument which succeeded in the new case was that this law is about substance - not form. If there is no clear link between an existing collective agreement and the key clauses in employees' individual contracts of employment then the existing collective agreement should not bar an application for recognition.

• This was in essence the same argument that Hendy used originally but without success for the OILC.

• His success in the recent case might encourage him (or the Union) to think that the prospects for the same argumentsucceeding have improved.

The essential point for Members ofEmployers’ Associations is that as Employers,they must be able to demonstrate anyindustry collective agreement such as theOCA Partnership Agreement affects itsterms and conditions of employment. Ifthey are unable to do so, the industrycollective agreement may be insufficient tobar an application for recognition.

The Union movement is activelydiscussing the ramifications of the decision;Employers need to be aware of the new risk.It is recommended Employers ensure theyhave sufficient evidence available so theycan demonstrate at all times the linkagebetween the OCA Partnership Agreementand their Employee's Terms and Conditionsof employment.”

So there you have it; the OCA arewarning all of their member companiesand any other companies prepared tolisten about the risk of a union likeOILC which is now RMT of coursemaking an application for recognition.You have to understand the context ofthis; the employers are trying to ensurethat workers, their own employees,don’t ever gain a voice and that theyare denied their basic human rights toassociate with whom they want andorganise as they see fit!This ‘seminar’ and its purpose tells you

once again what we have been saying for

Offshore Contractors plot toavoid workforce engagement?

longer than we care to remember;workforce engagement with this industrywill only be tolerated if it is controlledby the employers. For the employers toachieve that, they need to have in placesome kind of arrangement which willprotect them from real and meaningfulcollective bargaining. We don’t have tosay it again - you know who is providingthe protection for the employers! Is this the kind of trade union

collective bargaining members of Unite,GMB and everyone else across the sectorwants? Does the average trade unionmember working alongside a fellowtrade union member want employersusing them and their unions to denythose workers their basic human rightsand prevent them from challenging theinjustices which continue? As tradeunion members across this sector,irrespective of which union you’re amember of, the concept being promotedby OCA should outrage you! What theOCA is doing here flies in the face ofeverything WE as trade union membersstand for.We hear a great deal about ‘workforce

engagement’ in this industry and howworkers can only make a difference ifthey are truly engaged and working in a‘culture’ which promotes this. What theOCA is doing here fundamentallyundermines that very principle.

For the employers toachieve that, they needto have in place somekind of arrangementwhich will protect themfrom real andmeaningful collectivebargaining. We don’thave to say it again - youknow who is providingthe protection for theemployers!

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

14

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

9

VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

15Those Magnificent Men . . .

T his will be our last “Magnificent men” article, as amark of respect for the man who wrote most of it overthe last 15 or 20 years, Mr Jim Ferguson, Aviation

Journalist. Jim was a great supporter of Blowout, OILC andlatterly RMT believing as he did that workers had to beinformed about aviation aspects of offshore operationsbecause it made up a significant part of the risk they faced.Jim Ferguson sadly passed away on March 28th 2013 at the

age of 74. Jim began writing about aviation services in the late 1960’s

having previously been in the Royal Navy where his firstposting was the Royal Navy Air Station Lossiemouth, before hebecame part of the Fleet Air Arm. He had other postings butleft the service after an accident. His heart was always with themilitary and specifically aviation, so when the offshore oil andgas industry pitched up on his door step flying countless typesof machines into the sector, Jim found an opportunity topursue what he enjoyed most and began writing.Jim loved nothing better than digging out all manner of

information about fixed-wing and helicopter issues in theoffshore sector and beyond. He had a special interest in thesearch and rescue side of things, but as a former crewman ofthe Aberdeen Lifeboat that was no surprise. Jim regularlycontributed to other publications like Flight International andRotor and Wing magazines while making regular contributionson BBC and STV along with local radio.Away from his writing Jim supported the Royal Navy Lifeboat

Institute (RNLI) and acted as a press officer for the group right

up until he died. He had served as lifeboat crew for 15 years,he was a life Govenor of the RNLI and had been awarded itsGold Badge.Jim’s advice and guidance to Blowout will be sorely missed,

he was a true friend and advisor to our union and our heartfeltcondolences are extended to his wife Linda.

Heli-updateBlowout will run a section “Heli-update” in future looking at

Helicopter Safety and briefly for this edition our RegionalOrganiser Jake Molloy had this to say;

I’m going to miss Jim Ferguson, he was great guy to have aroundand to use as a sounding board for offshore issues. My thoughts arewith his family.On the helicopter front, and I’m sure Jim Ferguson would

agree, all the press stuff recently about Eurocopter beingconfident the EC 225’s will make a return to service in mid Julyis little more than speculation by the press! Eurocopter havesaid they are confident they’ve determined the root cause of theproblems they face with the aircraft, but that DOES NOT meanan immediate return to service.The Regulators, in the form of the CAA, will decide whether

to lift a restriction (they are not grounded) placed on theaircraft based on Eurocopter’s findings. If they do this, theHelicopter Safety Steering Group (HSSG) which I sit on willmeet to discuss this and how best to engage with the workforceabout the findings. For regular updates on current helicopterissues I suggest you visit; hssg@stepchangeinsafety.net

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3

16

VISIT w

ww.si971

.com

Philippines workers mitigate risk?Amec have denied claims that their Filipino workers

brought in for the ConocoPhillips Jasmine platformhook-up are being exploited as cheap labour. Amec has

defended using up to 70 employees from the Philippines onthe hook-up and commissioning, arguing they agreed withtheir trade union partners – Unite and GMB – that they wouldbe paid market rates.A number of workers on the project have contacted our

Aberdeen office and raised concerns that Filipino staff arebeing employed as cheap alternatives to UK or EU workers.Several callers have claimed the Filipino staff, working a 3-weekon, 3-week off rota, are only receiving $900 US per week withno field break pay and from that income they have to payvarious agencies bringing their return downsignificantly.Amec confirmed to

the press that they have38 Filipino personnelthrough the V-Shipsagency to work aspipefitters and platers.They’ve also confirmedup to 30 more areworking ascommissioningtechnicians (Elec, Mechand Inst) for a subsidiaryof Amec, an outfit calledQedi.Amec are adamant the

international workers arenot receiving lower ratesthan UK employees andthat pay rates andemployment terms havebeen agreed between Unite and GMB and the OffshoreContractors Association (OCA), using the collective OCA payagreement for minimum terms.UK platers and pipefitters covered under the OCA agreement

should be paid at Category B rates and should receive aminimum of £247 per day (or the equivalent of $370) as wellas Field Break entitlement on top of that. The Oil and Gasjournal “Upstream” ran the following statement;

“Amec said the workers all have the required competency levels andadded: “The total remuneration of the Filipino workers is in linewith OCA rates — i.e. rates for UK or EU workers.

“All personnel engaged, whether from the UK or from overseas, areemployed according with the OCA with all personnel, includingcommissioning, being paid competitive market rates.”

Unite regional organiser Wullie Wallace said he was not awarethat international workers were receiving less pay than UK workers.

The international labour element on the project represents about5% of the 1400-strong labour force. Amec said the employment ofoverseas personnel on this North Sea project was “a contingencyexercise to mitigate risk... to deliver the job safely and on time forthe customer”.

The overseas workforce would be used in the short-term to meetpeak labour requirements and the company remained committed tousing UK labour, it said.

A spokesperson for the UK contractor said recruitment for theJasmine project had entailed a “huge co-ordinated programme of

advertising, road shows and working in partnership with the GMBand Unite unions”.

Both Amec and the Unite union said the campaign to recruit UKlabour had been more successful than anticipated and that lessinternational labour than expected was being used.”So the good news is, Amec and their Union partners believe

the campaign to recruit UK labour was more successful thanthey had anticipated otherwise there would have been moreworkers from the Philippines on the job! We’re not sure all thepeople sitting at home either redundant or on minimum standby rates would agree with that. We’re also puzzled by thestatement from Amec about the use of Filipino labour being a

“contingency exercise tomitigate risk”, what ‘risk’are we talking about? Thenagain, perhaps it’s the riskof having to pay UK rates!We don’t get this and we

don’t agree there is a skillsgap which warrants theuse of labour from halfway around the world.This shouldn’t beconstrued as some kindof nationalistic,xenophobic, or racistposition, it isn’t. Weknow we have membersout of work andmembers sitting athome on stand by ratesand barely able to getby. We know there are

hundreds of young people desperate to get astart in the industry and spending a small fortune on survivalcourses, medicals and all the rest. This is the UK sector where‘big oil’ is exploiting the resources of this country and ‘big oil’should be compelled to spend just a small proportion of theirmassive profits on the people whose resources they areexploiting. Investment in people we call it and given thatcountries like the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and manyothers apply this approach, where even British workers can’t geton the job, then why can’t we apply the same approach on theUK patch? Our RMT colleagues in the shipping sector have seen the

effect of so-called ‘short term contingency’ exercise approachdown the years. This rapidly becomes a race to the bottom asunscrupulous employers seek to reduce costs by exploitingthese poor unfortunate workers while at the same timedumping UK workers. There used to be a ‘pool’ of Britishseafarers who could reasonably rely on work being availablewith a number of different employers. They would movearound these employers as and when they were requireddependent on activity levels of any one employer.We find it astonishing that an ‘association’ of employers the

size of OCA couldn’t collaborate to utilise the unquestionable‘pool’ of workers that exists sitting at home on stand by. Wealso believe launching a real and meaningful campaign torecruit workers would easily have delivered the numbersrequired. And finally the Offshore Energy Branch has to say it’sdisappointing to say the least, that our union colleagues neverthought to try and collaborate with their fellow TUC affiliatesto explore ways of putting UK workers on to this project!

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

17

Y ou’ve got to laugh at these tactics by Wood Group PSNtrying to encourage workers to do additional weeksoffshore – if you didn’t laugh you’d cry!

We spent years in the courts fighting to secure paid leave underthe Working Time Directive, but moreover trying to reduce theannual working hours per year any worker could face. This wasn’tto stop workers actually working additional hours, it was to ensurethey had adequate time to rest and recuperate from what is alreadyan excessive amount of annual hours, almost 500 more than mostother UK workers.So, without any consideration of the risk through fatigue, stress,

or any other aspect of working long hours, WGPSN see fit to enticeworkers to do more! Not only that, in most cases the return fordoing these additional hours will likely be paid at the ‘going rate’under the OCA agreement, which is straight time! So the familiesof workers see these enticing flyers dropping through the door andput a bit of pressure on Dad (or Mum) to go out and do some

extra time to get that holiday or pay for that car, whatever!Our Norwegian colleagues have a contracted annual working

year agreed under a robust collective agreement and limitingworking hours to around 1600 a year. They can however workadditional hours of “overtime” (which is what WGPSN are askingpeople to do - overtime) and our Norwegian colleagues are paidalmost double time for doing so. The maximum they can work inany one year is around 1900 hours which is regulated throughHealth and Safety law. The UK counterpart works 2,184 hours on a2x2 shift pattern. There’s just no comparison with what WGPSNare doing!Like we say; we’ve got no problem with workers doing additional

hours if they are safe to do so. However, we do have a problemwith workers doing excessive hours and selling themselves short bydoing those hours at basic rates! This is especially the case whenthere are fellow workers looking for employment or sitting athome on a pittance of stand by pay!

Extra work!

These additional hours will likely be paid at the ‘going rate’ under the OCA agreement, which is straight time!

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.si971

.com Briefly . . .

Norway hikes up the taxes!

Norway is increasing taxes on theoil industry to help finance taxcuts for mainland businesses and

traditional export industries. This hasbrought an outcry from the oil industrywith threats of pulling the plug onmarginal projects and the usual outcrylike some kind of repetitive strain injury -“Stability and predictability”. In Norway the tax rules dictate that the

state coffers foot 90% of the bill for anyoverruns on any new projects in thesector. In the Norwegian budget bill for2013, the government estimated that ofthe 24 on-going oil and gas projects14.4% were over budget which accountedfor an estimated $8.5 billion inadditional costs which the governmenthas to pay.We think it’s a bit hypocritical of the oil

companies to be complaining aboutpaying more tax when they are enjoyingrecord oil prices and record profits. TheNorwegian government has obviouslyseen through the smoke and mirrorsbeing used yet again by these profitmonsters, despite their multi milliondollar lobbying tactics.In this country we keep hearing about

“everyone being in this together”; but thisdoesn’t seem to apply to big oil as theirmantra appears to be; “we’re in it forourselves”. Tax avoidance, fixing the oilprice market, paying themselves bumperbonuses which you’d need an HGV tocarry, it is a never ending cycle ofprofiteering and greed.When the Norwegian government raises

the taxes on the industry so it can helpthe nation during tough times the oilcompanies start firing up the rhetoricabout sustainability and fiscal stabilityand investment. But really it’s more to dowith seeing their massive profitsdropping buy a few percentage pointsand their big bonuses dropping a fewdollars.The Norwegian Prime Minister Jens

Stoltenberg said; “when times are good,as they are now, it is important that wedo not sit back and believe that thingswill just continue along the same trackby themselves. So we are making thesechanges now to prevent anotherdownturn, to reduce the split in Norway’seconomy and to stop the tax base fromshrinking.”Now clearly we don’t believe in taxing

the industry to the hilt, as our membersjobs are at stake and we have to work to

protect the income of our members andensure sustainability of employment. Butthat’s because of the UK’s strategy inexploiting oil and gas in our sector whichis grab it as quickly and cheaply aspossible! The Norwegian way of controlover developments ensures sustainabilityas it is done with this in mind. So weagree with the Prime Minister ofNorway’s statement, that the industryshould be able and willing to contributea bit more when times are good so thatNorway as a whole can benefit from theincreased revenue. If only the UK had apoliticians like Mr Stoltenberg and astrategy like Norway generally.

Objectivity in question

Amember who claims to havewritten to the Aberdeen Press &Journal on countless occasions has

asked that we produce the article belowwhich ran in the Private Eye earlier thisyear. Always happy to accommodatemembers where we can;

For several years Scotland has watched areal-life ‘Local Hero’ drama in the form ofDonald Trump’s plan to create “the world’sgreatest golf course” near Aberdeen – the bigdifference being that the risibly coiffed tycoonhas yet to turn into Burt Lancaster.

Throughout this epic contest between localresidents and American megabucks, theDonald has no stauncher defender than thedialy ‘Aberdeen Press & Journal, which ranpictures of all the councillors who votedagainst the planning application under theheadline “You Traitors”.

In December 2009 the paper announcedthat it would no longer report anything saidby Tripping Up Trump, a protest group, as itwas not “bona fide”. Whenever Trumphimself does or says anything, by contrast,the ‘Press & Journal’ clears its fron page forgushing reports, often embellished withquotes from one Sarah Malone, executivevice-president and press spokeswoman for theTrump International project inAberdeenshire.

Malone came to prominence when she waschosen by the local ‘Evening Express’ as “theface of Aberdeen” in a 2007 beauty contest.The editor of the ‘Evening Express’ at thetime was one Damian Bates, who has sincebecome editor of the ‘Press & Journal. Lo andbehold, two weeks ago Batesmarried…..Sarah Malone.

How can the editor of the biggest-sellingScottish daily broadsheet even pretend tooffer objective coverage of the golf-coursecontroversary when his wife is Trump’s spin-doctor? Perhaps Lord Justice Levenson willlook into it.Our member claims the P&J applies the

same level of ‘objective’ journalism to theoil and gas industry, but we couldn’tpossibly comment on that.

18

LettersThe good, the bad and the downrightobstructive!There are undoubted areas of best

practice when it comes to SI971 SafetyRepresentatives getting support from theiremployers and, if different, from theinstallation Duty Holders. Compliancewith the SI971 Regulations is the bareminimum on these installations and linemanagement/installation managementactively work with the Safety Reps toenable them to fully represent theirconstituents in all aspects of the role. Forexample on some installations evenDeputy Safety Reps are encouraged toundertake Safety Rep training courses. Onsome installations established Reps arebeing fully supported when they ask toattend the new developmental trainingcourses or to attend industry events likethe forthcoming Piper 25 conference.My concern is that it is becoming

increasingly prevalent for employers andduty holders to actively go out of theirway to put a spanner in the works andobstruct Safety Reps from carrying out therole or by telling them to 'reel their necksin'. With these employers and DutyHolders compliance with the SI971 Regsis cursory to say the least. I had reallyhoped that this type of obstructivedisengaging management was a thing ofthe past but for some reason it appears tobe rearing its ugly head again. I'd beinterested to hear via Blowout or EiE anyexamples there are of Safety Reps notbeing actively supported either at aninstallation or indeed industry level sinceavenues exist via the HSE and StepChange in Safety to challenge theseoccurrences.

Member M0106100

Call it rolling standby! [This letter was sent to the Aberdeen

Press & Journal but didn’t make it into thepaper so this lad asked if we wouldaccommodate him. Always try to please,Ed.]

Dear Sir,Was very interested in your reporter

Ross Davidson's article on Thursday18/4/13 all about how well WoodGroup/PSN are performing in the NorthSea oil industry. I have over the yearsworked for both companies and I am sadto report that some of the tweaks thatBob Keiller talks about have affected meand many other bears throughout theNorth Sea.

BLOW

OUT:Th

e OILC M

agazine •

SUM

MER

201

3VISIT w

ww.oilc.org

19

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz

SEND YOUR LETTERS OR EMAILS TO BLOWOUT: 49 Carmelite Street, Aberdeen AB11 6NQ Tel: 01224 210118, E-mail: blowout@oilc.org

I was involved in a disciplinary hearingwith PSN when Bob Keiller was CEO andafter the hearing it was deemed I was toget a written reprimand. As it turned out,I was paid off on 9th December 2010. Mydisciplinary hearing did not take placeuntil the 14th December and in law Ishould have been paid until then. I gaveup trying after numerous phone calls. On the Wood group side, they phoned

me last February to say I would not begoing offshore on my usual rotation andI would be on standby at home. Mycontract clearly stated that I would receivetwo thirds wages, but they paid me onethird and called it rolling standby! I havebeen coming offshore for 28 years on andoff and have never heard of rollingstandby? I also lost a very expensiveholiday as they put me back to back withmyself. I can see how offshore companiesare making such vast profits - as theycontinue to rip off their own employees!

Regards.Dave Ross

UNITE need backbone [This came in from a Unite member and

again, always try to please, Ed.]Just read your flyer [Enough is Enough]

and yes you are right we do need to unite.We need a back bone too (Unite theunion) but how do we go about that?I am a member of Unite and not stupid

as your member No105547says; this froma guy who pays union fees to a unionwho have no negotiating rights! Who’sthe stupid one? I have voted NO to every ballot held by

this union and yet it still goes through! Iemail the union regularly with problems,holidays, late payments etc, but nothing!I and a few others are banging our headsagainst a brick wall but what can we do,my union are working it right up us! It'sok bumping our gums but we need toact, TOGETHER.

Unite member, name supplied.[Our Branch Secretary replied to our

colleague from Unite and said; I couldn'tagree with you more that we need Unity, butchange can only be achieved from the bottomup, not from the top down.]

Cheap labourRegarding your email about the Filipino

labour on the Jasmine hook-up - if the

companies paid a decent rate toTRADESMEN, they would get the skillsthey require! I blame the two sweetheartunions for this problem. I resigned fromthe GMB in 2006 and I still get a ballotpaper through the door for the OCA payreview! I send it back every time with abig X voting NO to the offer and I stateI’m no longer in GMB. But every year itstill gets sent!

Name and address supplied

Hi Blowout I’m on the Jasmine hook-up project but

at the Judy end. There’s no Filipinos onthere yet although there was supposed tobe. I’m back offshore tomorrow so I'll tellyou if things have changed.My mate, a plater with offshore

experience, was not allowed on theproject as he did not have trade papers(which had been lost over years ofmoving house). No exceptions Amecsaid, as the client wanted them. I’m surethis could have been overcome with atrade test. Another one of the lads saidhis mate couldn’t get on the project as hehadn’t been offshore in the last 3 yearsalthough he had plenty of experienceoffshore before then.Seems to me like they are making the

rules up to suit themselves. Thishappened on the Buzzard hook up a fewyears ago and I’m sure the Filipinoagency V people (or whoever) werelinked to Amec in some shape or formthen as well. Our argument at the timewas regarding all the computer courseswe had to do (which we found difficult)and the Filipinos (some of whom couldnot speak English) had obviously passedno problem.Anyway rant over. What can we do to

change things? I’m trying to convinceguys to swap to RMT but if we have noinput at the negotiations they areunconvinced, even though there’s nopoint in being in the other two unions.

Regards, John. (Name and addresssupplied)

Fat cats!Hi, Just read the Enough is Enough

article about Malcolm Brinded from Shelland his £850,000 cushion on top of his£17 million pension!This really annoys me, I used to work

for Shell and after five years of workingfor them as an engineer they decided splittheir engineers into Sub Sea Engineersand Marine Engineers. So I applied for ajob as a Sub Sea Engineer, since I hadbeen doing it for five years, only to betold they were recruiting degree engineersfor this position and guess what - theygot their degree engineers then they askedme to show them how to do the job!That was when I told them to stick itwhere the sun don’t shine! However atage sixty five I was contacted by Shell tocollect my pension all £167.96 of it! Thisis what the letter advised me;As advised in our earlier letter, your

retirement options are either –Option 1 – Take a Cash Lump Sum –

We are offering you a cash lump sum of£167.96 of which 25% will be tax free.Option 2 – Take an annual pension –

You can take an annual pension of£9.88 payable through your lifetime.

Name and address supplied

Service of remembrance andrededication PIPER ALPHA

A service will take place at 11 am onthe morning of July 6th at the PiperAlpha memorial in Hazlehead ParkAberdeen. The Oil industry Chaplain willconduct the service in memory of the 167souls killed on the night of July 6th 1988.This is the 25th anniversary of the

disaster and as we have done in each ofthe 25 years since, your union will lay awreath on behalf of all our membersremembering our lost friends andcolleagues who died that terrible night.Being a special remembrance year the

Offshore Energy Branch has agreed tosupport attendance of members at therededication service. On a first come firstserve basis (numbers will be restricted) weare able to offer support in travel costs toand from the service and if numbersdictate we may look to run buses andperhaps a meeting on the eve of theservice. To allow us to organise this weneed you to contact us a soon aspractically possible indicating you wish toattend the service. To book your place; Please call; 01224 210118 or email;

oilc.rmt.secretary@gmail.comFor more details of the service please

email; info@ukoilandgschaplaincy.comOr go to; http://www.poundforpiper.co.uk

Instruction to your Bank orBuilding Society to pay by Direct Debit

Please fill in the whole form including official use box using a ball point pen andSend to: RMT, 39 Chalton Street, London NW1 1JD

Name and full postal address of your Bank or Building Society

Originator’s Identification Number

Reference Number

FOR RMT OFFICIAL USE ONLYThis is not part of the instruction to your Bank or Building Society.

To: The Manager Bank/Building Society

Address

Postcode

Signature(s)

Date

Name(s) of Account Holder(s)

Bank/Building Society account number*

Branch Sort Code*

Instructions to your Bank or Building Society.Please pay RMT Direct Debits for the account detailed in this instruction subject to the safeguards assured by theDirect Debit Guarantee. I understand that this instruction may remain with RMT, if so, details will be passedelectronically to my Bank/Building Society.

Banks and Building Societies may not accept Direct Debit Instructions from some types of account

The Direct Debit GuaranteeThis guarantee is offered by all Banks and Building Societies that take part in the Direct Debit Scheme.The efficiency and security of the scheme is monitored and protected by your own Bank or Building Society.If the amounts to be paid or the payment date changes, RMT will notify you 10 working days in advance of your account being debited or as otherwise agreedIf an error is made by RMT or your Bank or Building Society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paidYou can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by writing to your Bank or Building Society. Please also send a copy of your letter to us.

9 7 1 7 4 5

NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME & TRANSPORT WORKERSUnity House, 39 Chalton Street, London NW1 1JD

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP – please complete your application along with either theattached Direct Debit or a separate paybill mandate form.

P l e a s e u s e B L O C K C A P I TA L S . * Information that must be provided.

1 PERSONAL DETAILS.

Surname* Address*

Forename(s)*

Home phone

Mobile phone Postcode

Email address

Date of Birth* National Insurance Number*

2 Your Employment.

Employer* Location*

Job Description* Part Time YES NO

3 Sex.Male Female

4 Ethnic Origin.White Black African Black Caribbean Black Other Pakistani Indian Chinese Bangladeshi Irish Other (please state)

5 How do you wish to pay. Your Pay Number

Direct Debit (you must complete form below) Paybill Deduction (complete separate form)

6 I undertake to abide by the rules now in force or those that are adopted.

Your signature Date

BRANCH NUMBER

Moi

sten

alo

ng e

dges

and

fold

to s

eal

I confirm my paybill mandate has been sent to my pay office. Phone Freephone 0800 376 3706 to confirm your company offers paybill facility.

Normally your paymentsare made once a monthto RMT.If you prefer to pay 4weekly instead please tick

Your National Insurance Number

27/10/04 2:39 pm Page 1