Correspondence
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the contract address for Global Marine & Offshore Resources.
The email said: "My name is Jake Conley. I am a journalist with The Outlaw Ocean Project, working in collaboration with Gaea Cabico (copied here), a journalist at PhilStar. For the past seven months, we have been developing, researching and reporting a story about Filipino citizens involved in sea-based labor, and your company is mentioned in the story. As we would like to give you the opportunity to respond to what we are saying, below you’ll find several points and comments we would like to offer you the chance to comment on and confirm or refute. We require your response by 5pm Manila time, Friday, July 14.
Points for comment: — Documents from the National Labor Relations Commission (case no. OFW (M) 02-01010-22) indicate that your agency was, alongside the company Jenn Yih Song Seafood, required to pay Nante Maglangit unpaid wages just shy of $4,828,40. — A contract (attached, "Contract 1") from Global Marine and Offshore Resources that Maglangit signed and we have reviewed states that Maglangit would owe Global Marine and Offshore Resources a payment/penalty for deployment costs if he breached his contract. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it? — A second contract (attached, "Contract 2") that Maglangit signed and we have reviewed states that Maglangit understands statements from Global Marine and Offshore Resources that he would be made to work 18 hours or more, that he wouldn’t be able to speak with his family for extended periods of time, that the food provided to him would not taste good, that the first month of his salary would be kept by Global Marine and Offshore Resources until he completed his contract, and that he would have to cover any costs for repatriation if he did not complete his contract. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it? — Maglangit alleges that on board the Fu Yuan Yu 058, he was made to work for upward of 20 hours at a time and was physically and verbally abused. He also alleges that on subsequent vessels (the Han Rong 358, 359, 362, 369, 368 and 366) he was continually mistreated and made to work while he was ill. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it? — This article posted by Migrante International alleges that Maglangit and several other Filipino men working aboard the Han Rong 362, 366 and 369 were “abandoned by their employer the Global Marine and Offshore Resources.” Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it? — This article and this article state that Global Marine and Offshore Resources has had its licenses suspended by the Philippine government after the ITF red listed your agency for illegally charging placement fees. Can you / would you like to comment on this account and the suspension, and would you like to confirm or refute the allegations? — Did Global Marine and Offshore Resources vet employers before placing workers while still under a valid license from the POEA/DMW, and if so, what vetting systems were used? — A lawyer in the Philippines alleges that Global Marine and Offshore Resources and the agencies Buwan Tala Manning, Inc., and Able Maritime Seafarers are all owned by the same individuals. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
Thank you."
Global Marine and Offshore Resources replied by email: "Dear Mr. Jake Conley,
- Documents from the National Labor Relations Commission (case no. OFW (M) 02- 01010-22) indicate that your agency was, alongside the company Jenn Yih Song Seafood, required to pay Nante Maglangit unpaid wages just shy of $4,828,40
Despite of the above cited cases we are committed to pay alongside with Foreign Principal/Employer because of 2016 POEA rules & regulation under section 10 of R.A. 8042 that Agency and Principal are Joint and Solidary Liability for all claims due to Filipino Overseas Worker
- A contract (attached, "Contract 1") from Global Marine and Offshore Resources that Maglangit signed and we have reviewed states that Maglangit would owe Global Marine and Offshore Resources a payment/penalty for deployment costs if he breached his contract. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
Per Section 19(G) repatriation of the DMW-POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) A seafarer who requests for early termination of his contract shall be liable for his repatriation cost as well as the transportation cost of his replacement. The employer may, in case of compassionate grounds, assume the transportation cost of the seafarer’s replacement. it expressly states that if a seafarer requests for the early termination of his contract, said seafarer is liable for the payment of his and his replacement transportation expense including other related expenses thereat (ticket Fee, agent fee, boat fare picking up crew from Fishing vessel to Port since the vessel are operating in Indian Ocean, Hotel accommodation, Quarantine protocol during covid such as swab test, Quarantine expenses for board and lodging, etc). Thus, the amount appearing as “break contract fee” in the subject employment contract represents the transportation expenses cited in the forecited provision of POEA-SEC. In the case of Mr. Nante Maglangit we don’t deduct any penalty as we consider him as a “Finished Contract”
- A second contract (attached, "Contract 2") that Maglangit signed and we have reviewed states that Maglangit understands statements from Global Marine and Offshore Resources that he would be made to work 18 hours or more, that he wouldn’t be able to speak with his family for extended periods of time, that the food provided to him would not taste good, that the first month of his salary would be kept by Global Marine and Offshore Resources until he completed his contract, and that he would have to cover any costs for repatriation if he did not complete his contract. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
Regarding the handwritten letter of Mr. Maglangit in which you have described as “Contract 2”, we absolutely deny that the same was made by our agency. A perusal of such letter showed that the same was not addressed to this agency nor does it show that our agency agreed or gave its imprimatur to its execution. I don’t even think that said letter is binding to this agency and may alter or amend the contents of a seafarer’s contract since said letter was not even approved by the POEA
4 Maglangit alleges that on board the Fu Yuan Yu 058, he was made to work for upward of 20 hours at a time and was physically and verbally abused. He also alleges that on subsequent vessels (the Han Rong 358, 359, 362, 369, 368 and 366) he was continually mistreated and made to work while he was ill. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
As to the allegations that Mr. Maglangit was maltreated while working at Fu Yuan Yu 058 and the subsequent vessels (Han Rong 358, 359, 362, 369, 368 and 366), we do not have any knowledge nor were we apprised of such fact. While Mr. Maglangit was working thereat, he had several opportunities to report any maltreatment or harm that was done to him either to us, his immediate family or the POLO and yet there was no untoward incident that was reported by Mr. Maglangit while he was working at the aforementioned vessels. We understand that there exists a language barrier between the ship officers and the Filipino seafarers/crew members since these ship officers are mostly Chinese who have difficulty or, at times, do not understand English. Thus, they have trouble expressing themselves to the Filipino seafarers. Moreover, there also exist cultural differences between said ship officers and Filipino seafarers. Filipinos are known to be shy and meek which makes it more difficult for Chinese ship officers to communicate with said seafarers. Thus, these ship officers oftentimes have to raise their voices in order to get their point across but I do not think that it ever led to physical altercations between the two groups.
5 This article posted by Migrante International alleges that Maglangit and several other Filipino men working aboard the Han Rong 362, 366 and 369 were “abandoned by their employer the Global Marine and Offshore Resources.” Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
GMOR did not abandon Mr. Maglangit and several other Filipino men working aboard the Han Rong 362, 366 and 369. As you may know, at that time they were working on the said fishing vessels, it was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were very strict transportation restrictions and health protocols enforced at that time. During that time the shipping ports nearby Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea were all closed and would not open for any fishing vessel coming from international waters despite repeated pleas from the ship officers of Han Rong. Since the fishing vessel may no longer stay in the High Seas much longer, as the food and water supplies were dwindling, the ship officers were left with no choice but to find a shipping port that would accept them, in this case, only the shipping ports in the People’s Republic of China would accept them because the fishing vessel is from China. The foreign Principal/Employer then failed to recoup the expenses it incurred from the closing of shipping ports hence, it went bankrupt and closed-shop. Said foreign Principal/Employer even failed to pay us our well deserved manning fees. Despite the situation, we exerted all efforts to communicate with the seafarers and their immediate family and promised them to settle their salaries on an arranged and scheduled payment scheme from our own pocket. We also arranged their immediate repatriation back to the Philippines and paid for arranged boarding and lodging while they were put under the mandatory 14-day quarantine. While we understand the sentiments of these seafarers however, they filed a labor case in the NLRC which resulted in the delay in settling our obligations with them.
This article and this article state that Global Marine and Offshore Resources has had its licenses suspended by the Philippine government after the ITF red listed your agency for illegally charging placement fees. Can you / would you like to comment on this account and the suspension, and would you like to confirm or refute the allegations? DMW (previous POEA) is the only Government organization that can suspend our license on valid grounds. There was no ITF Related suspension. The ITF Published a Fake News. The ITF tried to communicate to DMW (previous POEA) in regards to their allegation against our company but they cannot prove it, there was no evidence. ITF just wants something to write in their magazine for public media attention. Regarding this issue, we vehemently deny charging any placement fees to the seafarers/crew members deployed under GMOR. Since the herein issue had already been brought before the Philippine courts, I am not inclined nor at liberty to give the full details thereat. What I can only divulge to you is there are certain groups or individuals who have unlawfully and without our consent used our names in the past in order to profit thereof. These groups or individuals are not connected with our agency nor were they ever a part of our agency
Did Global Marine and Offshore Resources vet employers before placing workers while still under a valid license from the POEA/DMW, and if so, what vetting systems were used
Regarding the vetting of foreign Principal/Employers before placement of any seafarers thereat, it must be understood that these foreign Principal/Employers, before they are allowed to hire Filipino seafarers, they are required to be registered and approved with the POEA. They are also required to put up a bond and their country of origin must have reciprocal laws that would protect Filipino labor. Hence, before our agency would enter into a manning agreement with any foreign Principal/Employer, the latter had been vetted by the Philippine government. Without the imprimatur of the Philippine government, said foreign Principal/Employers may not engage in the hiring and deployment of Filipino seafarers. Likewise, the fishing vessels, the names of the seafarers and the ship officials are all entered into the database of government agencies involved in the deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). Thus, since these foreign Principal/Employers have been screened-out by the relevant government agencies of the Philippines, we could now enter manning agreements with them for the deployment and employment of Filipino seafarers/crew members.
A lawyer in the Philippines alleges that Global Marine and Offshore Resources and the agencies Buwan Tala Manning, Inc., and Able Maritime Seafarers are all owned by the same individuals. Can you / would you like to comment on this account, and would you like to confirm or refute it?
We are vehemently denying the allegation that GMOR and Buwan Tala are one and the same or owned by the same individuals. Records would show that these 2 manning agencies are composed of entirely different corporate officers and shareholders. None of our corporate officer or shareholder holds any equity with Buwan Tala and I also do not think that any of the corporate officer or shareholder of Buwan Tala holds any equity with our manning agency. Our offices also have different addresses. Hence, records and hard evidence would belie such claim even if such allegation came from a member of the Philippine Bar.
Best Regards, Global Marine"