L 72 - svar på MFU spm. 35 om at oversende korrespondance/afrapportering, som regeringen har foretaget til FN-organisationen ILO m.v., fra skatteministeren

LO-Denmark’s comments on the government’s report regarding ILO
Conventions 87 and 98
The following are LO’s comments to the government’s report on Conventions 87 and 98
regarding the right to organise and the right to collective bargaining.
By way of introduction, LO refers to earlier contributions to reports on the DIS-Act - most
recently in September 2013 and the subsequent comments/updates regarding the
government’s comments to the ILO to this date.
It is important to underline, once more, a few fundamental viewpoints.
LO still finds it deeply regrettable that the Danish government has, for more than 25 years
now, on the basis of varying arguments, refrained from taking seriously the criticism of the
Committee of Experts and the call to bring article 10 of the DIS-Act in accordance with the
ILO’s conventions.
The case regarding the Danish International Ships' Register (DIS) has, as everyone
knows, been ongoing since 1988, at which time LO brought the legislative intervention to
the attention of the ILO, and in 1989, when the Committee of Experts decided that article
10, 2 and 3 of the Act is not in accordance with ILO-Conventions 87, 98 and 111.
The LO-led Danish trade union movement maintains this view, regardless of the
government’s comments and calls to attention the ILO Declaration from 1998 on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (FPRW) which” commits (all) Member States
to respect and promote principles and rights”. A fundamental commitment which has not
been met by the Danish side on this matter.
On the contrary, as earlier mentioned, multiple governments have declared that the DIS-
Act has come to stay and serves “a decent purpose” which has also been reiterated in this
years’ report.
The Danish trade union movement once more rejects the Danish government’s reference
to the DIS-general agreement between certain parties in the shipping industry as a
foundation for a national dialogue.
Regarding the report on Convention 87, LO-Denmark reiterates that the Danish
government’s reference to the fact that a seafarer may, in accordance with the DIS-
general agreement, but as an employee in accordance with article 10,3 of the Act, choose
to be a member of a Danish trade union is insufficient and must therefore repeat the
following:
In accordance with article 7 of the DIS-general agreement, only the trade union
organisations who are parties to the general agreement may assist seafarers cf. article
10,3 of the DIS-Act in matters that originate from Danish legislation. Such a membership of
a Danish trade union organisation is therefore immaterial to the collective agreement
coverage which is the fundamental precondition to a membership.
The DIS-general agreement is therefore not of importance to LO’s criticism of article 10 of
the DIS-Act because it clearly appears from the DIS-General agreement, article 1, that the
parties’ participation to the agreement generally presupposes that they “observe the right
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
to conclude DIS-collective agreements with foreign trade union organisations and observe
such concluded agreements in accordance with the DIS-Act.”
LO underlines and reiterates that, in the construction of article 10 of the DIS-Act, with its
division of negotiating powers to Danish and foreign seafarers, a labour law vacuum has
been created which does not provide any actual right to collective bargaining for any trade
union organisations. A Danish industrial dispute in the form of a strike against ships
manned by seafarers without residence in Denmark, in accordance with article 10,3, is
illegal since such workers are not covered by a collective agreement concluded in
Denmark.
The DIS-Act is a ad hoc Act which, in Denmark, is only applied to shipping and only
targets Danish trade unions for seafarers. It is obvious that Denmark, in its targeted efforts
to attract foreign tonnage to the DIS-register now, pro-actively, calls attention to business
conditions that are favourable to the shipping companies by offering a trade union free
zone in accordance with the DIS-Act.
LO finds it relevant in this connection to refer to the CFA Digest para 20 “The Committee
has referred to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises
and Social Policy, adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO in November 1977, which
states that (paragraph 46 of the Declaration, as amended in November 2000): where
governments of host countries offer special incentives to attract foreign investment, these
incentives should not include any limitation of the workers’ freedom of association or the
right to organize and bargain collectively”
In this report on Convention 98, the government refers to the bilateral dialogue between,
on the one hand, the Danish Metal Workers’ Union and, on the other hand, The Danish
Maritime Authority as well as the working group/sub-committee of the liaison committee.
Once more, we underline that neither 3F (the United Federation of Danish Workers) or LO
have been included in this dialogue.
As it appears from the report, there still exists a formal disagreement on the DIS-Act and
LO finds that although there may be” national circumstances, such as the history of labour
relations and the social and economic context” the freedom of association principles apply
uniformly and consistently among countries. Therefore, these fundamental rights also
apply in Denmark.
In the report on Convention 98, the government states, among other things, that “However,
the underlying reasons for section 10 of the DIS Act still apply”.
LO therefore underlines once more that the DIS-Act has existed during alternating market
conditions. The conditions that existed during the implementation of the DIS-Act in 1988
are fundamentally different to the conditions of today, and yet the government maintains
that the underlying reasons for the DIS-Act still apply.
Finally, it is also argued in the Government’s reporting on Convention 98 that “It remains
the hope of the Government that the parties of the shipping sector are able to find common
solutions in this matter.” However, LO finds that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring
respect for the principles of freedom of association lies with the Government.” It is the
responsibility of the Government to ensure the application of international labour
3
Conventions concerning freedom of association, which is why the government cannot refer
solely to “the parties of the shipping sector”.
Finally, once more, LO calls on the government to initiate actual dialogue on article 10 of
the DIS-Act with all parties from the worker-side with a view to bringing it in accordance
with the ILO’s Conventions.


Danish Shipowners' Association
TRANSLATED VERSION
Annex 1
Description of the historical background for the development of the DIS act and the DIS Main Agree-
ment
1 June 2016
The parties in the maritime labour market that want to contribute to establishing and maintaining a strong
maritime industry in Denmark have, since 1997, had a formalised cooperation, which is currently consolidated
in the DIS Main Agreement of 28 February 2013.
The DIS Main Agreement
The first agreement on cooperation made was a direct follow-up on the recommendations of the so-called
"Funder Committee" in 1996 (Report no. 1312, March 1996 – "A future for Danish shipping"). This commit-
tee, which had been established as a consequence of a Parliamentary debate in 1995, recommended that the
two sides of industry formulated a set of rules of the game to ensure that the collective agreements concluded
with foreign organisations were made at an "internationally acceptable level", while at the same time ensuring
that the Danish trade unions respected the shipowners' right to conclude collective agreements with foreign
organisations, thereby ensuring the competitiveness of Danish shipping.
The agreement was a charter stating that the shipowners would not conclude agreements below the inter-
national level and containing the shipowners' acceptance of the trade unions' possible presence during such
negotiations in order to "ensure" that the agreements met this condition. On the part of the shipowners, the
parties to the agreement were the Shipowners' Association of 1895 and the Shipowners' Association for Small
Ships (now merged into the Shipowners' Association of 2010) and the Danish Shipowners' Association, and
on the part of the wage earners, they were the Danish Association of Navigating Officers (now Danish
Maritime Officers), the Danish Engineers' Association, the Danish Radio Officers' Association of 1917, the
Danish Metalworkers' Association and the Semi-Skilled Workers' Union in Denmark (now 3F).
In October 2000, the parties renewed the agreement for a two-year period and, on the part of the wage earners,
the group was extended to include the National Danish Restaurant Trade Union (now 3F) and the Danish
Maritime Catering Union (now the Maritime Division of the Danish Metalworkers' Union). The new agree-
ment meant, inter alia, that regular meetings of the DIS Contact Committee were introduced, just as it con-
tained a number of obligations on the employer side, inter alia an action plan to "strengthen the maritime in-
dustry and the employment of Danish seafarers at an internationally competitive level". When the agreement
was about to be renewed, agreement was not reached with the SID (3F) and the National Danish Restaurant
Trade Union (RBF). Consequently, the new three-year agreement of 1 March 2002 did not include SID/RBF.
In connection with this agreement, a framework agreement was drawn up, which described in more detail the
minimum level to be included in collective agreements with foreign trade unions.
The peace and quiet that had been expected with a three-year agreement did, however, not become reality
since the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) – at the suggestion of the Danish Seamen's
Union/SID – adopted a resolution making it possible to declare ships registered in the Danish International
Register of Shipping as ships flying a so-called flag of convenience (FOC).
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
The unions that participated in the DIS Contact Committee took sharp issue with the ITF decision and the
Contact Committee showed its legitimacy by ensuring that the ITF did not declare any ships FOC. It can be
added that the resolution and the actions of the SID (3F) were also judged by the Industrial Tribunal, which
established in its ruling that the steps taken in the struggle had been illegal. The SID was given a DKK 3 mil-
lion fine.
Faced with these challenges, the Contact Committee decided to further strengthen the cooperation, and in this
connection the existing agreement was replaced by an agreement making it possible for Danish trade unions to
represent foreign seafarers in disputes as a consequence of Danish law; and they actually do this. At the same
time, the shipowners assumed an obligation to inform the Danish trade unions about industrial injuries in-
curred by foreign seafarers. In other words, the employer side accepted that Danish trade unions assumed
some of the core tasks that they also perform for members in Denmark. Payment of an administrative fee for
performing these tasks was agreed on. Today, this fee amounts to DKK 120 per foreign seafarer on board DIS
ships and it is paid directly to the Danish trade unions in the Contact Committee by the shipowners.
Since then, the DIS Main Agreement has been renewed twice, in 2005 and in 2013. In connection with these
renewals, the shipowner side has undertaken to recognise bilateral agreements between the foreign trade
unions and the Danish trade unions on representation on Danish boards and committees and that the Danish
trade unions can attend to the interests of the foreign seafarers in disputes pertaining to labour legislation.
Other issues related to the cooperation between the parties
In addition to the DIS Main Agreement, an agreement has also been concluded within the framework of the
DIS Contact Committee to pay persons domiciled in Sweden and Norway wages at the same level as that of
persons domiciled in Denmark. This is secured by considering Swedish and Norwegian seafarers to be
covered by the collective agreements concluded by the Danish trade unions, with the necessary adjustments.
Furthermore, it has been agreed that shipowners make a number of work-experience placements available for
special purposes.
In 2009, the Contact Committee decided to establish a guarantee scheme for seafarers on board DIS ships so
that the seafarer is secured financing of his or her voyage home after having signed off due to entrance into a
war zone or in connection with other dangerous situations, for example voyages in piracy-infested waters.
Attending to the interests of foreign seafarers
Seafarers serving on board Danish ships are covered by the act on seafarers' conditions of employment, etc.
(the seamen's act) irrespective of nationality or home address and thereby they are secured the rights following
from work on board a Danish ship. In addition to the special provisions of the maritime legislation, seafarers
domiciled outside Denmark are to a greater or smaller extent also covered by the general Danish provisions on
social security. For EU seafarers this follows from EU law, and for seafarers from third countries this follows
from the bilateral social security agreements concluded. Thus, many foreign seafarers are automatically
covered by public Danish pension schemes.
3
All seafarers, irrespective of nationality, are also covered by the Danish act on industrial injuries with Danish
industrial injury insurance. Thus, they are secured in situations where they are in need of security benefits due
to sickness or bodily injury during or in immediate connection with their service on board. The assistance can
have the form of health insurance benefits such as medical care, hospitalisation, medicine, repatriation or
sickness benefits or maternity/paternity benefits in connection with maternity/paternity leave according to the
special regulations for seafarers.
Especially for seafarers from so-called labour force supplying countries, such as the Philippines, it is not un-
usual that they are perhaps also covered by supplementary national regulations, which is especially justified
when the seafarer is serving on board ships where he or she does not enjoy the same type of social security as
is the case on board Danish ships. Often such national regulations and the benefits deriving from them are
adjusted to the public security level in the country concerned – or rather the lack hereof.
Collective agreements concluded with foreign trade unions pursuant to section 10(3) of the DIS act do, insofar
as possible, take account of the possibility of the seafarers being covered by more sets of regulations simul-
taneously.
In order to make the foreign seafarers' way through the Danish security and authority system easier, mecha-
nisms have been established within the framework of the DIS Main Agreement whereby the Danish trade
unions can assist foreign seafarers though they are not members of Danish trade unions.
According to the DIS Main Agreement, the shipowners are obliged to inform the trade unions about foreign
seafarers' reported industrial injuries or deaths so that the Danish trade union can proactively offer its as-
sistance to foreign seafarers/their surviving relatives free of charge. This is a service and security for foreign
seafarers that national seafarers do not enjoy since they are required to be members. Foreign seafarers can
also, upon their own initiative, contact the Danish organisations whose contact details are printed in the col-
lective agreements concluded with the foreign trade unions.
Collective agreements for foreign seafarers
According to the DIS Main Agreement, Danish shipowners commit themselves to ensure that foreign sea-
farers' wage and working conditions are at least at an internationally acceptable level. Danish trade unions
guarantee foreign trade unions and international associations of trade unions that Danish shipowners meet this
obligation and, more specifically, ensure this in connection with Danish shipowners' conclusion of collective
agreements with foreign trade unions. In practice, Danish trade unions contribute both constructively and
critically when Danish shipowners negotiate and conclude collective agreements with foreign trade unions. In
this connection, it deserves to be mentioned that, since 1999, only the Danish Metalworkers' Union has – on
behalf of the other trade union members of the DIS Contact Committee – played an active role and taken part
in all negotiations. The Danish Metalworkers' Union has also had the ongoing dialogue and contact with the
foreign trade unions on behalf of everyone.
In consideration of foreign seafarers working internationally on board ships and with shipowners of different
nationalities, the wage and working conditions are basically very international, but on board Danish ships they
have typically been extended with a third part pension scheme and with holiday- and other rights, such as
occupational health protection deriving from Danish law.


ANNEX II TRANSLATED VERSION
WORK FOR FOREIGN SEAFARERS IN DIS
IN RELATION TO THE DANISH AUTHORITIES
2006 – 2015
Contents
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Previous history................................................................................................................................................... 2
Statistics............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Visits abroad........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Liaison Officer Manila ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Danish Eastern High Court Judgment of 4 November 2014 ............................................................................... 6
Revised decisions after the Danish Eastern High Court judgment...................................................................... 8
Retention/set-offs in benefits for Filipinos........................................................................................................ 12
The Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).................................... 16
The National Board of Industrial Injuries.......................................................................................................... 17
The Danish Maritime Authority ........................................................................................................................ 18
Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association ....................................................................................... 21
The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work...................................................................................... 28
The Ombudsman – languages ........................................................................................................................... 29
Ministry of Business and Growth – digitisation and languages ........................................................................ 30
The Danish tax authorities (SKAT)................................................................................................................... 31
Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension (ATP)..................................................................................... 33
Payment Denmark – child support for EU citizens ........................................................................................... 34
Social convention with the Philippines (and India)........................................................................................... 35
The Danish Association of Navigating Officers and the Danish Engineers' Association ................................. 36
"Leopard" .......................................................................................................................................................... 36
The National Board of Industrial Injuries.......................................................................................................... 38
Portuguese seafarer – the municipality and the Danish tax authorities............................................................. 43
Polish seafarer – all issues................................................................................................................................. 45
Spanish seafarer – old-age pension ................................................................................................................... 47
Concluding remarks........................................................................................................................................... 48
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
Abbreviations
AMOSUP Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines
ASK National Board of Industrial Injuries (Arbejdsskadestyrelsen)
AST Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work (Ankestyrelsen)
EET Loss of earning capacity (Erhvervsevnetab)
ph Filipino
PHP Philippine peso
POEA Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
ska Date of injury (skadesdato)
UFDS Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association (Ulykkesforsikringsforbundet hos Dansk
Søfart)
ØL Danish Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret)
Previous history
In 2003, the SID launched a massive campaign against DIS with full-page advertisements in Danish news-
paper and with its point of departure in claims that foreign seafarers in DIS were treated miserably, especially
in case of industrial injuries. In addition to the full-page advertisements with slogans like "A Filipino over
board? – He'll damn well have to swim home!", the SID described a number of specific case stories in its pro-
fessional journal on the case consideration of industrial injuries in Denmark. These stories were followed up
by articles in the newspaper "Politiken".
The DSRF chose to make its own investigation of the said case stories in both Denmark and the Philippines.
The investigations resulted in a special edition of our professional journal published on 23 November 2003.
The conclusion was that the SID campaign had been based on distorted data, but that there were real problems
because injured foreign seafarers did not have any representation in Denmark vis-à-vis the Danish authorities.
The problems were subsequently debated by the DIS Contact Committee and the DIS Main Agreement was
revised on 26 October 2005 with, inter alia, the following new contents in section 7:
Subsection 5: Danish trade unions may attend to the interests of foreign seafarers in connection with issues
arising from Danish law.
Subsection 6: In case of reported industrial injuries or deaths, the relevant Danish trade union shall be in-
formed.
Subsection 7: For meeting the provisions of subsections 5 and 6, an administration fee shall be agreed upon.
During 2006 and 2007, a system was developed, with many problems related to registration and payment,
which were more or less solved through a compromise with the shipowners' associations in 2007. However, it
has been necessary to follow up on the reporting system on an on-going basis and, by way of example, it can
be mentioned that in July 2013 we made a complaint to Torm after having analysed the shipowner's reports in
2012-2013; it turned out that 22 reports had been delayed by more than 1 month, and 7 of these reports had
been delayed by more than 8 months, and 3 reports had been delayed by more than 1 year. In one of these
cases, the report was rejected by the National Board of Industrial Injuries due to late reporting.
3
The system that was put into function contains the following:
* All foreign seafarers sign a general proxy when being employed, which makes it possible to inform the
trade unions about industrial accidents.
* CO-SEA receives a copy of all reports on industrial injuries.
* CO-SEA draws up a monthly overview, which is forwarded to the Danish Shipowners' Association.
* The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association draws up a monthly overview, which is for-
warded to the Danish Shipowners' Association.
* The Danish Shipowners' Association compares the two overviews and clarifies any disagreements with
CO-SEA.
* The three trade unions involved receive payments from the shipowners in accordance with the agree-
ment.
* CO-SEA considers each individual report on industrial injuries.
* When the report is considered suitable for a possible compensation (specifically, a basic criterion of
signing off due to the injury is used), material will be forwarded to the injured person consisting of:
1) An information brochure of 8 A5 pages, which was drawn up in early 2008 in three versions
(adjusted for the Philippines, India and – at a later point in time – worldwide). The brochure has
been made in cooperation between CO-SEA and the Danish Shipowners' Association.
2) A proxy.
3) An accompanying letter.
* The proxies that are returned are distributed among the organisations involved (CO-SEA, the Danish
Association of Navigating Officers, and the Danish Engineers' Association) according to the profession
of the persons concerned.
* Assistance and support is provided, including for appeals, in relation to tax technical issues, etc.
Statistics
Statistical material – foreign industrial accidents – 2006-2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
Reports
- hereof Dan. Ass. of Navigating Off.
- hereof Dan. Eng. Ass.
- hereof CO-SEA
144
1
4
139
107
7
23
77
115
4
20
91
152
3
37
112
231
17
68
146
237
19
63
155
248
30
46
172
215
15
44
156
236
20
59
157
192
12
42
138
1877
128
406
1343
Material forwarded
- hereof Dan. Ass. of Navigating Off.
- hereof Dan. Eng. Ass.
- hereof CO-SEA
3
0
0
3
191
4
14
21
3
4
14
30
2
7
25
55
7
14
34
43
2
8
33
70
6
15
49
58
7
13
38
66
4
18
44
40
1
12
27
405
33
95
281
Returned proxies
- hereof Dan. Ass. of Navigating Off.
- hereof Dan. Eng. Ass.
- hereof CO-SEA
1
0
0
1
5
1
0
4
6
3
0
3
12
1
0
11
21
3
2
16
16
2
3
11
23
2
5
16
17
0
3
14
16
0
4
12
8
0
3
5
125
12
20
93
One may be surprised by the relatively low number of returned proxies (31 per cent). Part of the reason is
presumably that many of the seafarers who have been reported sick have been considered "fit for duty" quite
fast and their highest wish is to continue as seafarers without any problems as "injured persons". In the Philip-
pines, it is for example difficult to compete with monthly wages of DKK 10,000. Another part of the reason
may be general distrust of anything being "free" and a lack of knowledge about Danish trade unions.
4
Nationalities – reports on industrial injuries – 2012-2015
2012 2013 2014 2015
Philippines 134 114 96 82
India 55 44 52 42
Poland 16 24 36 28
Argentina 1 - - -
Australia 6 1 2 -
Bangladesh - - - 1
Brazil 4 1 3 1
Egypt - 1 - -
England 4 4 9 9
Estonia 1 - 1 -
Ireland 1 - - -
Croatia 2 5 3 1
Latvia 1 2 6 6
Lithuania 1 1 - 1
New Zealand - 2 - -
Portugal 4 3 4 2
Romania 4 3 4 3
Russia 2 1 1 1
Singapore 1 - - 1
Sweden - 1 - -
South Africa 2 1 2 2
Thailand 1 1 9 6
Tuvalu 1 - - -
Germany - 1 2 -
Ukraine 7 5 6 2
USA - - - 1
Unknown 1 - - -
Total 248 215 236 192
Visits abroad
2007 14 August-19 August Manila (JI+OS)
18 December-21 December Manila
2008 9 April-15 April Mumbai (JI+OS)
2010 1 November-5 November Manila
2012 15 June-18 June Manila
2013 12 March-16 March Manila
13 July-16 July Manila (first meeting with the hostages from "Leopard")
2014 23 January-30 January Manila
15 March-23 March Manila (simultaneously with Seahealth)
9 December-15 December Manila (simultaneously with Denmark's Radio)
2015 8 June-16 June Manila
2016 10 February-18 February Manila
20 June-26 June Manila
The next visit has been scheduled for February 2016.
Notes from the latest visit (June 2015) to Manila:
9 June Rather long meeting with the four from "Leopard" – updates on Danish cases and the situation
for each one of them.
Meeting with the four and lawyers from AMOSUP in the evening.
5
10 June Meetings with AMOSUP in Intramuros.
Meeting with ISAC (International Seafarers Action Committee) in Quezon City.
Meeting with injured person who has ended up with major economic problems after having lost
all compensation investments after the 2013 hurricane. He has once again received new compen-
sations, but they have been detained preliminarily due to set-off requirements (see later).
11 June Meeting with MPHRP (Catholic relief organisation for victims of piracy).
Meeting with seriously injured person from 2010 and his family. One of his legs will probably
need to be amputated. Various settling problems with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance
Association.
12 June Meeting with ISAC.
Meeting with family of deceased seaman after industrial accident. Many and on-going problems
with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association.
13 June Meeting with injured person 2011. The set-off problems.
Meeting with Edwin Waje (our witness from the Danish Eastern High Court case on calculation
principles).
14 June Meeting with the two Manila-based victims from "Leopard".
Meeting with injured person from 2005, who has later involved himself in a number of Mærsk
cases.
Meeting with injured person from 2008. Set-off problems and other problems.
15 June Meeting with the General Director of the Ministry of Health's Statistical Department (DOLE),
whom I have met previously.
Meetings AMOSUP. Meeting with Dr. Romel Papa NBI (National Board of Investigation), who
is involved in assistance to the four from "Leopard". Various meetings with lawyers and AMO-
SUP President Dr. Oca.
Meetings in the evening with the two from "Leopard" and one of the lawyers from AMOSUP.
Late meeting with ISAC.
Liaison Officer Manila
CO-SEA hired the Philippine ex-seafarer Elissa Lagda (DFDS) as Liaison Officer in Manila starting on 1
November 2012 on a part-time basis and according to Philippine wage standards. We had more or less daily
contact with Elissa until the expiry of the contract on 1 November 2014 (due to marriage and removal), during
which period Elissa was responsible for the daily contact to injured ex-seafarers (including the hostages from
"Leopard").
Elissa had herself been injured in an industrial accident and, prior to her employment, she took a very active
part in a complex case process in Denmark.
Our cooperation was very good and satisfactory to both parties, and we regretted to say goodbye to her.
Prior to our hiring her, Elissa visited Denmark for a week during which we visited maritime cooperation part-
ners and the National Board of Industrial Injuries together.
After 1 January 2014, we have been on the lookout for a replacement for Elissa. However, many criteria need
to be met and we have had to realise that Elissas are not easy to find.
6
As an example, we can mention an injured cook from Mærsk, who seemed to have a wide network among
Mærsk seafarers and who, upon his own initiative, started to act as a kind of authorised assistance on their
behalf simultaneously with the consideration of his own case in Denmark. At one point in time, part of the
correspondence with approx. five ex-seafarers went through this person.
We held a meeting in Manila, which Elissa also attended as an observer, and we were about to hire the person
concerned as Elissa's replacement. However, it all ended with thumbs down and that was well. A few months
later, it turned out that the person concerned made unwritten agreements with the injured persons on whose
behalf he was acting against a promised percentage fee if/when the person concerned received compensation.
Presumably, he had a contact at the local Mærsk office who informed him about injured seafarers.
We are still in contact with the cook mentioned – and he is a charming person – but we have, of course, cut off
all cooperation with him on behalf of others, just as we have found it necessary to warn others against him.
Any Danish assistance must, of course and without any doubt, be free of charge to the persons injured.
Danish Eastern High Court Judgment of 4 November 2014
The dispute which was developing in 2011 concerned the principles for calculating a foreign seafarer's loss of
earning capacity.
According to the guidelines of the National Board of Industrial Injuries of 1 November 2010, such cases are to
be considered as all other cases, and the basis for comparison is the wage that the injured person would have
earned if the injury had not occurred compared to the possible wages after the injury.
"In these cases, the assessment of the wage decrease is to be based on the possible wage in the native country
with the injury compared to the possible wage without the injury as a seaman. Due to the low wage and price
level in the native country, this may lead to the injured person receiving a relatively higher compensation than
if he or she had been domiciled in Denmark. However, the compensation must, according to the act on in-
dustrial injury insurance, cover the injured person's actual loss. The seaman has a considerably higher in-
come than others with similar tasks in the native country and, without the injury, he would have had an op-
portunity to retain the high income. In these cases, the loss will therefore be great compared to the possibili-
ties of making an income in the native country."
The specific case in 2011 concerned a female Philippine seafarer who had, after having fallen on a slippery
floor in 2009, contracted a meniscus injury, which subsequently resulted in surgical removal of the meniscus
in one of her knees. The seafarer did not become seriously disabled, but was incapable of continuing work as a
seafarer.
In August 2011, the National Board of Industrial Injuries established that she had suffered a 40 per cent loss
of her earning capacity, which was in accordance with a practice whereby the loss is estimated in relation to
the wage earning possibilities in countries with low wages, without any recognised calculation basis as such.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association appealed the decision, claiming that the injury was
relatively modest and based on a free estimate that could "hardly lead to an adequate constant loss of earning
capacity". The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association argued, furthermore, that there must be
some kind of inner connection between the compensation for disability and the loss of earning capacity.
7
CO-SEA replied with a claim to maintain the 40 per cent. Shortly hereafter, we forwarded a revised opinion
for consideration by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work, pleading for an increase to 85 per
cent, based on specific calculations made on the basis of Philippine standard wages as available from the in-
ternet.
During the period 2011-2013, another six decisions on loss of earning capacity were referred for consideration
by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work following appeals by the Danish Shipowners' Ac-
cident Insurance Association and CO-SEA, respectively.
In March 2013, CO-SEA met the Director General of the Statistical Department of the Philippine Ministry of
Labour in Manila and acquired a number of specific statistics on the wage level in the Philippines in order to
have more comprehensive documentation.
DECISIONS BY THE COUNCIL OF APPEAL ON HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK
The first decision from the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work is from 19 June 2012, when the
Council increased the loss of earning capacity from 80 per cent to 90 per cent in accordance the CO-SEA's
claim. The reason was that the person concerned could not return to his or her profession.
The next decision was in the case about the female seafarer with meniscus injury, which was published as
principled decision no. 77/13 on 5 April 2013. The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work de-
creased the loss of earning capacity from 40 per cent to 15 per cent, the reason being that the main part of the
wage decrease was not a consequence of the industrial injury, but should be ascribed to national wage differ-
ences.
Subsequent decisions follow the principled decisions:
50 per cent is decreased to 25 per cent (CO-SEA claim 92 per cent) (decision of the Council of Appeal on
Health and Safety at Work ruling of 5 July 2013).
70 per cent is decreased to 35 per cent (CO-SEA claim 85 per cent) (decision of the Council of Appeal on
Health and Safety at Work of 24 July 2013).
60 per cent is decreased to 35 per cent (decision of the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work of 20
September 2013).
50 per cent is decreased to 15 per cent (CO-SEA claim 85 per cent) (decision of the Council of Appeal on
Health and Safety at Work of 15 November 2013).
50 per cent is affirmed as 50 per cent (decision of the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work of 16
January 2014).
THE COURT CASE
CO-SEA summoned the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work on 25 November 2013 on behalf of
a Philippine boatswain who had to be treated leniently after a hawser had broken and hit his right hand. The
National Board of Industrial Injuries granted him a 70 per cent loss of earning capacity and the Council of
Appeal on Health and Safety at Work reduced this to 35 per cent. Our claim was 85 per cent.
The parties agreed that the case was principled and they were permitted to take the case to the Danish Eastern
High Court as the court of first instance. They also agreed not to discuss Philippine income issues at the High
8
Court because they were well documented. In the summons, we had – in addition to reference to ordinary
Philippine wage statistics (approx. DKK 13,000 annually for an unskilled worker in Manila) – documented an
annual income of DKK 16,000 from a small street shop owned by the wife of the boatswain.
The court case was held on 23 September 2014 and the boatswain had been called as a witness by CO-SEA.
The judgment was given on 4 November 2014 and found for CO-SEA. The loss of earning capacity is estab-
lished at 85 per cent in the specific case.
In the grounds of the judgment, the High Court establishes that, neither according to the text of the law nor
according to practice, there is any legal basis for an estimated reduction of the loss of earning capacity "solely
on the basis of the difference in the general wage level for employees on board Danish ships and persons em-
ployed in the Philippines". The parties agree that the injured person has always been domiciled in the Philip-
pines and that he "has, in the future, only a possibility of acquiring an income in the Philippines and that this
will amount to approx. DKK 15,000 a year".
Revised decisions after the Danish Eastern High Court judgment
Following the Eastern High Court judgment, a number of cases were re-considered, either as a consequence of
an automatic re-consideration by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work or as a consequence of
a request by CO-SEA.
A total of 20 cases were re-considered, one of which was rejected because the date of injury was prior to 2004
when the text of the law was different.
Overview of the decisions in the 20 cases:
030859-AAA1 (case number ASK, including date of birth)
22 January 2006 ska ph
11 March 2008 ASK EET 75 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 89 per cent)
171077-AAA1
27 February 2006 ska ph
11 March 2008 ASK EET 90 per cent
12 March 2015 ASK EET 95 per cent
(CO-SEA claim almost 100 per cent)
170561-AAA1
11 October 2011 ska ph
5 April 2013 ASK EET 70 per cent
14 March 2014 AST EET 25 per cent
9 February 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 88 per cent)
9
160872-AAA1
26 February 2008 ska ph
14 November 2012 ASK EET 75 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(still outstanding issue related to the calculation of the annual wages)
020573-AAA1
14 July 2009 ska Indian
5 July 2012 ASK EET 50 per cent
5 July 2013 AST EET 25 per cent
10 June 2015 AST EET <15 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 92 per cent)
(The reason for <15 per cent is that the person concerned can serve as a cook with a considerable hearing loss.
At present, CO-SEA is trying to have the case re-considered by the National Board of Industrial Injuries on
the basis of new information).
241062-AAA1
16 August 2011 ska ph
10 April 2013 ASK EET 60 per cent
20 September 2013 AST EET 35 per cent
23 April 2015 AST EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 85 per cent)
240682-AAA12
25 October 2009 ska ph
30 August 2011 ASK EET 40 per cent
5 April 2013 AST EET 15 per cent
12 March 2015 AST EET 85 per cent
11 August 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 87 per cent)
010255-AAA1
28 February 2011 ska ph
19 September 2013 ASK EET 50 per cent
16 January 2014 AST EET 50 per cent
4 February 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 88 per cent)
281059-AAA1
13 February 2001 ska ph
rejected
231165-AAA1
29 July 2010 ska ph
22 August 2012 ASK EET 70 per cent
19 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
10
(CO-SEA claim close to 100 per cent)
170277-AAA1
22 September 2010 ska ph
25 July 2013 ASK EET 20 per cent
12 March 2015 ASK EET 70 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 80 per cent)
090279-AAA1
14 May 2010 ASK EET 50 per cent
22 December 2010 ASK EET 50 per cent
23 March 2015 ASK EET 80 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 87 per cent)
(This decision by the National Board of Industrial Injuries has been appealed by the Danish Shipowners' Ac-
cident Insurance Association that refers to the fact that the person concerned is educated as a "Licensed
Marine Engineer" and that he should therefore – despite an eye trauma – have especially good possibilities on
the Philippine labour market. CO-SEA has drawn attention to the fact that the person concerned has served
only as a motorman and has, furthermore, acquired various declarations from the Philippines confirming that
the education is "worthless" ashore).
081253-AAA1
11 December 2010 ska Indian
4 March 2011 ASK EET 85 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 100 per cent
(CO-SEA claim 100 per cent)
040376-AAA1
4 January 2012 ska ph
20 December 2013 ASK EET 40 per cent
23 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(CO-SEA claim close to 100 per cent)
(The case has been resumed at the request of CO-SEA after having visited the injured person in Manila. Ap-
parently, the person concerned has – in addition to an objectively established injury of the visual nerve – con-
tracted serious brain injury. In the accident, he fell in rough weather in the galley and hit his head against the
kitchen range first and subsequently he hit the floor with the back of his head).
301063-AAA1
11 March 2010 ska ph
18 September 2013 ASK EET 60 per cent
23 March 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
060264-AAA1
22 September 2011 ska ph
22 August 2012 ASK EET 50 per cent
15 November 2013 AST EET 15 per cent
22 December 2014 AST EET 85 per cent
11
(CO-SEA calculation 87 per cent)
070764-AAA1
14 September 2006 ska ph
3 July 2008 ASK EET 70 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(CO-SEA claim close to 100 per cent)
010369-BBB1
16 December 2011 ska ph
30 October 2013 ASK EET 60 per cent
26 May 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 84 per cent)
240758-AAA1
2 January 2011 ska ph
22 August 2012 ASK EET 60 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 86 per cent)
140259-AAA1
8 June 2010 ska ph
22 August 2012 ASK EET 75 per cent
10 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(CO-SEA calculation 87 per cent)
In all the cases, CO-SEA has made an independent calculation for use when considering the case. We have
based our calculation on a theoretical annual wage for the Filipinos of DKK 15,000 – which was the basis of
the case considered by the Danish Eastern High Court – without considering the extent of the injury and the
fact that the injured person is domiciled in the Philippines. Only in especially serious cases, have we claimed a
loss of earning capacity of "close to 100 per cent". Of course, it has been a precondition that the injury has
resulted in the person concerned no longer being fit for duty as a seafarer (Blue Book cannot be acquired). We
have given the result of the calculation in whole numbers, while the decisions are always given in whole
numbers that can be divided by 5.
In practice, the average wage in Manila amounts to approx. DKK 13,000 annually for an unskilled worker ac-
cording to official statistics, and it is our claim that such a wage could theoretically and at best be acquired
irrespective of the extent of the injury.
So the calculation is as follows: 100 – (15,000 x 100)/annual wage as a seafarer = loss of earning capacity.
In practice, we and the National Board of Industrial Injuries assume that a Philippine seafarer serves for an
average of 9 months a year.
12
Retention/set-offs in benefits for Filipinos
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION
When a Philippine seafarer is hired through a recruitment agency, the person concerned signs a Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration contract (mandatory in the Philippines) and is – as far as we know –
not given any additional information about the AMOSUP (Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union
of the Philippines) collective agreement. A part of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration con-
tract covers rules on compensation in connection with injury, including a section called "Schedule of disability
or impediment for injuries suffered and diseases including occupational diseases or illness contracted". The
schedule divides all injuries and diseases into degrees of disabilities from 1 to 14 with associated compen-
sation. The system is more or less comparable to the Danish table of disability, and in the same manner the
system operates with a single compensation at a maximum amount of USD 60,000. In case of death, the com-
pensation amounts to USD 60,000 with an addition for children in the case of ratings, and in the case of of-
ficers, the compensation amounts to USD 80,000 with an addition for children.
THE AMOSUP COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
The AMOSUP collective agreement includes a disputed regulation on the set-off of compensations in section
10 (agreement for ratings):
"No claim for compensation according to POEA Rules can be settled prior to a final decision concerning
compensations according to the Danish Industrial Injuries Act has been made.
When meting out compensations according to POEA Rules, any entitlements according to the Danish In-
dustrial Injuries Act should be set off. ..."
PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES
CO-SEA consistently rejects getting involved in issues related to the conditions of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, but we cannot avoid getting knowledge about the Philippine judicial practice in
this area.
It is usual for injured Philippine seafarers to get in contact with local lawyers (possibly already at their arrival
in the Airport of Manila) who undertake to conduct cases of the Philippine Overseas Employment Admin-
istration at the Labour Court against a percentage share of any compensation (usually 25 per cent), cor-
responding to similar systems in the USA.
A judicial practice has developed in the Philippines according to which compensation by the Philippine Over-
seas Employment Administration must have been meted out no later than four months after the date of injury.
This practice makes it more or less impossible to meet the provision on set-offs stipulated in the collective
agreement.
In practice, CO-SEA is aware of only one case where a set-off has been effected in connection with a com-
pensation by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The case has been described in the special
edition of our professional journal from November 2003 (the Rodolfo Redosendo case).
13
One of the questions that we have asked ourselves in connection with set-offs in the Philippines is whether it
is, after all, legal to pass on information about compensations from the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insur-
ance Association for use in connection with such set-offs. However, a decision has been made that is in sup-
port of the legality hereof.
3F brought a case before the Danish FSA about the legality of the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance
Association passing on confidential information on the granting of compensation from the National Board of
Industrial Injuries to the shipowner. The case concerned a Filipino who was injured on board a Torm ship in
2004. In its decision dated 25 August 2008, the Danish FSA concludes:
"The passing on is legitimate pursuant to section 117(1) of the act on financial activities when the Danish
Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association passes on information about an employee's industrial injury
compensation to the insurance holder (the employer) for use when attending to the interests of the insurance
holder in connection with a foreign compensation case deriving from the same incident."
THE DANISH SHIPOWNERS' ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
In 2015, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has in ten cases, following revised decisions
on loss of earning capacity as a consequence of the Danish Eastern High Court judgment, set off Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration payments against the Danish compensations to the extent possible.
The Danish compensations in relation to which set-offs have been effected concern:
* Lump sum awards (if they have been technically relevant at the time of the calculation).
* Monthly compensations with retroactive effect (the difference between benefits before revised
compensations and benefits after revised compensations which have been given for the period from the
first decision on loss of earning capacity until the revision).
In addition, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has frozen the monthly benefits at the
original decision on loss of earning capacity in cases where it has not been possible to effect set-offs to their
full extent (most cases).
In an accompanying letter to the injured persons, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association
informs that the set-off is effected as a consequence of claims received from the P&I insurance company
against the previous employer, awaiting a decision in Denmark (on the legality of the set-off).
OVERVIEW OF THE TEN CASES
Conversion values have been made in accordance with the daily exchange rate at the time of writing.
Calculations for cash payment include current monthly benefits.
190462-AAA1 (ASK case no., including date of birth)
416/10 (UFDS case no.)
24 February 2015 (UFDS date of notifying set-off)
P&I claim: USD 10,075 = DKK 66,282
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 153,757
Set-off = DKK 66,282
14
020155-AAA1
136/2011
12 April 2015
P&I claim: USD 60,000 = DKK 410,941
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 24,498
Set-off = DKK 24,498
070764-AAA1
483/2006
30 April 2015
P&I claim: PHP 2,628,000 = DKK 380,000
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 110,247
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 108,570
030859-AAA1
362/2006
30 April 2015
P&I claim: USD 65,000 = DKK 444,000
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 145,414
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 142,982
170277-AAA1
417/2010
30 April 2015
P&I claim: USD 63,000 = DKK 430,302
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 29,497
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 29,497
160872-AAA1
96/2008
30 April 2015
P&I claim: PHP 2,529,379 = DKK 365,666
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 548,587
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 545,766
301063-AAA1
96/2010
30 April 2015
P&I claim: PHP 3,742,051 = DKK 365,666
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 66,549
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 61,867
231165-AAA1
316/2010
30 April 2015
P&I claim: USD 60,000 = DKK 409,811
15
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 20,247
Set-off preliminarily = DKK 18,526
010369-BBB1
24/2012
1 October 2015
P&I claim: USD 37,459 = DKK 227,646
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 611,540
Set-off = DKK 227,646
240682-AAA0
1 November 2015
P&I claim: USD 313,500 (according to salary statement)
Advance payment: DKK 325,000
Calculation for cash payment after tax as of date = DKK 811,561
Set-off = DKK 313,500
Total set-off claims according to the above: DKK 3,413,814
At present, total set-offs as of the settlement dates according to the above: DKK 1,539,134
DISPUTE ON THE RIGHT TO SET OFF IN CONNECTION WITH DANISH COMPENSATIONS
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has not previously held the view that it has been
possible to effect set-offs in connection with Danish compensations, but on the occasion of the many extra
payments in 2015, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has revised its view (apparently
following a requirement by the Danish shipowners).
The legal basis referred to is, on the one hand, a conclusion by analogy to the set-off provision of the AMO-
SUP collective agreement (the intention has never been to pay two compensations from two different systems)
and, on the other hand, section 29(2) of the act on industrial injury on set-offs "covering compensation and
indemnification amounts of the same nature."
CO-SEA does not hold the view that there is a legal basis for effecting the set-off described, merely because
compensations of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration cannot be compared to Danish com-
pensations for loss of earning capacity.
The issue has been considered by lawyers for CO-SEA and the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Asso-
ciation, respectively.
On 6 March 2015, the National Board of Industrial Injuries forwarded a statement in the case according to
which "there is no basis for giving the insurance company the right to be reimbursed for the compensation
and indemnification from the industrial injury insurance company."
Following this statement, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association filed a complaint and re-
quested a decision as such.
16
On 13 May 2015, the National Board of Industrial Injuries forwarded a decision in which it is concluded:
"Against this background, the National Board of Industrial Injuries has decided that the Danish Shipowners'
Accident Insurance Association must not pay the Philippine insurance company any amount to which the in-
jured person or his or her surviving relatives are entitled pursuant to the act."
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has filed an appeal against the decision, and both
lawyers in the case have forwarded additional opinions.
On 6 August 2015, the National Board of Industrial Injuries informs that the case will be forwarded to the
Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work.
Our lawyer has forwarded several enquiries to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work (most
recently on 21 December 2015) requesting it to prioritise the consideration, but we have not received an
answer.
On 15 January 2016, CO-SEA forwarded a complaint to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work.
We based our request to prioritise the consideration of the case on the fact that the one case that has been for-
warded for consideration by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work represents ten similar cases
with very large economic consequences to the parties involved. Finally: "We simply cannot understand that
neither we nor our lawyer has heard anything from the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work
though we have contacted them several times."
On 22 January 2016, we contacted the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work by telephone and
spoke to the "person on duty". It turns out that the set-off case has been created on 9 October 2015 by a case
worker who is no longer employed by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work and this case also
includes, for example, our letter of 15 January 2016. We have now been given a case number and have been
promised a reply quickly.
On 28 July 2016, the Council on Health and Safety at Work took a decision on this case.
Case no. 2016-5014-47153
"SET-OFFS ARE NOT POSSIBLE."
"There was agreement at the meeting."
Extract from the reasoning:
"Thus, it is not a question of benefits that concern the same type of compensation, which is a condition for set-
offsetting, and it is not possible to make an account of the compensation paid item by item. The compensation
according to the Philippine regulations on 'permanent total or partial disability' cannot, in our view, be com-
pared to compensation for loss of earning capacity, which replaces the injured person's ability to get an in-
come through work. It is a question of an economic criterion and the medical consequence of the injury does
not have any influence in its own right on the issue of whether the injured person is entitled to receive com-
pensation for loss of earning capacity."
The Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP)
During our visits to Manila, we are treated really fine by the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union
of the Philippines. Good treatment (both professionally and "privately") is obviously one of their core com-
17
petences when it comes to "customers", including trade unions in countries that hire Philippine seafarers for
whom the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines has collective agreements.
However, it is the overall view of the undersigned that the legal department in Manila has neither the capacity
nor the willingness to attend to the interests of their members at a level that is acceptable according to our
standards. We can, for example, mention that CO-SEA, by routine, informs the Associated Marine Officers'
and Seamen's Union of the Philippines unofficially about injured Philippine seafarers. On the other hand, we
have never hear that the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines has, as a con-
sequence hereof, contacted any of these members and offered legal assistance in relation to the regulations of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration or informed them about their rights at the hospitals in
Manila or Cebu owned by the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines. On the
other hand, we have often heard in Manila that – when members contact the Associated Marine Officers' and
Seamen's Union of the Philippines on their own and ask for assistance – the advice given is more or less use-
less.
In connection with our visits to Manila, it is taken seriously when we raise specific cases vis-à-vis the Asso-
ciated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines for as long as were are in Manila.
Disregarding the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines's own purposes (admin-
istration of funds, generation of surplus and prestige for the owners), it is our subjective perception that the
hospitals are presumably the best working divisions of the organisation.
There are potential and realistic possibilities of the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the
Philippines's hospital in Manila becoming a central cooperation partner in relation to medical reports that are
requested from the Philippines for the National Board of Industrial Injuries.
The National Board of Industrial Injuries
We have an excellent daily cooperation with the National Board of Industrial Injuries and can easily contact
key persons with whom we have also had several face-to-face meetings.
Previously, it has been a great problem that many letters for foreigners have been forwarded without a trans-
lation, but this problem has gradually been minimised. On the other hand, translations can often delay the case
consideration for quite some time, especially in case of sickness in the division concerned. Occasionally, we
request letters without a translation and then we inform the injured person directly about the contents.
We have noted that it takes quite some time to take a decision in many cases and that the decisions taken are
often characterised by a large element of being "mere guesses". This was especially the case with the deci-
sions taken on loss of earning capacity prior to the Danish Eastern High Court judgment where no decisions
had previously been considered specifically in accordance with an understanding of the wage level in low-pay
countries.
Certain special questions for the National Board of Industrial Injuries may result in an extremely long case
consideration period, and often principled questions will be returned after a while with diplomatic, irrelevant
answers.
18
Previously, the National Board of Industrial Injuries used to send questionnaires about income-related issues
to foreigners which contained a number of questions that referred to Danish law (early retirement pension,
flex jobs, rehabilitation, etc.). This has stopped now following criticism from CO-SEA.
CO-SEA has asked to have the webpage section "make your own calculation" translated and included on the
English webpage of the National Board of Industrial Injuries.
Section 15 of the act on industrial injuries stipulates the following:
"Subsection 3. Compensation of future expenses for recovery, exercise rehabilitation and aids necessary be-
cause of the industrial injury shall be set as a lump sum. In case of permanent expenses, the amount consti-
tutes the expected, average annual expenses multiplied by the capitalisation factor stipulated pursuant to sec-
tion 27(4) for loss of earning capacity."
CO-SEA has never seen this provision used in practice in connection with foreign industrial accident cases,
and in our view it could often be used. In 2016, we will focus on the issue of treatment expenses in general. In
this connection, it is our view that more attention should be attached to treatment expenses for persons domi-
ciled in, for example, the Philippines or India, especially considering the difference between these expenses
and the free Danish treatment.
(See also later under the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association).
The Danish Maritime Authority
Our cooperation with the Danish Maritime Authority is, and always has been, unproblematic and we have a
designated person whom we can contact about cases involving sickness benefits. On the other hand, the co-
operation between the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association and the Danish Maritime Author-
ity is non-existing, and the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association cannot, for example, acquire
information from the Danish Maritime Authority about civil registration numbers, tax conditions and the like
once a case has been considered by the Danish Maritime Authority due to the act on protection of personal
data and lacking proxies.
Only in a few debatable cases, have we had discussions with the Danish Maritime Authority about the right to
receive sickness benefits, where the Danish Maritime Authority in general relies very much on the written
text. Here are a few examples:
4 January 2012 ska ph
20 December 2013 ASK EET 40 per cent
23 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent
(CO-SEA claim close to 100 per cent)
The case has been reconsidered upon the request of CO-SEA following a visit to the injured person in Manila.
Apparently, the person concerned has – in addition to an objectively established injury of his visual nerve –
contracted serious brain injury. In the accident, he fell in rough weather in the galley and hit his head against
the kitchen range first and subsequently he hit the floor with the back of his head (claim revised to loss of
earning capacity = 100 per cent).
19
In the case concerned, the injured person signed a declaration for the manning agent approx. 2 months after
the accident in which he declared that he was fully fit for work. The declaration was forwarded to the Danish
Maritime Authority, which immediately closed the sickness benefits case, which should in principle have been
continued for almost 22 months (until a decision on loss of earning capacity had been made by the National
Board of Industrial Injuries). CO-SEA has no doubt whatsoever that the person concerned did not know what
he signed and already the first decision on loss of earning capacity by the National Board of Industrial Injuries
supports the view that he can hardly have been fit for duty two months after the accident. We did not succeed
in making the Danish Maritime Authority reconsider the issue of the right to receive sickness benefits.
160872-AAA1 (ASK case no.)
96/2008 (UFDS case no.)
26 February 2008 ska ph
25 November 2011 ASK disability 18 per cent
After the accident on 26 February 2008, the person concerned is declared "fit for duty" with back pains by a
medical practitioner in England.
He signs off after having completed the job in April 2008.
He signs on a new ship on 18 May 2008 and signs off on 11 December 2008 again after having completed the
job.
He signs on again on 9 April 2009, and on 12 April 2009 work-related back pains are reported.
After having consulted a medical practitioner in Cape Town on 10 May 2009, he signed off due to sickness in
order to receive treatment.
On 29 August 2009, he signed on a new ship and signed off on 19 March 2010.
On 26 April 2010, he signed on a new ship.
On 20 June 2010, he signed off after a "medical report" in Klaipeda.
On 11 February 2011, the Danish Maritime Authority writes in a letter to CO-SEA that the Danish Maritime
Authority does not consider it established that the signing off on 20 June 2010 was due to an industrial injury,
which means that the requirement for 13 weeks of employment stipulated in the order on sickness benefits
need not be met. Then, the Danish Maritime Authority lists the ordinary jobs at sea after the accident on 26
February 2008 and the right to receive sickness benefits is rejected.
While forwarding various documentation of the seafarer having been reported sick as a consequence of the
industrial injury, CO-SEA reiterates its request for sickness benefits.
On 23 December 2011, the Danish Maritime Authority maintains its rejection, and on 20 January 2012 CO-
SEA appeals the decision to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work.
On 8 February 2013, the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work makes its decision and changes the
decision made by the Danish Maritime Authority. The person concerned is entitled to receive sickness bene-
fits from 20 June 2010 because it is considered to have been documented that he was reported sick due to a
deterioration of his condition after the industrial injury.
Another issue that may in principle be delicate is whether the fact that a person is reported fit for duty applies
to work at sea or work at large. To the Danish Maritime Authority, it is according to the act necessary that the
20
report on sickness applies to "any kind of work", but these declarations are not always formulated unambigu-
ously in the Philippines.
In connection with medical reports and payment of sickness benefits, the Danish Maritime Authority cooper-
ates with the Danish Embassy in Manila (previously the Consulate). It has been practice for the Embassy to
acquire medical reports and to cooperate with the relevant manning agencies in Manila. In connection with the
"Leopard" cases, CO-SEA specifically opposed this practice, and the Embassy excused its procedure and
changed its instructions for the seafarers. It is somewhat uncertain which general practice applies at the
moment, but presumably the seafarer can normally choose which medical practitioner to use.
Sickness benefits are paid by means of the Embassy for a period of two months, and hereafter a new medical
report will normally have to be acquired before the next payment can be made (in certain cases, the Danish
Maritime Authority does not require a medical report for a longer period of time).
SICKNESS PAY AND SICKNESS BENEFITS
* The employment requirement must be met in order to be entitled to receive sickness benefits (various
provisions of the act on sickness benefits and the act on sickness benefits for seafarers).
* The employer period: 30 calendar days (sections 6 and 30 of the act on sickness benefits).
* The right to receive sickness benefits ceases:
After 26 weeks (182 calendar days) (section 25 of the act on sickness benefits).
After 18 weeks (126 calendar days) (section 17 of the act on sickness benefits for seafarers).
Section 27 of the act on sickness benefits contains more reasons for extending the period, including
awaiting a decision on loss of earning capacity after an industrial injury.
* The seamen's act: Sickness pay runs for 16 weeks (112 days) or until the termination of the employ-
ment after expiry of the 16 weeks (section 29 of the seamen's act).
* Foreign collective agreements: Entitled to a maximum of 120 days' sickness pay = "basic pay".
For a number of years, we have been facing a rather obscure problem related to the size of the sickness bene-
fits. In accordance with the collective agreement, sickness pay is being paid as a "basic pay", i.e. wages with-
out any addition of for example the permanent large addition for "guaranteed overtime". The sickness pay is
paid for a period of up to 120 days by the shipowner (according to collective agreements) with the right to be
refunded by the Danish Maritime Authority after the employer period, whereafter the case is transferred to the
Danish Maritime Authority if the person concerned is still unfit for work.
When a seafarer is domiciled in an EU country, the sickness benefits are not paid by the Danish Maritime
Authority after 126 days (if the person concerned is still entitled to receive benefits following an industrial
accident), but by the municipality in which the relevant shipowner is domiciled. In these cases, the applicable
legal basis is the general act on sickness benefits, according to which sickness benefits are calculated on the
basis of the average income, however, with a maximum amount.
In an especially comprehensive case with a Polish citizen who had been involved in an industrial accident on
15 November 2007, we and the former seafarer complained to the Municipality of Copenhagen about the basis
for calculating the sickness benefits on several occasions. The administration forwarded the complaint to the
Employment Appeals Board on 5 March 2010, stating that the Municipality continued the calculation basis as
it had been informed by the Danish Maritime Authority "on the basis of the monthly basic pay".
21
The Employment Appeals Board sent the case back to the municipality by its decision of 26 May 2010, and
on 30 June 2010 the municipality informed that they will observe the assessment of the Appeals Board that
the municipality must base its calculation on the provisions of section 47 of the act on sickness benefits, ac-
cording to which the calculation is based on the actual gross income (including overtime) acquired in average
by the wage earner in the three months immediately prior to him being reported sick. Subsequently, the
municipality calculated that an amount of DKK 46,227 after tax should be paid to the person concerned as a
corrective payment.
The Danish Maritime Authority has consistently rejected that the same legal basis applies to its calculation of
sickness benefits, apparently referring to section 11 of the order on sickness benefits for seafarers together
with section 29 of the seamen's act (act on seafarers' conditions of employment, etc.), cf. L100 (remarks to the
act as presented on 13 January 2010 – Danish Parliament 2009-10).
When the Danish Maritime Authority forwards a case on sickness benefits to a shipowner municipality, the
calculation basis used by the Danish Maritime Authority is transferred at the same time, and this gives – or
may give – rise to wrong payments. Furthermore, it is the view of CO-SEA that the practice used by the Dan-
ish Maritime Authority is wrong and cannot be derived from the legal basis referred to, but the case has not
yet been tried before the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work, and the issue involves several
complicated problems (such as the issue of the maximum sickness benefits rate according to section 47 of the
act on sickness benefits – where the municipality in the case concerned takes its point of departure in the
maximum unemployment benefits rate that presupposes membership of an unemployment fund).
In any case, it is considered logically wrong to calculate the sickness benefits rate in two different ways de-
pending on whether the one making the calculation is the municipality or the Danish Maritime Authority.
Example for illustration purposes:
* Maximum benefits per month in 2016: 17,974 (836 x 5 x 4.3)
* Basic pay per month for an able seaman on an AMOSUP collective agreement:
USD 608 = DKK 4,185 (wages as of December 2015)
* Total pay per month for an able seaman on an AMOSUP collective agreement:
USD 1,365 = DKK 9,396 (wages as of December 2015)
Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association
If we take a look at the entire period 2006-2015, our cooperation with the insurance company has been excel-
lent. Unfortunately, we noted that the development in the set-off dispute in 2015 had a very bad impact on the
relationship between CO-SEA and the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association.
In principle, we largely appreciate that the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association is trying to
receive justice in the same manner as we do on behalf of the seafarers. We also understand that the corrective
payments made following the Danish Eastern High Court judgment have been considerable for the company.
However, this does not alter our perception of an unbecoming process during 2015.
If there was a perception that payments through Danish industrial accident insurances could be set off against
insurance amounts already paid by P&I companies in the Philippines, the companies could – from the point in
time when this perception applied – in connection with and simultaneously with the payments by the Philip-
22
pine Overseas Employment Administration have presented their possible claims to the injured person and the
National Board of Industrial Injuries/Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association.
As has been the procedure in now ten cases, the National Board of Industrial Injuries has written to the per-
sons concerned that decisions have been made and that specifically calculated payments are on their way from
the insurance company whereafter the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has informed after
some time that these payments have been suspended for an indefinite period of time. Though decisions by the
National Board of Industrial Injuries do state a deadline for appeals by both parties, nobody had imagined that
payments which constitute a long awaited consequence of a Danish Eastern High Court judgment would be
reset on the basis of an old payment under Philippine Overseas Employment Administration law. The injured
persons have had every good reason to presume and expect that the payments would be made as notified by
the National Board of Industrial Injuries.
The entire story has been a major strain, presumably also to the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Asso-
ciation as such, in terms of "book-keeping" and correspondence. We possess comprehensive files of cor-
respondence with all ten involved parties.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has announced that they intend to pay interest on
overdue payments in all the cases if their contention is not upheld as regards the set-off claim.
In late 2015 and especially after a meeting in Rødovre on 5 November, the relationship between the Danish
Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association and CO-SEA has fortunately been normalised. We have a nor-
mal, sound cooperation on an everyday basis and are awaiting a final decision about the set-off issue in
silence.
LIMITATION – PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS
It has not been possible to reach agreement about a claim made by CO-SEA for a 3-year limitation pursuant to
the general Danish provisions on limitation (in two of the cases, the payments by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration have been made more than three years prior to the set-off claim). In one of these
cases, this has been a special strain because the person concerned has lost everything after the well-known
typhoon "Haiyan" in 2013. Just before Christmas in 2015, we did however find a kind of temporary and par-
tial solution to this problem together with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association, in the form
of an advance payment of the ongoing payment to the person concerned.
The limitation claim has also been brought before the National Board of Industrial Injuries (Special Adviser in
the section for Policy, Law and Analysis), but our views have in principle merely been forwarded to the
lawyer of the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association who reverted with a "we are back at the
point where we started" answer, saying: "In order to take a decision on the allegation made by CO-SEA on the
issue of limitation, it is necessary that the UFDS is informed about the regulations, etc. upon which CO-SEA
bases its allegation." (22 July 2015)
For procedural reasons, we have – somewhat reluctantly – decided to let the issue remain unsolved while we
are awaiting an overall decision by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work.
23
MEETING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES, THE DANISH SHIP-
OWNERS' ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND CO-SEA
On 30 January 2015, we held a joint meeting at the premises of the National Board of Industrial Injuries with
the following agenda:
* Update of agreement between the National Board of Industrial Injuries and the Danish Shipowners'
Accident Insurance Association about the acquisition of medical reports from medical specialists.
* Adjustment of questionnaires forwarded to foreigners.
* Contract between the National Board of Industrial Injuries and the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insur-
ance Association.
* Choice of medical consultants.
* General information for foreign seafarers.
* Loss of earning capacity after the Danish Eastern High Court judgment.
* The Leopard cases.
* Specific case (brain-injured cook).
The National Board of Industrial Injuries made a summary from the meeting.
AGREEMENT ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES
AND THE DANISH SHIPOWNERS' ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association considers all cases reported preliminarily before they
are forwarded to the National Board of Industrial Injuries for further consideration, if relevant. When the
Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association finds that a report will not result in compensation, the
case is deposited with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association at the same time as a letter
about the decision is forwarded to the person injured in which he or she is requested to write back in case of
disagreement. The case consideration – as well as the provisions on deadlines under the law – is not initiated
until a case is forwarded to the National Board of Industrial Injuries. When the National Board of Industrial
Injuries acquires medical reports from abroad, this is done through the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insur-
ance Association.
The background for this special system between the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association and
the National Board of Industrial Injuries is historical. Until 18 October 1993, there was a general arrangement
according to which the insurance companies performed part of the handling of the case consideration. These
procedures were changed through a circular letter dated 8 October 1993 and entitled "Guidance on the acqui-
sition of information from a medical practitioner in company cases". The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insur-
ance Association was kept outside the new arrangement.
By letter of 4 October 2010, the former General Director of the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Asso-
ciation Mogens Gregersen complained to the National Board of Industrial Injuries because "the employees of
the Board are now again acquiring functional reports/medical reports, including reports from medical
specialists, in cases about injured seafarers in contravention of the agreement that the Danish Shipowners'
Accident Insurance Association concluded in 2003 with ...".
A written agreement as such does possibly not exist, but it is clear from various correspondence that the
agreement was concluded because correspondence with foreign seafarers requires special insight about places
of residence, etc.
24
At the meeting held at the premises of the Board on 30 January 2015, the system was discussed and it is clear
from the summary that: "CO-SEA accepted a continuation of the existing arrangement. However, this ac-
ceptance is conditional upon a description of the process related to the acquisition of medical information,
including openness about medical registers."
On several occasions, CO-SEA tried to remind the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association of the
description agreed upon, but in letter to the National Board of Industrial Injuries of 2 July 2015, CO-SEA had
to say that attempts to make the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association react had not been suc-
cessful. Subsequently, we informed "that CO-SEA consequently withdraws its acceptance of the existing ar-
rangement."
The above has had no consequences, and the situation remains unchanged at the time of writing.
MEETING BETWEEN THE DANISH SHIPOWNERS' ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND
CO-SEA
On 10 April 2015, we held a working meeting in Amaliegade about a number of practical issues. After the
meeting, the undersigned forwarded his draft summary of the meeting. Subsequent attempts to have the sum-
mary accepted or to receive remarks to the summary from the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Asso-
ciation were not successful.
The delicate issue in the summary was undoubtedly about set-offs, where the summary listed various sce-
narios for the way forward. If the contention of the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association was
not upheld by the decision from the National Board of Industrial Injuries, the decision would be appealed, and
the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association would pay amounts that had already been retained
against the injured person's signature that, in the future, set-offs could be effected (against ongoing benefits) if
the contention of the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association was finally upheld.
CO-SEA considered the lack of acceptance, or the lack of a reasoned objection, a breach of confidence.
RIGHT OF INFORMATION
In general, we are always granted a right of access to information in personal cases from the Danish Ship-
owners' Accident Insurance Association when we are in possession of a proxy.
In two specific cases and in connection with the set-off cases, it has however not been possible to get right of
access to information from the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association.
In connection with the set-off cases, both we and our lawyer have tried to get documentation for a specific set-
off claim without success (the claims are merely found as allegations in an accompanying letter to the injured
persons).
On 14 October 2015, CO-SEA complained to the National Board of Industrial Injuries, describing the back-
ground for the request to get access to documents in the two specific cases where the Danish Shipowners'
Accident Insurance Association must be presumed to exert powers on behalf of the Board, but we were
25
merely informed that the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association is not a public authority and
were, thus, referred to the lawyer of the insurance company.
When we have reminded the National Board of Industrial Injuries about the lacking answer to this complaint,
we have merely been informed that the National Board of Industrial Injuries awaits an answer from the Danish
Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association.
In the first specific case, where the National Board of Industrial Injuries repeatedly asks the Danish Ship-
owners' Accident Insurance Association to procure a medical record from Manila, the correspondence ends
without any result again and again because the request is apparently forwarded to the injured person, who
cannot make the hospital print a record (a medical practitioner writes a few lines by hand, which are con-
sidered useless by the National Board of Industrial Injuries). In an email to the Danish Shipowners' Accident
Insurance Association, CO-SEA remarks that the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has
been requested to contact the hospital directly, to which the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Associa-
tion answers: "We have already contacted the hospital twice ages ago, but have not received anything."
Against the background above, we request to be granted right of access to the correspondence with the hospi-
tal – unsuccessfully.
I have met the injured person several times in Manila, and he must presumably have one of his legs ampu-
tated.
In the other specific case, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association claims that 14 documents
have been forwarded to the National Board of Industrial Injuries in February 2015 and obviously must have
gone lost, whereafter they are forwarded again on 9 July 2015. The case concerned is infected by a prolonged
process where the son of a deceased seafarer requests to have payment of child support extended due to
studies. Due to the process, the person concerned is about to miss the chance of completing his studies (see
more below).
CO-SEA has requested to be granted access to the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association's al-
leged correspondence with the National Board of Industrial Injuries in February 2015, when the documents
were forwarded from Manila – but without any luck.
DECEASED PERSON'S FAMILY
This case is extremely comprehensive when it comes to correspondence. An adult well-educated daughter of
the deceased person is writing on behalf of the family.
The second officer dies after an accident with a lifeboat on 28 January 1997 in Colombia.
110760-AAA1 (ASK case no.)
96/97 (UFDS case no.)
The second officer was married and has three children.
110760 (wife's birth data)
190491 (oldest daughter)
26
070694 (son)
030297 (youngest son)
All three children are granted ordinary benefits until they turn 18 years of age and subsequently additional
benefits due to documented studies until they turn 21 years of age. Problems arise in connection with the ad-
ditional child support. The extended benefits correspond to approx. DKK 2,000 per child per month.
On 14 August 2014, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association writes and informs the mother
that, unfortunately, the company has paid DKK 78,648 too much during the period 2012-2014 because the
payments for the oldest daughter were not stopped in due time when she turned 21 years of age. The Danish
Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association regrets the erroneous payments, but is also puzzled why the
family has not reacted to the payments which have clearly been erroneous.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association asks for proposals for repayment and – lacking such
acceptable proposals – the company proposes to withhold half of the benefits from the payments made to the
two other children every month until the debt has been paid.
Until this point in time, all payments have been summed up to one amount, which has been inserted on the
mother's account, and CO-SEA points to the fact that it has been an error in itself that the benefits for the two
children above the age of 18 have not been inserted on their own accounts.
From this point onwards, everything that can go wrong, goes wrong. The correspondence between Manila,
Amaliegade and Rødovre is extensive and worthy of a novel.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association withholds benefits for rather long periods of time,
but admits to CO-SEA at one point in time that this would hardly be accepted by a court since the family
maintains that it has received all the amounts in good faith. Assurances are made to pay all the amounts with-
held, but this does not happen after all. All questions to and fro are prolonged for months, and often the oldest
daughter (who is writing on behalf of the entire family) does not receive any reply to her letters that are sent
again and again.
On 3 February 2015, the oldest son turned 18, and in February all the documentation needed to apply for ex-
tended benefits were forwarded. The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association states that all the
papers were forwarded simultaneously to the National Board of Industrial Injuries, where it turns out in July
that they have not been recorded. The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association forwards the do-
cumentation again on 9 July 2015.
Also the case consideration by the National Board of Industrial Injuries is peculiarly slow and a decision is not
made until 12 October.
CO-SEA does not get a proxy until very late in this case because we are of the view that it is a mere matter of
expedition where we are just offering the family advice during the process after we have gotten in contact
with them (upon the death in 1997). The undersigned meets the oldest daughter in Manila in June 2015.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association clearly dislikes the family which the company finds
is, without any doubt, in bad faith when receiving benefits for the oldest daughter after she has turned 21.
27
To CO-SEA, the daughter seems to be decent and reliable, but it is simply impossible to decide whether they
were in good faith or in bad faith. The fault is indisputably that of the company, and just the fact that the bene-
fits have not been split up makes the claim for repayment legally weak.
Overall, the family is worse off economically after 1997, and the children have done their utmost to make
themselves a tolerable life in the Philippines.
INTEREST ON OVERDUE PAYMENTS
In two more complex cases, the calculation principles used in connection with interest on overdue payments
have been more uncertain. The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association is not to be blamed for
this, and apparently everyone, including the National Board of Industrial Injuries, is in doubt.
One of the examples can be illustrated by means of the following:
30 August 2011 ASK EET 40 per cent
13 September 2011 UFDS appeal
5 April 2013 ASK EET 15 per cent
24 July 2013 ASK EET 15 per cent (amount paid)
10 June 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent (following the Danish Eastern High Court judgment)
11 August 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent (amount paid)
On 30 September 2015, we asked the National Board of Industrial Injuries how to calculate the interest on
overdue payments in the right way in this case, and the request was forwarded to the division for calculations.
Here, it has been ever since and apparently the National Board of Industrial Injuries is also in doubt.
The Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association and CO-SEA have agreed to await an answer from
the National Board of Industrial Injuries before making a specific calculation in the two cases.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
As is probably evident, the cooperation has been extremely chilly in 2015. However, the situation has fortu-
nately been normalised, cf. the introduction, after our meeting on 5 November.
We hope that all cases related to set-offs will be solved in 2016 and that the remaining unsolved cases will
subsequently be closed in a constructive manner.
It is no secret that, for quite some time, we have considered filing a complaint with the Ombudsman (or the
Danish FSA – see below), considering the half-hearted attitude of the National Board of Industrial Injuries and
its evasive answers to complaints, especially as regards requests for being granted right of access to in-
formation. Considering the considerably more positive attitude around the turn of the year 2015-16, we will
however await future actions this year.
When the National Board of Industrial Injuries generally rejects interfering, it is done with reference to an
amendment to an act according to which the National Board of Industrial Injuries no longer has any powers in
28
relation to the case consideration of insurance companies. In the future, complaints are to be considered by the
Danish FSA.
The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work
We have not had a cooperation as such with the National Board of Industrial Injuries.
When decisions are appealed, this is done in cooperation with the injured person. We inform about the deci-
sion made by the National Board of Industrial Injuries and inform the injured person about our position. When
we recommend filing an appeal, we also offer to write the appeal – in Danish though. When we do not con-
sider it advisable to file an appeal, we inform the injured person about this, while stating that he or she is free
to appeal against the decision, but that this would also involve a procedural risk (the compensation from the
National Board of Industrial Injuries could be lowered).
If the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association files an appeal, it normally results in a suspension
of the decision made by the National Board of Industrial Injuries.
We have on several previous occasions complained about the fact that the Council of Appeal on Health and
Safety at Work does not translate its decisions into English. In an answer dated 6 September 2012, the Council
of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work rejected this possibility, but following repeated written complaints,
we succeeded in making the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work change its practice. But, sub-
sequently they took us by surprise. Previously, we could continue using the proxy that we had in the National
Board of Industrial Injuries, which did not mean that all correspondence in the case was exclusively directed
to the holder of the proxy. With a new proxy that applies only to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety
at Work, this possibility has been discontinued. However, this is not such a major problem. In addition to
standard messages about the inability to keep deadlines, only the decision as such is of relevance to the injured
person and it is essentially quite simple to translate this for the conclusion.
On 24 June 2013, CO-SEA complained about various issues related to the case consideration by the Council
of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work (translation into English, cases that were lost and prolonged case
consideration). We never received a reply as such, but the letter resulted in some email correspondence and
one single meeting with a director.
Though the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work has a system of priority, it is not in our experi-
ence easy to make the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work consider a case in haste. We have seen
examples where decisions have been prolonged for six or twelve months after we have been told over the
phone that "something will happen soon and the responsible person has been informed".
Now, we are trying once again with the case on set-offs (see above under the section on set-offs).
We would have liked to include in this report an overview of cases considered by the Council of Appeal on
Health and Safety at Work in which CO-SEA has been involved (appeals are centred around: degree of dis-
ability, loss of earning capacity and accounts of annual wages). Who filed an appeal, and whose contention
was upheld after how long a period of case consideration? However, we have not kept an independent record
of these cases, unfortunately, and it would be a very comprehensive task to reconstruct retrospectively.
29
We will try to find time for such a reconstruction in the course of 2016, and it is our intention to draw up a log
as such on all decisions (National Board of Industrial Injuries + Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at
Work).
The Ombudsman – languages
On 17 December 2013, CO-SEA wrote a specific complaint to the Mayor of the Social Services Administra-
tion in the Municipality of Copenhagen about a letter about benefits to a Portuguese citizen domiciled in Por-
tugal who had never been in Denmark and who did not speak Danish.
The letter was in Danish with contents specifically directed at a Danish citizen domiciled in Denmark and
with knowledge about a "digital letter box" and an ability to turn up for a meeting at a Danish job centre for an
interview.
Towards the end of the letter, we specifically state that the Portuguese citizen can disregard the letter for-
warded.
The answer is forwarded on 10 January 2014, and it goes as follows:
"We can inform you in this connection that these letters are generated automatically via NemRefunding on the
basis of the employer's reporting. According to the law, these letters are forwarded by the so-called SDPI
solution, and their wording has been decided nation-wide by Local Government Denmark and the Benefits
Service in Copenhagen does not have any influence on the drafting of these letters, just as we cannot right
away propose a technical solution that could handle automatic forwarding of these letters in several different
languages."
Subsequently, the Benefits Service in Copenhagen informs that they do not have any knowledge whatsoever
about the citizen concerned having a sickness benefits case since the case has not been received by the
Municipality and furthermore:
"On the basis of the information forwarded, we can establish that the employer has correctly reported ab-
sence from work due to sickness via NemRefunding, which has accepted the report, and the system has – via
the SDPI solution – forwarded the letter of information to the person who was reported sick so that it is pos-
sible to complain if the information reported by the employer is not considered correct."
"Furthermore, we have found that the report has been stopped in KMD Benefits since KMD Benefits has not
been able to validate the case. Therefore, a message has been sent via the system to the employer who re-
ported the case with the erroneous text: The case has been rejected by the municipality due to lacking valida-
tion."
"The Benefits Service has generally objected to this erroneous text because it is the system that rejects via
KMD Benefits and not the municipality."
"Unfortunately, it takes time to consider and, if relevant, make changes to a nation-wide system in accordance
with proposals for changes."
30
"On the basis of the information forwarded, the Benefits Service has contacted the employer, AP Møller-
Mærsk, and been informed that they have abandoned their attempts to get the reports through and, therefore,
has not done anything more in this case as regards reports to the municipality."
Finally, the Benefits Service informs that they have a percentage of answers by telephone of 95 per cent and
that they are constantly striving to improve their service, both in terms of quantity and quality. The Portuguese
citizen can disregard the letter if he does not have any objections to the contents.
And finally, there is a recommendation to contact the Benefits Service in the few individual cases related to
seamen not resident in Denmark so that these cases can be dealt with manually.
On 21 January 2014, we forwarded this correspondence to the Ombudsman of the Danish Parliament as
"Complaint about the case consideration of the Municipality of Copenhagen as regards foreign citizens, espe-
cially seafarers without any relation to Denmark."
We drew attention to the fact that the information letter from the Benefits Service contains a statement that "if
an information form is not returned and if the person concerned does not contribute to otherwise clarifying
the case, it may result in discontinuation of the right to receive sickness benefits."
It is our view that the letter is in contravention of section 19 of the public administration act because "it is
undeniably difficult to claim that the parties are adequately consulted in the specific case."
We present proposals for an alternative procedure and recommend changes right away.
On 3 March 2014, we receive a reply from the Ombudsman who decides not to initiate an investigation. The
Ombudsman finds that the municipality is striving to find a solution in connection with the reporting of sea-
men not resident in Denmark (which we have unfortunately not been able to see). Finally, attention is drawn
to the fact that the field of sickness benefits is within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment, which it
is possible to contact if a solution to the problem about the reporting of seamen not domiciled in Denmark is
delayed.
It is quite easy to ascertain that this story ended in its own stationary circle.
Ministry of Business and Growth – digitisation and languages
On 30 November 2014, CO-SEA wrote the Minister for Employment (we received a reply from the Minister
for Business and Growth) about ongoing problems for foreign seafarers who were in contact with the Danish
authorities in connection with voyages on DIS ships. We stressed that only a few of the seafarers concerned
could be expected to have access to assistance from Denmark and that the Danish authorities were, to a large
extent, communicating with foreign citizens in Danish.
The point of departure of the letter was the provision that it should only in exceptional cases be possible to
communicate with the authorities without been connected to Digital Mail from 1 November 2014 and that
foreign seafarers would only in exceptional cases be furnished with a generated CPR number.
31
On 9 December 2014, we received a reply from the Minister for Business and Growth (Mr. Henrik Sass
Larsen) who stressed that:
"It is important that seafarers working on board Danish ships have proper conditions and there should not be
any unnecessary barriers to their communication with the public authorities. This is so irrespective of whether
the seafarers concerned are Danish or foreign."
"I have asked the Danish Maritime Authority to take the initiative for a meeting with the relevant authorities
and organisations in order to clarify the problems and consider possible solutions."
To our knowledge, no solutions as such have been found as a result of this.
The Danish tax authorities (SKAT)
(See also the section "Portuguese seafarer").
It is hardly a surprise to anyone that our relationship with the Danish tax authorities is difficult and tense.
Most Danes are acquainted with endless telephone queues and switching through that continues until you hang
up. When you finally get in personal contact with somebody and get a direct number in the system, it is only
for a short period of time until the next system reconstruction.
One hardly has the heart to bother the administration with difficult marginal tasks when one is reminded on a
daily basis that the entire system is about to collapse.
Actually, we should not have any business with the Danish tax authorities, we thought, until 2015 when it
turned out that the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association withheld 55 per cent tax from many
payments because income accounts and civil registration numbers had not been forwarded and, consequently,
tax deduction cards had not been issued. We have been informed that if you do not have a tax deduction card,
a payer of a taxable income is obliged to withhold 55 per cent tax.
However, at the time of writing, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association seems to be getting
some systems in place so as to avoid these unreasonable deductions. You cannot just inform a Filipino – as
you can a Dane – that the tax will be equalized next year when overpaid tax will automatically be inserted on
a NemAccount. A Filipino would not be able to understand why 55 per cent tax – or even 37 per cent tax –
must be deducted from a monthly benefit of, for example, DKK 1,500.
We have had an overall discussion with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association about who is
responsible. We agree that it would be unreasonable to require the foreign ex-seafarer to get acquainted with
the Danish tax system and communicate his or her income data to the Danish tax authorities by means of
NemID and NemAccount.
The Danish Maritime Authority does not have problems similar to those of the Danish Shipowners' Accident
Insurance Association, and apparently they have smoother access to the acquisition of civil registration
numbers and preliminary assessments of income. They do not have problems with retroactive payments for
longer periods of time, just as the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association has in connection with
a number of decisions that require an amount to be distributed over several income years. The Danish Ship-
32
owners' Accident Insurance Association cannot acquire civil registration numbers from the Danish Maritime
Authority because the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association is a private company that does not
have any proxies on behalf of the wage earners.
WHAT IS TAXABLE?
Sickness benefits from the Danish Maritime Authority and municipalities.
Ongoing loss of earning capacity payments.
Compensation for invalidity as well as capitalised compensations for loss of earning capacity (max. 50 per
cent) are not taxable.
BASIC ALLOWANCE
In 2016, the personal allowance for a foreigner is DKK 44,000 per year, which means that all monthly pay-
ments below DKK 3,666 should result in a card specifying the amount of income allowed without tax (“fri-
kort”). All foreigners whom we have known choose to have 50 per cent of the loss of earning capacity capital-
ised and, thus, tax is (normally) payable in Denmark only in connection with sickness benefits and for interim
periods.
LANGUAGES
The Danish tax authorities communicate only in Danish (however, with a few exceptions from 2015). Tax
assessment notices, which many Danes do not understand much of in Danish, are also sent to the Philippines
accompanied by a letter with the technical information on NemID and the like.
Quite frequently, CO-SEA receives such tax letters from foreigners as scanned files, in connection with which
we can assist with information about the principal contents and, if relevant, with establishing a NemAccount.
Often, we can tell them that the letter should be thrown out.
ADVANCE TAX ASSESSMENTS AND CIVIL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Now, the Danish tax authorities have published an online form consisting of six pages (2.5 pages with
questions) which is available in six languages:
skat.dk/blanketter – 04 and subsequently 04.063
It is possible to fill in the form online and then print it.
This system can presumably solve quite a few problems.
DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENTS
According to a double taxation agreement that has been concluded between, for example, Denmark and the
Philippines, it should in principle be possible for a Filipino to be exempt from paying taxes in Denmark.
On 18 January 2007, the Danish tax authorities stated that it was possible for this group of persons to be ex-
empted from paying tax in Denmark if it could be proven that the persons concerned were fully liable to pay
33
tax in the Philippines and one Filipino who was entitled to receive compensation was exempted from paying
tax. Later, the Danish tax authorities revised their decision and, on 7 January 2009, they informed the Danish
Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association that the exemption was withdrawn as of 1 January 2010. The
Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association brought the case before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, which
informs on 19 September 2010 that tax exemption cannot be granted.
Now and again, CO-SEA is being involved in cases on national tax authorities requiring local tax on DIS in-
comes that they will not accept as incomes on which tax has been paid to Denmark because such a tax cannot
be documented from Denmark.
Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension (ATP)
In general, we hold the view that ATP contributions should be paid for all foreign seafarers. However, to our
knowledge this is only the case for EU seafarers (to some extent).
In a case related to a Spanish seafarer, we have salary statements covering 27 calendar years (the period from
1970 to 1997) and various Danish shipowners. There are a total of 207 salary statements, and out of these
ATP is deducted on 131, which indicates a large degree of randomness.
On 18 December 2013, we wrote a letter to the ATP requesting how the ATP schemes for DIS seafarers
domiciled abroad were generally administered. Our request was based especially on the approx. 3,000 Filipi-
nos who are permanently serving on Danish ships and the fact that the "Agreement on social security between
the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of the Philippines" could be expected to be signed. The questions
asked were the following:
* Will it be ensured that the communication with the Philippines is in English?
* How will the Filipinos concerned be informed about their outstanding amounts and the possibilities of
receiving them once they reach the pension age?
* How will they be informed about their rights in connection with deaths?
* If the amounts paid do not result in payments, how are the concerned accounts treated?
On 7 March 2014, we received a reply from the Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension to the first
three questions – the fourth one was ignored.
* In general, the Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension writes Danish letters – but when we
receive letters from persons in English, we will also in general answer in English.
* Three months before a person becomes a retirement pensioner (depending on the year of birth), the
Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension will forward a letter informing about the life-long pen-
sion that this person is entitled to receive. This is conditional upon the Danish Labour Market Sup-
plementary Pension having this person's address. We get our address data from the Danish central na-
tional register (CPR) so this is where the address must be updated. In this connection, we refer to sec-
tion 9(4) of the ATP act, which states:
"Supplementary pension, cf. subsection 1, for members domiciled abroad is paid upon request."
* The Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension is not automatically informed about deaths abroad.
Therefore, it is important that any relatives always contact the Danish Labour Market Supplementary
Pension. The Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension can pay lump sums to surviving spouses,
cohabitors or children younger than 18/21 years of age.
34
Considering foreign DIS seafarers' general lack of knowledge about Danish society, these answers do not
leave us with much confidence that these accounts are realised in accordance with the intent. And who will
write to Denmark and the Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pension on his own account following a
death?
Payment Denmark – child support for EU citizens
On 19 May 2014, CO-SEA wrote to Payment Denmark/Family Allowances requesting about the legal position
of EU citizens engaged on DIS ships as regards child benefits checks.
The questions were circulated among various public authorities for clarification purposes, and on 23 Septem-
ber 2014 we received a reply from International Pension and Social Security.
Initially, it is clarified that seafarers are not considered to be domiciled on board the ship. The ship is con-
sidered a temporary residence, "and the domicile will be the place where the person 'normally' resides, has
his or her family affiliation, etc. ... also during the six months' of work on board the ship", "this assessment
has been made exclusively on the basis of provisions on which country's regulations on social security apply
to a person."
"If we presume that the person is living in Poland, is a Polish citizen and that his wages are paid by a person,
company or the like in Poland, he will be covered by the Polish regulations on social security when he is
working on board a ship flying the Danish flag ..."
"The fact that you consider yourselves the actual employer is not something that can be taken account of when
considering the issue of which country's regulations on social security apply. In this area, the legislator has
stated that the one who is important in this connection is the one who is actually paying the wages."
After having asked an elaborating question about the above, we receive a reply on 29 September 2014 which
ultimately establishes:
"Danish ship, domiciled in Poland, Polish citizen, wages paid from Poland = not covered by Danish social
security, covered by Polish social security."
"Danish ship, domiciled in Poland, Polish citizen, wages paid from Denmark = covered by Danish social
security."
According to the above, no doubt should remain. If the EU seafarer in DIS is paid his wages from a local
agency in his home country, he will not be entitled to receive child support from Denmark, but if the wages
are paid directly by the actual employer in Denmark, he will be entitled to receive child support.
In our view, the possible right to receive child support from Denmark has not been communicated to EU sea-
farers on board Danish ships.
35
Social convention with the Philippines (and India)
On 11 September 2012, a convention text with an associated administrative agreement was ready to be signed,
and it had been signed by Denmark. Since then, CO-SEA has – through a contact person in the Ministry of
Social Affairs – asked at half-year intervals whether the convention had been signed in the Philippines. The
answer has consistently been in anticipation of this or that.
Then, on 22 January 2016 we were told by the Ministry of Employment – to where this jurisdiction was
moved after the last change of government – that the agreement had been signed and entered into force on 1
December 2015.
The guidelines for item 21 of the convention text states inter alia:
"According to article 11, paragraph 1, Philippine citizens shall be entitled to receive Danish social pension
after three years' qualification on the same terms as those applicable to Danish citizens domiciled in Denmark
when they meet a requirement for at least 12 months' employment under Danish law."
Article 11, paragraph 4, of the convention stipulates:
"In order to meet the requirement for 12 months' employment mentioned in paragraph 1 the following periods
shall form the basis:
a) Employment periods during which contributions have been made for a member of the Danish Labour
Market Supplementary Pension (ATP).
b) Periods before 1964 for which the person concerned can prove that he or she worked under Danish
law."
On 22 January 2016, the contents of the above were confirmed by Payment Denmark, International Pension.
Non EU-seafarers have not previously paid contributions to the Danish Labour Market Supplementary Pen-
sion and item a) can be read as a requirement for payments before periods of employment on board Danish
ships can be included in pension rights. The guidelines state, however, that other documentation of work in
Denmark can be used. The entire section of the guidelines confirms that it is the actual work that is of im-
portance and not the issue of ATP payments or not.
There will certainly be much to consider/understand and especially to communicate to the Philippine sea-
farers. Both previously and currently. The right to receive early retirement pension, etc.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the Danish authorities will, in reality, consider cases on early
retirement pension, considering the Danish provisions on fitness for work tests, residual earning capacity and
many other issues. We at CO-SEA have several evident cases from the Philippines to be considered as regards
the right to receive early retirement pension under the social convention.
(It should be noted that we have a similar social convention with India, which became effective on 18 May
2011. We at CO-SEA have at least one case that should result in early retirement pension in India, but that has
not yet been considered because we have simply not been aware of the convention previously.)
In the spring of 2016, CO-SEA has drawn up a two-page A5 information sheet about the Philippine and the
Indian social convention, respectively. During a visit to Manila in June 2016, we met with a Vice-President of
36
SSS (Social Security System) and the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines to
discuss the possibilities of informing seafarers (especially ex-seafarers) about the rights under the convention.
The Danish Association of Navigating Officers and the Danish Engineers' Association
In 2006/2007, the three associations from the DIS Contact Committee had a couple of meetings about the
design of the system. Since then, we have not met and there is no cooperation as such between the organisa-
tions. On a few occasions (for instance in connection with the Danish Eastern High Court judgment), CO-SEA
has forwarded material to the two others.
"Leopard"
12 January 2011 seizure
30 April 2013 release
(held hostage for 839 days)
On board: 1 Danish-Chilean (captain), 1 Dane (mate) and 4 Filipinos.
Shipowner: Shipcraft
Technical management: Nordane Shipping
Agent in Manila: Imperial Shipcraft
Three books have been published on the basis of the many spectacular aspects of this hostage story (the ship-
owner, the daily "Ekstrabladet", the length of the hostage taking, the stay ashore in Somalia):
"De glemte gidsler" (The forgotten hostages) (e-book, "Ekstrabladet")
"Det beskidte spil" (The dirty game) (Eva Damsgård)
"Sørens Somalia" (Søren's Somalia) (Karsten Hermansen and Søren Lyngbjørn)
The Danish Maritime Accident Investigation Board published its report in October 2013.
CO-SEA waited for a couple of months after the release before we wrote to the four Filipinos and, sub-
sequently, arranged a trip to Manila in July 2013, where we met for the first time together with our Liaison
Officer (Elissa Lagda). We had a rather long joint meeting, during which we provided information about the
Danish compensation system. Various family members took part in the meeting as well as the representative
of the Catholic relief organisation that had kept contact with the families during the entire hostage situation.
Towards the end of the meeting, we received written proxies from all four of them.
From July 2013 until this day, we have been in close contact with the four of them, and during each Manila
stay we meet several times. Two of them are domiciled in Manila, and the other two will come in from the
provinces to stay for a couple of nights.
All in all, it is our impression that all those involved in Denmark – with a single exception – have done their
utmost to treat the ex-hostages in an exquisite and committed manner. As regards the subsequent psycho-
logical and medical assistance, there is however no doubt that the two Danes benefitted from the Danish
37
health system and that the assistance offered to the Filipinos suffered from a lacking understanding of Philip-
pine society.
THE DANISH MARITIME AUTHORITY
After 120 days' entitlement to sickness pay (basic pay) on the shipowner's account, the cases were transferred
from Nordane Shipping to the Danish Maritime Authority (approx. on 1 September 2013).
However, the Danish Maritime Authority was soon faced with some serious dilemmas. The statements given
in the medical papers that were acquired and that had been made by means of the Philippine agent Imperial
Scanship are highly peculiar.
In a document signed on 25 September 2013, one of the four declared himself "fit for duty" counting from 26
June 2013! In an associated document, he declares that he and his family as of 26 June 2013 renounce any
subsequent claim against Imperial Scanship.
Another one signs a medical report on 11 May 2013 stating that he is "partially fit for duty" (which is regis-
tered with the Consulate-General on 16 October 2013).
A wide number of medical reports about the four are available, all of which are more or less in agreement with
an overall perception that the four do have certain recurrent problems after the hostage taking, but that they
are more or less healthy after a few months and do not have any important PTSD symptoms. All medical do-
cumentation is procured in 2013 through Imperial Scanship.
In the Danish Maritime Authority, the responsible case worker became still more desperate, being nervous
that the lacking payment of benefits would explode into a media story. According to the documentation avail-
able, payment of sickness benefits could not be legally justified.
During our visit to Manila in late January 2014, we visited the Danish Consulate-General on 28 January and
told them that the four informed that they had been informed by SMS from the Consulate-General that they
would now be invited by Imperial Scanship for new examinations (following a requisition to the Consulate-
General from the Danish Maritime Authority). I did not understand why Imperial Scanship was still involved,
considering the experience gained previously. The Consulate-General finally excused the faults made. Having
been informed that the four of them were now together in Manila, the cases were dealt with extremely rapidly
during the afternoon by a secretary at the Consulate-General, who personally visited the Makati Medical
Center and arranged for all four of them to be examined the next day. Not until the medical reports from these
examinations were available, could the Danish Maritime Authority establish sickness benefits cases retro-
actively from September.
The collection of medical documents available in 2013 was very comprehensive and very complex. However,
we have no doubt that Imperial Scanship makes it very difficult for the Danish Maritime Authority to start the
sickness benefits cases for the four. But the Danish Maritime Authority could also at a very early point in time
have made it clear to the Consulate-General that a local agent taking care of its own special interests in rela-
tion to any Philippine Overseas Employment Administration compensations could not be involved in medical
documentation for Denmark.
38
In general, some principles for the acquisition of medical documentation from the Philippines need to be
established (see also the section on the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association).
The National Board of Industrial Injuries
The decisions made by the National Board of Industrial Injuries until now are as follows:
101154-AAA1 (ASK case no. incl. date of birth)
2 May 2014 ASK disability 10 per cent (for revision on 1 November 2014) (CO-SEA appeals)
28 November 2014 AST disability 15 per cent
16 March 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent, disability unchanged at 15 per cent
3 July 2015 CO-SEA appeals against disability
241254-AAA1
2 May 2014 ASK disability 10 per cent (for revision on 1 November 2014)
16 March 2015 ASK EET 90 per cent, disability unchanged at 10 per cent
28 May 2015 CO-SEA appeals against disability
050661-AAA1
2 May 2014 ASK disability 10 per cent (for revision on 1 November 2014) (CO-SEA appeals)
26 August 2014 AST maintains disability 10 per cent
16 March 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent, disability increased to 20 per cent (EET for later revision)
16 July 2015 ASK wish to have the disability recorded reconsidered
240373-AAA1
2 May 2014 ASK disability 10 per cent (CO-SEA appeals)
4 September 2014 AST disability increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent (for revision on 1 November
2014)
16 March 2015 ASK EET 85 per cent (for revision on 1 November 2015)
8 September 2015 ASK wish to have the disability recorded reconsidered
The above-mentioned are the most important decisions and, as is evident, there are still some outstanding
issues, especially as regards the disability compensation, which CO-SEA considers to be rather low. Quite
subjectively, we would consider the 3 to be at a minimum of 20 per cent and one of them at a minimum of 30
per cent (according to our information, the two Danes have been found 25 per cent and 50 per cent disabled,
respectively).
All in all, it is our assessment that the National Board of Industrial Injuries has been working in due time and
seriously with the cases and that the amount of the disability compensation is based on lacking medical docu-
mentation from the Philippines.
SOS INTERNATIONAL
The Danish Maritime Authority requested introductory medical and psychological support for all six hostages
from SOS International. CO-SEA has had a couple of meetings with the organisation and has an overall im-
pression of a professionally working company. We have had some discussion as regards the recommendations
39
for the dental treatment of the Filipinos. While the two Danes were recommended to have dental implants, the
four Filipinos were recommended ordinary dental treatment, incl. partial dental plates.
However, there was some confusion. It turned out that the two who could theoretically have benefitted from
implants could not benefit from them without undergoing major surgical treatment that neither of them
wanted.
It is open to discussion why SOS International was not chosen for further psychological assistance for the four
after they had already become acquainted with them during the stay in Europe immediately after their release.
Much is probably related to budgets for own voyages and stays.
MAKATI
On 29 January 2014, all four of them were thoroughly examined at the Makati Medical Center, and profes-
sional thorough declarations were drawn up, incl. mental reports with recommendations for medication. These
declarations formed the basis of the further consideration by the Danish Maritime Authority and the National
Board of Industrial Injuries.
Not until these medical reports had been received, could the Danish Maritime Authority establish sickness
benefits cases for the four retroactively from early September.
SEAHEALTH
An unreasonably long period of time passed before the means were found and a decision was made on sub-
sequent psychological assistance for the four. Who was to finance it and how?
In the view of CO-SEA, it should not have been a problem, considering the wording of the act on industrial
injuries on treatment expenses, but some blame can presumably be imposed on the medical reports that were
procured in 2013 by Imperial Scanship according to which none of the four had any particular problems. But,
anyway!
We do not have insight into the considerations made by the parties involved (Danish Maritime Authority,
Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association, Danish Shipowners' Association), but after some palaver
in Denmark funding was granted for a Seahealth project that is described in an offer for the Danish Maritime
Authority (which must therefore be presumed to have financed it).
In February 2014, Seahealth informed the four that they would arrive in Manila on 20 and 21 March and dis-
cuss support sessions for a period of six months together with a Philippine trauma expert.
CO-SEA arranged associated visits to Manila on 15 March and 23 March anticipating any support.
The meetings on 20 and 21 March, which were also attended by the families of the four, had been arranged by
and held at the hospital of the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines with addi-
tional attendance by an NBI psychologist (see later) and representatives from the Associated Marine Officers'
and Seamen's Union of the Philippines, including the director of the hospital.
40
This initiative was taken very late, but it was good that it was taken and we have received only positive feed-
back from the four, also as regards the subsequent sessions with the Philippine trauma expert (Dr. June Pa-
gaduan-Lopez).
DR. PAPA
Dr. Romel Papa, Chief Behavioral Science Division, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), took part in the
meetings with Seahealth in March 2014. The NBI actually corresponds to our Ministry of Justice and has, at
an earlier point in time, been involved by the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philip-
pines in the case that they have instigated against Imperial Scanship in Manila (a claim to lose the licence).
In 2015, Dr. Papa has been engaged by the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association for continued
psychological assistance for the 3 of the 4, while the one who is living in a province further away from Manila
has been assigned his own psychologist.
CO-SEA met with Dr. Papa during our recent visit to Manila in June 2015.
THE DANISH SHIPOWNERS' ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
We cannot see through the role played or not played by the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Associa-
tion in relation to medical assistance or the lack hereof for the four Filipinos. In our comprehensive compila-
tion of documents, the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association does actually not occur until in
2015.
IMPERIAL SCANSHIP
(See also the section on the Danish Maritime Authority.)
It is well documented that Imperial Scanship has been of poor help to the ex-hostages and the medical docu-
mentation drawn up upon their request in 2013 is quite odious.
An extract from a letter that was sent from Imperial Scanship's Danish owner, domiciled in Aalborg, to the
Danish Maritime Authority is inserted here and speaks for itself in our view:
"Everything has been done by the shipowner and by Imperial Scanship for the four seafarers from Leopard
after their arrival in the Philippines. They have received their full wages for the time they were held hostage
in Somalia, and they have been paid full wages by the shipowner from their arrival home in May to early
September, when the obligation of the shipowner stopped. During these months, they have furthermore re-
ceived all medical assistance from a competent medical centre that has long ago declared them completely
healthy. Furthermore, they have seen a psychologist on 11 June, a report from which session made it clear
that none of them suffers from any mental disability. I forwarded that report to the Danish Maritime Authority
last week.
We all agree that the four seafarers must have all the assistance that they need. But according to medical
practitioners and a psychologist in Manila last year, the seafarers are healthy and no longer need any kind of
additional treatment. Therefore, we do not want the official Danish system to be exploited now. It will be ex-
41
ploited, though, if CO-SEA succeeds with its plans to carry out a so-called test case according to which they
will, inter alia, require 100 per cent disability compensation for the four seafarers."
The letter is forwarded by email on 28 February 2014, approx. one month later than a meeting that we at-
tended as observers held at the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines where two
representatives of Imperial's Manila office participated. We did not take part in any exchange of views (see
the section on the Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines).
It must be presumed that the interest of Imperial Scanship is focused on avoiding a situation where their in-
surance company (Pandiman) will have to pay local Philippine Overseas Employment Administration com-
pensations.
DANISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (DR)
After we had brought an article in CO-SEA's professional journal, we were contacted by a journalist from the
documentary department of DR in October 2014. After a few conversation meetings, the editors decided to try
to dig into the story about the four Filipinos, who had – contrary to the two Danes – more or less been
neglected by the Danish press that had otherwise displayed much commitment on behalf of the Danes.
When CO-SEA planned a trip to Manila in mid-December 2014, the editors planned to have a journalist join
us with a view to interviewing the Filipinos. CO-SEA accepted the role as a contact-maker. The journalist
succeeded in getting an authorisation from the Filipinos during the visit. We did not have any closer coopera-
tion, but we were staying at the same hotel.
The programme was transmitted as two episodes in late January 2015 and TV was involved as well. During
the episodes, the various actors in Denmark were interviewed as well.
Following the programme, Mr. Christian Juhl (MP for the Red-Green Alliance/Enhedslisten) asked the
Minister for Business and Growth some questions which were answered on 4 pages on 23 February 2015 and
which subsequently resulted in a meeting held at the Danish Shipowners' Association with the Danish Mari-
time Authority and CO-SEA at the request of the Minister.
In our view, the above has no real contents. The question from the Minister is quite specifically whether the
regulations cover psychological assistance in hostage situations (and how many of them do we have?). The
undersigned also considers the meeting held at the request of the Minister as not having any contents in terms
of the actual problems.
THE ASSOCIATED MARINE OFFICERS' AND SEAMEN'S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (AMOSUP)
AMOSUP was engaged on behalf of the four in late January 2014, when a meeting was held with the
President of the insurance company Pandiman, two employees from Pandiman and two representatives from
Imperial Scanship. CO-SEA and Elissa Lagda participated as observers. Most of the meeting was held in
Tagalog and Elissa took the minutes for us.
CO-SEA was merely peripherally involved in the exchange of information/views, and the purpose was to
reach disagreement minutes between AMOSUP and Pandiman for use in connection with a case before the
42
labour tribunal on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration compensations (and seemingly against
the agent's licence right).
The claims made by Pandiman were concordant with the medical reports, etc. procured through Imperial
Scanship stating how fast the four had become fit for duty and that all the assistance necessary had been of-
fered.
In connection with the case in Manila it can be mentioned as a matter of curiosity that a Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration resolution from 2008 contains a remarkable provisions that differs from the pro-
visions applicable to Danes.
"The higher pay (double pay) and higher death and disability compensation and benefits provided herein
shall be limited to the duration of vessel's transit through the high risk zone and in case of detention of the
seafarer."
So far, after 2 years, there is not really any news in the cases of AMOSUP and the four have stated on many
occasions that they are quite dissatisfied with the AMOSUP from which they never receive any news and the
lawyer of which answers their requests only rarely.
On several occasions they have asked whether it is not possible to change to a private lawyer, but we do not
consider it opportune to interfere with cases related to Philippine law, neither directly nor indirectly. Never-
theless, we still ask for a status on this case every time we visit Manila, and we are met with a chit-chat.
On the other hand, in March 2015 AMOSUP made indisputably exemplary efforts when offering assistance to
Seahealth, and they also have a close cooperation with Dr. Papa from the NBI who has assisted all four with
psychological assistance in 2015.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
If one is to draw some conclusions from the above of general importance to the case consideration for Fili-
pinos, they are as follows:
* It is necessary to be aware that medical and hospital treatment is not free in the Philippines as in Den-
mark.
* How does the selection system work according to which medical practitioners and hospitals are used in
the Philippines?
* Do we meet our responsibility under the act on payment of expenses for treatment and have the Philip-
pine injured persons been sufficiently informed about their rights?
* How do we, on the other hand, ensure that the insurance company does not pay for a number of ficti-
tious expenses?
On the basis of the essence of the above, we would like a clarification of how the Danish Shipowners' Acci-
dent Insurance Association administers their case authorisation from the National Board of Industrial Injuries
with a view to a more detailed analysis.
43
The dilemmas concern the fact that we consider cases according to Danish law that are related to a society that
we understand only superficially and in connection with which there is no transparency.
Portuguese seafarer – the municipality and the Danish tax authorities
This case, which also contains a case on industrial injury (291165-AAA!), is specifically mentioned in con-
nection with the case consideration related to sickness benefits and tax calculation (the Municipality of Co-
penhagen and the Danish tax authorities).
It concerns a female Portuguese stewardess who concludes a contract with Mærsk on 25 April 2012 and who
– following an accident – is reported sick on 17 September 2012. The first payment of sickness benefits from
the municipality is made on 16 January 2013, with a general limitation of the duration until 31 October 2013
(52 weeks). When the limitation of the duration expires, the municipality does not consider the person re-
ported sick to meet the conditions for an extension because the consequences of the injury do not, in the view
of the municipality, preclude the person concerned from the "wider labour market".
In the above-mentioned case, CO-SEA files appeals, etc. and the entire correspondence is quite interesting as
an example of a reply which is totally irrelevant to the question it purports to answer as regards, for example,
information to the seafarer to merely turn up at the job centre. Thus, the person concerned receives a letter
from the job centre – in Danish of course – on 31 January 2014 informing her that the sickness benefits have
been discontinued as of 31 October 2013, but "if you do not have any provision for a living, you can turn up at
the job centre where we will help you find out which opportunities you have. Please contact us as soon as
possible."
THE TAX CASE
On 7 July 2014, CO-SEA complains about the tax assessment notices for 2013 in a joint letter to the Danish
tax authorities and the Benefits Service in Copenhagen.
On 7 March 2014, the Danish tax authorities forward a tax assessment notice for 2013 on tax payable of DKK
59,829. According to the statement, tax is payable on an income of DKK 8,369,304 "irrespective of her tax-
able income amounting to DKK 114,648. 'Fortunately', she is given 'a reduction for the period' of DKK
4,118,714, for which reason the outstanding tax amounts to a 'mere' DKK 56,981.34."!!!
CO-SEA contacted the Danish tax authorities, where a cross and unwilling person finally declared that he
would quite extraordinarily make a correction on our unorthodox enquiry.
On 28 May 2014, the Danish tax authorities issued a new tax assessment notice for 2013, which now resulted
in an outstanding tax of DKK 30,387. The advance tax payment recorded is DKK 223.
CO-SEA acquired all the wage forms from documents (dp126) – a total of 11. It deserves to be mentioned that
the seafarer has received only one of these forms and that they are, of course, in Danish.
The salary statements are messy, mixed-up and almost incomprehensible. Tax is deducted, and tax is repaid,
and tax has not been deducted at all or mentioned in most salary statements. No tax has been retained at all net
(from where the DKK 223 originates is not clear).
44
As an appendix to the complaint, a transcript from the seafarer's bank is enclosed, showing that amounts from
Denmark have been inserted only on four occasions (corresponding to a total of DKK 114,000).
Finally, CO-SEA points to the following facts in the complaint:
* that the seafarer has never paid tax to Denmark and that, as a DIS seafarer, she is not acquainted with
Danish regulations, rules or the language as such;
* that the statements from the Benefits Service have, with the exception of one, never been received and
that they are, by the way, quite incomprehensible without being scrutinised;
* that the seafarer has received sickness benefits in good faith, is still reported sick and has had no pro-
vision for a living since 31 October 2013;
* that the lacking tax retention has been caused by faults made by the Benefits Service, which is the near-
est one to bear the burden.
From the forwarding of the complaint on 7 July 2014, a little more than a year passes until 21 July 2015 be-
fore we receive a reply from the municipality. During this period, we regularly remind the municipality about
the lacking reply and we receive several letters informing us that now something is about to happen. We also
receive a new letter from the Danish tax authorities informing us that "the basis for your tax for 2013" has
been changed, but it is not evident what change has been made. After much detective work, we find out that
the "change consists in there being no change."!!!
The reply from the municipality (the Benefits Service in Copenhagen) states – in addition to various apologies
for various faults made by the municipality – that:
"This case is not one of the Benefits Service having made an erroneous payment that is required to be repaid
(because CO-SEA makes an analogy to the regulation on Condictio Indebeti). On the contrary, the Benefits
Service has paid too little in sickness benefits, cf. the above account of the adjustment. It is not possible for the
Benefits Service to release ... from the outstanding tax arisen since it is solely an issue between ... and the
Danish tax authorities.
... is not considered to have suffered a loss entitling her to being compensated since she is liable to pay tax
and should, consequently, in all circumstances have paid her outstanding tax.
The act on sickness benefits does not contain a legal basis for covering outstanding tax."
It was hardly difficult to predict that the municipality's answer would be a transfer of liability to the Danish
tax authorities, which does of course not have any reason to withdraw the setting of a tax because the munici-
pality messes things up.
We never did receive any reply as such from the Danish tax authorities unless a letter from the Danish tax
authorities of 22 September 2014 with the headline "Proposal: We do not assess that you can have your tax
changed" is considered a reply. Or maybe even more linguistically brilliant the letter of 22 October 2014,
which means that "the change consists in there being no change."
On 3 August 2015, CO-SEA maintains its complaint to the municipality.
On 10 November 2015, the municipality writes that it cannot take upon itself the tax obligation of the Portu-
guese and that:
45
"Your complaint concerns an issue that is not covered by the complaint option of the Council of Appeal on
Health and Safety at Work. Therefore, we must advise you to have the issue on compensation decided in a
civil lawsuit, if relevant."
And this ended this case – unfortunately. In the view of the undersigned, it should have been taken to the
courts because it contains many essential facets on the Danish authorities' responsibility for communication
with foreigners in general and with EU citizens in particular who are engaged on DIS ships and who cannot be
expected to have any knowledge about the Danish language, regulations, rules, tax, etc.
It is to a high degree the story about a computer-managed public authority without any independent thought
about the fact that this is the exception that should be dealt with carefully (and at larger cost) until the com-
puter-based part has become even wiser at specific case consideration.
COMPARABLE CASE FROM 2010
In a case with a Polish seafarer where CO-SEA complained to the Benefits Service in Copenhagen on 19
January 2011 where the Benefits Service requires DKK 2,256 to be repaid following a claim from the Danish
tax authorities, the municipality writes on 17 September 2012:
"We agree with your complaint. This means that we withdraw the claim from the Danish tax authorities and
that ... will not have to repay DKK 2,256.
(We have been informed by the Danish tax authorities that the amount has not been paid.)"
So, it is possible to get through with a complaint!
Polish seafarer – all issues
The second-most comprehensive, complicated case that we have been involved in is on behalf of a Polish
seafarer. The case has an extent of four tightly filled wide A4 ring binders (the "Leopard" cases would prob-
ably fill half a score).
The person concerned was engaged as an able seaman for DFDS and was injured in a minor fall on 9 Novem-
ber 2007, which resulted in back problems (a slipped disc), and we are still corresponding with him in late
2015.
110372-AAA1 (case no. ASK)
The National Board of Industrial Injuries considered the disability to be at 5 per cent on 3 February 2009 and
the loss of earning capacity <15 per cent with loss of earning capacity for revision on 1 July 2009.
On 16 September 2009, a loss of earning capacity of 70 per cent was awarded and on 23 December 2009, the
disability was increased to 15 per cent.
For shorter and longer periods of time, the person concerned has used a local Polish lawyer, who has for-
warded long letters to CO-SEA and who also, at one point in time, had an authorisation at the National Board
of Industrial Injuries. CO-SEA has rejected to correspond with the lawyer and, thus, act as a teacher of the
Danish law of torts (with subsequent bills for the seafarer), and we informed the injured person that either the
lawyer withdrew his request for an authorisation in the National Board of Industrial Injuries or we finalised
46
the cases here. Subsequently, the lawyer withdrew, but it is clear that he was behind many subsequent letters
to the Danish authorities that were just signed by the injured person.
Never have we experienced a desire to complain as in this case complex (that involves almost all Danish
authorities, incl. the Ombudsman). It is, thus, illustrative that already now the Danish authorities receive long
letters saying how decisive it is for him to be informed already now how his conditions of life will be when he
has turned 67 years of age (today, he is 44 years old).
There have been case complexes related to the following:
Decisions by National Board of Industrial Injuries
Decisions by the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work
Decisions related to early retirement pension
Decisions related to the calculation basis for sickness benefits
Decisions related to extension of sickness benefits
Decisions related to treatment expenses
The Danish tax authorities.
On a number of occasions, the injured person is writing on his own (or assisted by the lawyer) to various
Danish authorities, and on a number of other occasions, CO-SEA has assisted with, for example, letters of
complaint.
After having received several refusals to be granted early retirement pension (disability pension) where refer-
ence is made to Danish regulations according to which a Dane with a similar disability (a slipped disc) would
not have been granted early retirement pension, the person concerns writes a rather long letter on 3 September
2015 to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work and the National Board of Industrial Injuries,
informing about the differences between Danish and Polish society as regards the possibilities of getting a
flex-job, about the person's willingness to go to Denmark to work for, for example, eight days a month, about
the possibilities of a job for a Danish company in Poland, about his private situation of life, etc., and the letter
finishes (translated by the authorities) as follows:
"Dear Madam, I have explained everything and my entire situation to you as well as I can, and I ask the
National Board of Industrial Injuries for another and more positive decision in my case."
Formally, there is no doubt that the person concerned is not entitled to receive a Danish pension. On the other
hand, this case illustrates better than any other which insurmountable problems arise when social rights need
to be coordinated and correlated within the EU, from Eastern Europe to Western Europe, from Northern
Europe to Southern Europe.
On 28 October 2015, the person injured writes the National Board of Industrial Injuries again, this time re-
questing to know exactly what will happen and which rights he will have when he turns 65 or 67 (i.e. in 20-30
years from now) when payment of the ongoing benefit from the National Board of Industrial Injuries (which is
45 per cent after capitalisation of 25 per cent) is discontinued. He has been engaged on Danish ships only for a
few years (hereof almost 2 months in DFDS before the accident) and will be entitled to receive a modest frac-
tion pension from Denmark. This will, without doubt, give rise to much writing during the next 20-40 years.
One of the most positive results of the wide number of cases that have been conducted by and on behalf of this
"plaintiff" is a reversion of a decision made by the Municipality of Copenhagen concerning the basis for cal-
47
culating sickness benefits in 2010. On 5 March 2010, the municipality maintains a decision to continue paying
sickness benefits from the municipality on the same basis as that on which the Danish Maritime Authority has
calculated sickness benefits:
"Payment of sickness benefits to seafarers is calculated on the basis of the monthly basic pay, possibly in-
cluding a seniority allowance. Your monthly basic pay amounted to USD 627, which corresponds to DKK
3020 a month." (See also the Danish Maritime Authority)
This decision is sent back for renewed consideration by the Employment Appeals Board on 26 May 2010,
whereafter the municipality revises the calculation basis in a new decision on 30 June 2010 according to sec-
tion 47 of the act on sickness benefits.
"All elements of the wages are considered to be covered by the provisions of section 47 of the act on benefits
...", and subsequently the basis for making the calculation was set at DKK 11,502.
A complete novel is hidden behind this story, and it could be interesting to visit and interview the person con-
cerned. At one point in time, it was stated (by himself) that his incapacity for work was now also caused by a
strong excess weight, which was a consequence of the industrial accident because he had had difficulties
moving since then.
Spanish seafarer – old-age pension
Since 2006, a Spanish seafarer has had comprehensive correspondence with Payment Denmark (International
Pension and Social Security) about the size of his fraction pension from Denmark (14/40 or 15/40). Much
documentation is available in this case in the form of salary statements and articles of agreement, but the do-
cumentation is not always quite consistent or individual documents lack essential information.
On 7 January 2015, the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work decides that the pension entitlement
is 14/40, which is the same decision as the one made by Payment Denmark.
For quite some time, the person concerned has been assisted by the Spanish Embassy in Copenhagen, and a
very helpful and kind Danish embassy secretary recommends that he contacts CO-SEA.
On 20 February 2015, we receive an authorisation in the case as well as subsequently all documentation from
both the person concerned and Payment Denmark.
Two different calculation sheets are available in the case.
The first one is presumably from Payment Denmark (E205 DK), which sums up the seagoing service to 14
years, 3 months and 25 days.
The other one has possibly been generated in the Danish Maritime Authority and this sums up the information
to 15 years, 10 months and 1 day. The former seafarer stubbornly and consistently adheres to this summing up
and encloses the large number of salary statements and articles of agreement. A scrutiny of this summing up
shows, however, that a period of 1 year, 9 months and 23 days has been included erroneously, and solely for
this reason the likelihood of being entitled to a 15/40 pension is very little; but it cannot, however, be rejected
completely on the basis of the information available.
48
We have shelved the case and the person concerned is certainly not satisfied. However, now and again we
must all come to a compromise.
Concluding remarks
It is presumably clear from this status report that the work related to foreign countries is full of challenges vis-
à-vis the Danish authorities.
Among the most important tasks in 2016, we have noted the following:
* Hopefully, an end to the struggle with the Danish Shipowners' Accident Insurance Association about
set-offs.
* Follow-up on issues related to the social convention with the Philippines. Circulation of general infor-
mation (group of persons?).
Circulation of special information to everyone from whom we have had an authorisation.
Circulation of special information to those whom we believe should apply for early retirement pension.
* Similar follow-up in relation to India.
* Clarification as regards the calculation of sickness benefits from the Danish Maritime Authority.
* Clarification as regards treatment expenses in relation to section 15 of the act on industrial injuries.
* Procedures for selecting a medical practitioner.
* Update of informative brochures (new versions).
* ATP payments.
* Child support for EU citizens.
Ole Strandberg
CO-SEA
24 January 2016
Additions
3 August 2016


Danish Shipowners' Association Danish Metalworkers' Union
TRANSLATED VERSION
Minister for Business and Growth Troels Lund Poulsen
Ministry of Business and Growth
Slotsholmsgade 10-12
DK-1216 Copenhagen K
1 June 2016
Referring to the invitations to a meeting forwarded by letters of 5 April 2016, we hereby present our prelimi-
nary report on the work made by the working group established by the Danish Metalworkers' Union and the
Danish Shipowners' Association.
As background, we hereby give a description and an account of the development in agreements in the DIS
Contact Committee, including the measures taken to "bridge" the political disagreement about section 10 of
the DIS act, contained in a note drawn up by the Danish Shipowners' Association and attached as annex 1.
The task shedding light on the more fundamental political disagreement about section 10(2) and (3) of the DIS
act has been in the background of the working group's efforts to find specific solutions to the far more tangible
challenges arising in the efforts to make the cooperation under the DIS Main Agreement work as intended.
Since the parties reach solutions to the challenges arising in their daily cooperation on an ongoing basis, as is
evident from annex 1 as well as from annex 2 mentioned later, the underlying disagreement in relation to sec-
tion 10(2) and (3) of the DIS act seems to be of a formal rather than a real nature in practice.
Our cooperation on solutions to recognised problems may also, in the longer term, turn out to hold or point to
a consensus-based solution to the underlying political disagreement. Though we are not there yet, the dis-
agreement should not stand in the way of a continued development of our cooperation and the maintenance of
the competitiveness of the DIS flag.
As regards the development of the Danish organisations' roles and tasks when it comes to attending to the
interests of persons domiciled outside Denmark, we would, initially, like to say that these seafarers are, to an
increasing degree, covered by general Danish social security regulations. For EU seafarers this follows from
EU law, and for seafarers from third countries this follows from the bilateral social agreements that have been
concluded. In this respect, the DIS is different from most other international registers of shipping, which ex-
clude foreign seafarers from their national schemes. Thus, still more foreign seafarers will automatically be
covered by, inter alia, public Danish pensions. In addition to being secured under the act on industrial injuries,
all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, are secured in situations where they are – due to sickness or bodily
injury during or in immediate connection with their service on board a Danish ship – in need of security bene-
fits in the form of, for example, medical care, hospitalisation, medicine, repatriation or in the form of sickness
or maternity/paternity benefits in connection with sickness or maternity/paternity leave in accordance with the
special regulations applicable to seafarers.
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
Many foreign seafarers do not know, and often do not understand, the special rights associated with service on
board Danish ships and therefore they have, if relevant, a special need for being guided about these and being
guided through the system to the extent necessary.
In order to facilitate foreign seafarers' way through the Danish security and authority system, mechanisms
have been established under the framework of the DIS Main Agreement whereby the Danish trade unions can
assist foreign seafarers though they are not themselves members of the Danish trade unions.
According to the DIS Main Agreement, the shipowners are obliged to inform the trade unions in case of
foreign seafarers' reported industrial injuries or deaths so that the Danish trade union can in these situations
proactively offer their assistance to the foreign seafarers.
Foreign seafarers can also, on their own initiative, contact the Danish organisations whose contact details are
printed in the collective agreements concluded with the foreign trade unions.
That there is a need to assist and help foreign seafarers in their meeting with Danish regulations and in their
contact with the Danish authorities is very clear from the focus report presented as annex 2 by the Maritime
Section of the Danish Metalworkers' Union as.
In addition to accounting for the many different focus areas where the already established cooperation is being
developed on an ongoing basis, as the need arises, the report points to several areas where it is possible to
deepen the cooperation.
More specifically, the working group proposes the establishment of a committee in which also the authorities
participate, i.e. a cross-ministerial working group as such. The purpose of this should be to map and find ap-
propriate solutions to the more tangible challenges pointed to in the report when foreign seafarers get in con-
tact with the Danish authorities and social security schemes. These challenges may consist in barriers of a
language- and understanding-related nature, but also in a lacking possibility of communicating via NemID and
similar systems that seem to be directed only at persons domiciled in Denmark.
As the above shows, there may be formal disagreement about section 10(2) and (3) of the DIS act, but in
reality the problems are solved in practice due to a close dialogue and a good cooperation between the parties,
which we cannot see any reason to change.
Yours faithfully,
Claus V. Hemmingsen Claus Jensen
Chairman of the Danish Shipowners' Association Chairman of the Danish Metalworkers' Union


Article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO
REPORT
Report for the period 1 June 2013 – 31 May 2016 made by the Government of Denmark on the
Right to Organise and Collective bargaining Convention
1949 (98)
I -III. Reference is made to the previous reports.
IV. In spring 2014 collective agreements were renewed on the private labour marked after negotiations
between the social partners. In spring 2015 collective agreements were renewed in the public sector after
negotiations between the social partners.
V. Reference is made to the previous report.
VI.
Copies of this report have been sent to the Danish Employers’ Confederation (DA), Local Government
Denmark (KL), the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), the Confederation of Professionals in
Denmark (FTF) and the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC) which are the most
representative employers’ and workers’ organisations.
Employers’ organisations:
- The Danish Employers’ Confederation, Vester Voldgade 113, DK-1790 Copenhagen V
- Local Government Denmark, Weidekampsgade 10, P.O. Box 3370, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
Workers’ organisations:
- The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, Islands Brygge 32D, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
- The Confederation of Professionals in Denmark, Niels Hemmingsensgade 12, DK-1010 Copenhagen
K
- The Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, Nørre Voldgade 29, P.O. Box 2192, DK-
1358 Copenhagen K
Observation, 2013
Article 4 of the Convention
While noting the divergent views of the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the
Government as to whether the DIS Act has been sufficiently subjected to debate, the Committee has
invited the Government to engage in a tripartite national dialogue with the relevant workers’ and
employers’ organizations on this issue so as to find a mutually satisfactory way forward, and to
indicate in its next report its outcome and any contemplated measures.
With regard to the said overall divergent views on the legislation concerning the Danish
International Register of Shipping, reference is made to previous reporting and remarks forwarded
to the ILO by the Government.
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
With regard to the invitation for the Government to engage in a tripartite national dialogue so as "to
find a mutually satisfactory way forward", the Government firstly would like to refer to the
communication which has taken place with the ILO during the reporting period and which is
referred to in the summary below. The consecutive summary of the dialogue, which the Danish
Government is pleased to provide, contains information on the efforts taken by the current and the
previous Government, including the meetings with the social partners. Finally, the Government
wants to stress that these efforts still continue.
On 23 June 2014, the former Minister for Business and Growth discussed ILO's call to "find a
mutually satisfactory way forward" in relation to section 10 of the DIS Act with the LO, the Danish
Metal Workers' Union (DMWU) and the United Federation of Danish Workers (3F). At the
meeting, both the LO and the other workers’ organizations had the opportunity to express their
views on the DIS Act in general and their desire for a tripartite dialogue. It was agreed that the LO
and the other workers’ organizations should forward a proposal which could form the basis for a
discussion with the other parties in the shipping sector.
On 10 September 2014, the LO submitted a proposal for an amendment of section 10 of the DIS
Act. According to the proposal, Danish workers’ organizations were to be granted powers to
negotiate collective agreements at international level for seafarers not resident in Denmark and
working on board DIS ships. In addition, an amendment to the DIS Act was proposed, according to
which all EU/EEA citizens working on board DIS ships would be covered by Danish collective
agreements and Danish wage levels.
On 16 January 2015, the former Minister for Business and Growth discussed LO’s proposal of 10
September 2014 for an amendment of the DIS Act, including the desire for a tripartite dialogue,
with the DSA (Danish Shipowners’ Association). The DSA expressed satisfaction with the
transparency that was created in the case and that the organization had indicated that it was always
willing to enter into a constructive dialogue with the union side on important maritime issues
similar to the dialogue taking place in the Contact Committee under the DIS Main Agreement.
Further, the DSA expressed concerns in terms of the consequences of LO’s proposal for an
amendment of the DIS Act – concerns that were primarily linked to the shipping industry's
competitive situation in the global maritime markets. Finally, the Minister invited the DSA to
submit written comments and questions to LO’s proposals and stated that, once these comments had
been received, they would be submitted to the LO for further discussion.
On 16 March 2015, the DSA submitted its observations regarding the LO proposal of 10 September
2014 for an amendment of the DIS Act. At the same time, the DSA announced that they – along
with DMWU – had established a joint working group under the auspices of the Contact Committee
under the DIS Main Agreement. The DSA informed that the aim of the joint working group was to
clarify the disagreements that exist concerning section 10 of the DIS Act and to consider measures
that can provide Danish workers’ organisations a more substantial role in relation to seafarers not
resident in Denmark and working on board DIS ships.
On 19 March 2015, the DMWU confirmed to the former Minister for Business and Growth that, in
light of the ILO's criticism of the DIS Act, they had agreed with the DSA to establish – in
accordance with the Danish model – the above joint working group as a subcommittee of the
Contact Committee under the DIS Main Agreement.
The former Minister for Business and Growth welcomed the initiative of the joint working group
under the DIS Contact Committee and expressed hope that this effort could pave a way in terms of
securing employment conditions on DIS ships that would be mutually satisfactory to all parties in
the Danish shipping sector. The Minister conveyed that same message to the LO and informed that
he found it best to await the outcome of this work before considering further measures.
It is the Government’s opinion that it has been and still is following up on the request by the Expert
Committee. The Government finds that the social partner's initiative for discussions in the above
joint working group under the auspices of the DIS Contact Committee is a positive signal.
On 8 January 2016, the DSA informed that the dialogue with the DMWU was still ongoing and that
the Government would be notified when there was news to report. A confirmation that has been
followed by the below joint letter (including 2 attachments) from the DSA and DMWU dated 1
June 2016.
On 5 April 2016, the Minister for Business and Growth invited the DSA and DMWU to separate
meetings to discuss the state of their dialogue in the joint working group. The above-mentioned
meetings with the DMWU and DSA were held on 29 June 2016 and 6 July 2016, respectively.
The Government is aware of the fact that the current reporting period expires on 31 May 2016.
Given that the above joint letter from the DSA and DMWU as well as the two meetings constitute
an expression of dialogue and negotiations between the parties, the Government has found it
relevant and appropriate, as well as in the interest of all parties associated with the discussions
relating to the DIS Act, to provide information relating to the contact that the Government has had
with the DSA and DMVU during June and July 2016.
On 1 June 2016, and as a prelude to the above meetings held on 29 June 2016 and 6 July 2016, the
DSA and the DMWU forwarded the above mentioned joint letter dated 1 June 2016 (including 2
attachments) to the Minister for Business and Growth. In the letter, it is confirmed that discussions
in the above-mentioned joint working group under the DIS Contact Committee are ongoing, and a
brief summary of the deliberations so far was included. In the joint letter the two parties recognize –
as a common approach – that there is formal disagreement concerning the DIS Act. Nevertheless,
the two parties also share the view that the "real life" challenges are solved pragmatically between
the parties as a result of a close dialogue and good cooperation.
At the above meetings held on 29 June 2016 and 6 July 2016, the Minister for Business and Growth
discussed the content of the joint letter and its 2 attachments with the DSA and DMWU,
respectively. It was agreed that it would be prudent to forward the letter as well as the 2 attachments
to the ILO as part of the current reporting on ILO Convention 98 as an illustration of the ongoing
dialogue. The above-mentioned material is enclosed in an English translation.
Both the current and the previous Government have continuously informed the ILO on the status of
the case. On 17 November 2014, the former Government informed the ILO of the state of play,
including the discussion with the LO and other workers’ organizations, LO's concrete proposal for
an amendment of the DIS Act as well as the upcoming meeting with the DSA. On 28 September
2015, the current Government provided the ILO with a supplementary state of play in the matter.
The Government holds the opinion that it cannot reasonably be argued that the Government does
not intend to take action on the matter of section 10 of the DIS Act. On the contrary, it is the view
of the Government that there has been far-reaching Government involvement in acting upon the
invitation referred to above since its last ILO reporting in 2013.
The Government would like to underline that the Expert Committee's invitation has its full attention
and that it has noted that the invitation refers to finding a mutually satisfactory way forward which
in the opinion of the Government will need the support of the industry partners. However,
discussions on the DIS Act are not – and have never been – an easy issue, and any process
surrounding discussions on this issue takes time. It remains the hope of the Government that the
parties of the shipping sector are able to find common solutions in this matter. In the view of the
Government, this is a prerequisite for any discussion vis-á-vis any possible amendment of section
10 of the DIS Act.
The Government will in its next report provide an update on the ongoing work related to the Expert
Committee's invitation.
As regards the Danish International Register of Shipping, the Government is pleased to follow up
on the previous reports by providing the following information.
It goes without saying that the framework conditions under which Danish flagged ships operate in
international competition and the international competiveness of the Danish fleet are still of
paramount importance to Denmark. Shipping is one of the most prominent export industries in
Denmark. Reference is made to previous reports on the importance of the Danish Register.
Further, the Government would like once more to underline that it is fully aware of the fact that the
Danish International Register of Shipping and the surrounding measures had an extraordinary
character to ensure the competiveness of ships under the Danish flag and the related workplaces in
Denmark. However, the underlying reasons for section 10 of the DIS Act still apply. The tendency
that emerged in the shipping industry some 30 years ago equals in many aspects the developments
facing most other European industries – namely the globalisation whereby specific job categories
were outsourced to countries with lower labour cost.
Also today there is a risk of ships being transferred to foreign registers, and there are foreign
registers which enable shipowners to reduce costs by lowering standards, and which may thus be
attractive alternatives to registering a ship under the Danish flag.
The measures for the Danish merchant fleet and the commercial and competitive framework
conditions surrounding the shipping industry have maintained and created jobs in the shipping
industry, not only for Danish seafarers but also for seafarers of other nationalities.
The Danish International Register of Shipping makes it possible to still maintain a significant
number of workplaces for Danish seafarers. In addition, a considerable number of people are
employed at shore-based workplaces as a result of maintaining a maritime cluster. The Danish
maritime cluster – and the positive effects this cluster generates – would hardly exist without ships
under the Danish flag.
It has constantly been the policy and the ambition of Danish Governments that the international
Danish Register of Shipping should be based on quality shipping with a high degree of safety and
environmental standards for the ships as well as a high degree of employment and social conditions
for the seafarers, regardless of their nationality or residence.
For the reporting period until the end of May 2016, Denmark has not received information that the
collective agreements concerning wages and general working conditions on board Danish ships,
regardless of whether they were concluded by Danish or foreign workers’ organizations, are not at
an internationally acceptable level or are deviating from the ILO recommendation on minimum
wages.


1
Article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO
REPORT
Report for the period 1 June 2013 – 31 May 2016 made by the Government of Denmark on the
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention
1948 (87)
I. – V. Reference is made to the previous reports.
VI.
Copies of this report have been sent to the Danish Employers’ Confederation (DA), Local Government
Denmark (KL), the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), the Confederation of Professionals in
Denmark (FTF) and the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC) which are the most
representative employers’ and workers’ organisations.
Employers’ organisations:
- The Danish Employers’ Confederation, Vester Voldgade 113, DK-1790 Copenhagen V
- Local Government Denmark, Weidekampsgade 10, P.O. Box 3370, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
Workers’ organisations:
- The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, Islands Brygge 32D, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
- The Confederation of Professionals in Denmark, Niels Hemmingsensgade 12, DK-1010 Copenhagen
K
- The Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, Nørre Voldgade 29, P.O. Box 2192, DK-
1358 Copenhagen K
Observation, 2013
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention
Reference is made to the observation concerning ILO Convention no. 87 and section 10 of the Act on the
Danish International Register of Shipping (DIS).
Reference is made to the Government’s comments and information on the Danish shipping industry under
the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
Direct request, 2013
Article 2 of the Convention
The Committee has requested the Government to clarify whether seafarers not resident in Denmark and
working on board DIS ships, whether employed under a collective agreement according to section 10(3) of
the DIS Act or individually employed, have the right to become members of a Danish trade union that is not
party to the DIS Main Agreement.
The DIS Main Agreement of 28 February 2013 comprises the majority of social partners in the shipping
industry (Danish Shipowners' Association, The Shipowners' Association of 2010, Danish Maritime Officers,
Danish Engineers' Association and Danish Metalworkers Union (Maritime Section)).
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
Paragraph 7, subsection 1, last indent, of the DIS Main Agreement states that seafarers employed under a
collective agreement according to Article 10(3) of the Act on the Danish International Register of Shipping
(DIS) may choose to be a member of a Danish trade union.
It is the understanding of the Government that the Act on The Danish International Register of Shipping does
not prevent any non-Danish domiciled seafarer from becoming a member of any Danish Trade Union.
Thus the legislation does not prevent a seafarer not resident in Denmark and working on board a ship
registered in the Danish International Register of Shipping to choose to be member of any Danish trade
union provided that the membership is in accordance with the individual trade unions own rules.
The DIS Main Agreement of 28 February 2013 has already been enclosed in the previous report from the
Government to the ILO (in Danish and in English).
Article 3 of the Convention
As stated in the previous reports, employment of teachers as civil servants was discontinued in 1993 for new
appointments.
Teachers already employed as civil servants kept their status as civil servants with their favourable
conditions of employment, including a very favourable pension scheme, compared to employment on
collective agreements. This group of teachers is continuously decreasing as the teachers retire on account of
age. Consequently this group of teachers will eventually become extinct.
Should the unions be given the possibility of issuing strikes for teachers employed as civil servants in
connection with collective bargaining, this would require a profound change of the system in order to
maintain the balance of the total set of the employment conditions for civil servants.
Furthermore, initiating changes of the employment conditions for teachers employed as civil servants does
not seem expedient at this time due to the rapid decrease of the number of teachers in this group.
The number of teachers with civil servant status has decreased to 5.453 in 2016 and the group is expected to
include approximately 800 persons in 2023 and will eventually become extinct.
The Government is confident that no strike actions will occur that would make sanctions against teachers
with civil servant status relevant.


13/3/2017 Comments
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3301149:YES 1/3
Observation (CEACR) ­ adopted 2016, published
106th ILC session (2017)
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) ­
Denmark (Ratification: 1955)
The Committee notes the observations from the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO)
received on 27 August 2014, 26 August 2015 and its 2016 observations submitted with the
Government’s report, as well as the Government’s comments on the 2014 and 2016 LO
observations.
Article 4 of the Convention. Right to free and voluntary collective
bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee observed that section 10 of the Act
on the Danish International Register of Shipping (DIS Act) continued to have the effect of
limiting the scope of collective agreements concluded by Danish trade unions to seafarers on
ships registered in the Danish International Ship Register (DIS) who were Danish or equated
residents and of restricting the activities of Danish trade unions by prohibiting them from
representing, in the collective bargaining process, those of their members who were not
considered as residents in Denmark. It requested the Government to make every effort to
ensure full respect of the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining so that Danish
trade unions could freely represent in the collective bargaining process all their members –
Danish or equated residents and non­residents – working on ships sailing under the Danish
flag, and that collective agreements concluded by Danish trade unions could cover all their
members working on ships sailing under the Danish flag regardless of residence. The
Committee invited the Government to engage in a tripartite national dialogue with the
relevant workers’ and employers’ organizations on the DIS Act so as to find a mutually
satisfactory way forward.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been far­reaching
involvement in acting upon the Committee’s comments, in particular that: (i) the
Government met with the LO, the Danish Metal Workers’ Union (DMWU) and the United
Federation of Danish Workers (3F) in order to explore the possibilities of holding a tripartite
dialogue; (ii) the LO proposed an amendment to section 10 of the DIS Act in order to grant
powers to Danish workers’ organizations to negotiate collective agreements at international
level for seafarers not resident in Denmark but working on board DIS ships and to ensure
that collective agreements and Danish wage levels cover all EU/EEA citizens working on
board DIS ships; (iii) the Danish Shipowners Association (DSA) expressed a willingness to
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
13/3/2017 Comments
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3301149:YES 2/3
enter into further constructive dialogue but was concerned about the consequences of the
LO’s proposal on Denmark’s competitiveness in the global maritime market; (iv) the DSA
and the DMWU established a joint working group in the Contact Committee under the
Danish International Ship Register Main Agreement (DIS Main Agreement), which stated
that there was a formal disagreement in relation to section 10(2) and (3) of the DIS Act but
that, in practice, challenges were solved pragmatically through close dialogue and good
cooperation between the parties and that Danish trade unions contributed to negotiations
and conclusion of collective agreements between Danish shipowners and foreign trade
unions; and (v) hoping that the parties to the shipping sector would find common solutions
on the matter, the Government welcomed the DSA–DMWU initiative as a way to securing
mutually satisfactory employment conditions on DIS ships, which is a prerequisite for any
discussion on any possible amendment of section 10 of the DIS Act. In this regard, the
Committee notes the LO’s statement that although it had requested to initiate tripartite
negotiations at least on ten occasions, no significant progress has been made on the matter
and that neither the bilateral dialogue between the DMWU and the Danish Maritime
Authority nor the joint working group included the LO or the 3F in the dialogue. Claiming
that the tripartite dialogue should not be limited to the parties of the shipping sector, the LO
calls on the Government to initiate actual dialogue on section 10 of the DIS Act, which
differentiates between the negotiating powers of Danish and foreign trade unions and thus
creates a legal vacuum in terms of collective bargaining, with all parties from the workers’
organizations with a view to bringing it in accordance with ILO Conventions.
While taking due note of the information and materials provided by the Government,
including the establishment of a working group on the discussion of the existing
disagreement on section 10 of the DIS Act, the Committee observes that several social
partners were not involved in the working group and that no significant progress has been
made towards addressing the legislative aspect of the matter. As a consequence, section 10 of
the DIS Act still has the effect of limiting the scope of collective agreements concluded by
Danish trade unions to seafarers on DIS ships who are Danish or equated residents and of
restricting the activities of Danish trade unions by prohibiting them from representing, in the
collective bargaining process, those of their members who are not considered as residents in
Denmark. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of
Association had previously considered that section 10(2) and (3) of the DIS Act constituted
interference in the seafarers’ right to voluntary collective bargaining and amounted to
government interference in the free functioning of organizations in the defence of their
members’ interests (see 262nd Report, Case No. 1470, paragraph 78). The Committee,
therefore, requests the Government to continue to make every effort to ensure
full respect of the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining so that
13/3/2017 Comments
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3301149:YES 3/3
Danish trade unions may freely represent in the collective bargaining process
all their members – Danish or equated residents, as well as non­residents –
working on ships sailing under the Danish flag, and that collective agreements
concluded by Danish trade unions may cover all their members working on
ships sailing under the Danish flag regardless of residence. The Committee
requests the Government to engage in a tripartite national dialogue and to
take the necessary measures to enable all the relevant workers’ and
employers’ organizations to participate therein, if they so wish, so as to find a
mutually satisfactory way forward, and to indicate in its next report its
outcome and any contemplated measures.


Case no. 18-3279
Our ref. PWA
16 September 2019
Comments from FH – Danish Trade Union Confederation – on the
government’s report regarding ILO Conventions 87 and 98
In the following FH – Danish Trade Union Confederation – present its comments to the Danish
government’s report on Conventions 87 and 98 regarding the right to organise and the right to
collective bargaining.
By way of introduction, FH refers to earlier contributions from LO – The Danish Confederations
of Trade Unions to reports on the DIS-Act – most recently in September 2016 and the
subsequent comments/updates regarding the government’s comments to the ILO to this date.
The independent Committee of Experts in its 2016 report requested the Danish government to
make every effort to ensure full respect of the principles of free and voluntary collective
bargaining so that Danish trade unions could freely represent all their members in collective
bargaining process – Danish or equated residents as well as non-residents, working on ships
sailing under Danish flag – and that collective agreements concluded by Danish trade unions
may cover all their members working on ships sailing under Danish flag regardless of
residence.
The Committee of experts also requested the Danish government to engage in national
tripartite national dialogue and to take the necessary measures to enable all the relevant
worker’s and employer’s organisations to participate therein, if they so wish, so as to find a
mutually satisfactory way forward, and to indicate in its next report its outcome and any
contemplated measures.
FH finds it deeply regrettable that the Danish government for more than 30 years now, based
on varying arguments, has refrained from taking seriously the criticism of the Committee of
Experts and the call to bring article 10 of the DIS-Act in accordance with the ILO’s
conventions.
Convention 98
In the report on Convention 98, the government refers to a recent amendment to the DIS-Act.
FH recognises the importance of this change.
However, the amendment to the DIS-Act referred to in the government’s report is in no way a
sufficient answer to the requests in the report from the Committee of Experts.
The scope of the amendments are limited to vessels operating in Danish territorial waters or
continental shelf whereas the amendment will have no effect to vessels already covered by the
DIS-Act.
The case regarding the Danish International Ships' Register (DIS) has been ongoing since
1988, at which time FH’s predecessor, LO, brought the legislative intervention to the attention
of the ILO, and in 1989, when the Committee of Experts decided that article 10, 2 and 3 of the
Act is not in accordance with ILO-Conventions 87, 98 and 111.
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
Side 2 af 2
Convention 87
Regarding the report on Convention 87, FH reiterates that the Danish government’s reference
to the fact that a seafarer may, in accordance with the DIS-general agreement, but as an
employee in accordance with article 10, 3 of the Act, choose to be a member of a Danish trade
union is insufficient and must therefore state the following:
In accordance with article 7 of the DIS-general agreement, only the trade union organisations
who are parties to the general agreement may assist seafarers cf. article 10, 3 of the DIS-Act
in matters that originate from Danish legislation. Such a membership of a Danish trade union
organisation is therefore immaterial to the collective agreement coverage, which is the
fundamental precondition to a membership.
The DIS-general agreement is therefore not of importance to FH’s criticism of article 10 of the
DIS-Act because it clearly appears from the DIS-General agreement, article 1, that the parties’
participation to the agreement generally presupposes that they “observe the right to conclude
DIS-collective agreements with foreign trade union organisations and observe such concluded
agreements in accordance with the DIS-Act.”
FH reiterates that, in the construction of article 10 of the DIS-Act, with its division of negotiating
powers to Danish and foreign seafarers, a labour law vacuum has been created which does
not provide any actual right to collective bargaining for any trade union organisations. A Danish
industrial dispute in the form of a strike against ships manned by seafarers without residence
in Denmark, in accordance with article 10,3, is illegal since such workers are not covered by a
collective agreement concluded in Denmark.
FH finds it urgent that the Danish government initiates actual dialogue on article 10 of the DIS-
Act with all parties from the worker-side with a view to bringing it in accordance with the ILO’s
Conventions.


Article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO
REPORT
Report for the period 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019,
made by the Government of Denmark
on the
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention
1948 (87)
Reference is made to previous reports.
a)
In Denmark, no new legislative or other measures affecting the application of the Convention have been in-
troduced or adopted since the last reporting.
b)
Direct request, 2016 – Article 2 of the Convention
The DIS Main Agreement of 28 February 2013 comprises the majority of social partners in the shipping in-
dustry (Danish Shipowners' Association, The Shipowners' Association of 2010, Danish Maritime Officers,
Danish Engineers' Association and Danish Metalworkers Union (Maritime Section)).
Paragraph 7, subsection 1, last indent, of the DIS Main Agreement states that seafarers employed under a
collective agreement according to Article 10(3) of the Act on the Danish International Register of Shipping
(DIS) may choose to be a member of a Danish trade union.
The provision in article 10 of the Act on the Danish International Register of Shipping only regulates which
persons general agreements entered into by respectively Danish and foreign unions may cover. There is
nothing in Danish law preventing a seafarer not resident in Denmark and working on board a ship registered
in DIS to choose to be member of any Danish trade union provided that the membership is in accordance
with the individual trade union’s own rules.
The DIS Main Agreement of 28 February 2013 has already been enclosed in the previous report from the
Danish Government to the ILO (in Danish and in English).
c)
Reference is made to previous reports. No decisions involving questions of principle relating to the applica-
tion of the Conventions concerned have been given by courts of law or other tribunals.
d)
Copies of this report have been communicated to Local Government Denmark (KL), The Confederation of
Danish Employers (DA), The Danish Trade Union Confederation (FH) and The Danish Confederation of
Professional Associations (AC).
Employers’ organisations:
- The Danish Employers’ Confederation, Vester Voldgade 113, DK-1790 Copenhagen V
- Local Government Denmark, Weidekampsgade 10, P.O. Box 3370, DK-2300 Copenhagen
Workers’ organisations:
- The Danish Trade Union Confederation, Islands Brygge 32D, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
- The Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, Nørre Voldgade 29, P.O. Box 2192, DK-1358
Copenhagen K.
Hearing parties of the Danish Maritime Authority:
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
- The Danish Shipping
- The Car Ferry Association
- The Trade Association for the Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Industry (HORESTA)
- The Danish Metalworkers' Union Maritime Section/CO-SEA
- The Public Services Union – Maritime Section
- The United Federation of Danish Workers
- The Maritime Section of the United Federation of Danish Workers
- Lederne Søfart
- Maskinmestrenes Forening
- The Association of Ferry Companies of Danish Small Islands
- Sammenslutningen af Mindre Erhvervsfartøjer
- Træskibssammenslutningen
- SKULD
- The Danish Shipbrokers Association
- Danish Ship Finance
- Danish Freight Forwarders
- Foreningen af Danske Søassurandører
- Danish Maritime
- The Danish Shipping Tribunal, Danish Appeals Boards Authority
- SEA HEALTH & WELFARE
e)
Comments received from the Danish Trade Union Confederation FH:
By way of introduction, FH refers to earlier contributions from LO – The Danish Confederations of Trade
Unions to reports on the DIS-Act – most recently in September 2016 and the subsequent comments/updates
regarding the government’s comments to the ILO to this date.
The independent Committee of Experts in its 2016 report requested the Danish government to make every
effort to ensure full respect of the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining so that Danish trade
unions could freely represent all their members in collective bargaining process – Danish or equated resi-
dents as well as non-residents, working on ships sailing under Danish flag – and that collective agreements
concluded by Danish trade unions may cover all their members working on ships sailing under Danish flag
regardless of residence.
The Committee of experts also requested the Danish government to engage in national tripartite national
dialogue and to take the necessary measures to enable all the relevant worker’s and employer’s organisa-
tions to participate therein, if they so wish, so as to find a mutually satisfactory way forward, and to indicate
in its next report its outcome and any contemplated measures.
FH finds it deeply regrettable that the Danish government for more than 30 years now, based on varying ar-
guments, has refrained from taking seriously the criticism of the Committee of Experts and the call to bring
article 10 of the DIS-Act in accordance with the ILO’s conventions.
…
Regarding the report on Convention 87, FH reiterates that the Danish government’s reference to the fact that
a seafarer may, in accordance with the DIS-general agreement, but as an employee in accordance with arti-
cle 10, 3 of the Act, choose to be a member of a Danish trade union is insufficient and must therefore state
the following:
In accordance with article 7 of the DIS-general agreement, only the trade union organisations who are par-
ties to the general agreement may assist seafarers cf. article 10, 3 of the DIS-Act in matters that originate
from Danish legislation. Such a membership of a Danish trade union organisation is therefore immaterial to
the collective agreement coverage, which is the fundamental precondition to a membership.
3
The DIS-general agreement is therefore not of importance to FH’s criticism of article 10 of the DIS-Act be-
cause it clearly appears from the DIS-General agreement, article 1, that the parties’ participation to the
agreement generally presupposes that they “observe the right to conclude DIS-collective agreements with
foreign trade union organisations and observe such concluded agreements in accordance with the DIS-Act.”
FH reiterates that, in the construction of article 10 of the DIS-Act, with its division of negotiating powers to
Danish and foreign seafarers, a labour law vacuum has been created which does not provide any actual right
to collective bargaining for any trade union organisations. A Danish industrial dispute in the form of a strike
against ships manned by seafarers without residence in Denmark, in accordance with article 10,3, is illegal
since such workers are not covered by a collective agreement concluded in Denmark.
FH finds it urgent that the Danish government initiates actual dialogue on article 10 of the DIS-Act with all
parties from the worker-side with a view to bringing it in accordance with the ILO’s Conventions.
Attached, is a copy of FH’s letter of 16 September 2019.
Reply by the Danish Government:
A number of the remarks made in FH’s letter of 16 September 2019 are in line with the previous comments
to the reporting on ILO conventions 87 and 98 respectively forwarded by the organisation, including com-
ments given in 2016. In light of this and for the time being, reference is made to previous reportings and
remarks forwarded to the ILO by the Danish Government.
The fact remains, that the conditions leading to the establishment of the Danish International Ship Register
(DIS) still apply. Traditional shipping nations – such as Denmark – compete with a number of ship registers
all over the world, and Danish ships still face fierce international competition. Today, shipping has become
even more international by nature, and Danish ships are engaged in voyages all over the world. The ability
to easily transfer ships from one ship register to another as well as ship owners’ ability to establish abroad
remain basic conditions of the shipping industry.
Ships registered in DIS are subject to regulations ensuring seafarers high standards of social conditions,
including conditions of employment. Denmark is among the countries that have ratified the ILO Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006.
The additional remarks made by FH under convention no. 87 to the recent amendment to the DIS-Act are
duly noted.
On a general level the underlying reasons for maintaining the DIS remain. Thus, no amendment to the re-
port has been conducted following the letter from FH.


Article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO
REPORT
Report for the period 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019,
made by the Government of Denmark
on the
Right to Organise and Collective bargaining Convention
1949 (98)
Reference is made to previous reports.
a)
In Denmark, no new legislative or other measures affecting the application of the Convention have been in-
troduced or adopted since the last reporting.
b)
Observation, 2016 – Article 4 of the Convention
The Danish Government is pleased to provide the below mentioned information on development since
2016.
In connection with considerations of a change of tax rules for seafarers working aboard certain special ships
(guard and supply ships, pipe laying and cable vessels, wind turbine and construction ships, ice handling
ships and ASVs (so-called "hotel ships")) the former Minister for Industry, Business and Financial Affairs
in December 2017 asked the organizations to propose a model for ships that primarily carry out such activi-
ties on the Danish continental shelf area.
After discussions in the Contact Committee under the DIS Main Agreement, the organizations proposed that
the DIS Act should be amended in order to allow Danish trade unions to enter into collective agreement on
behalf of all seafarers on ships mainly carrying out the activities concerned in the Danish territorial waters
or continental shelf area for more than 14 days a month.
The former minister for Industry, Business and Financial Affairs presented a proposal for an Act amending
the DIS Act, which was drawn up in accordance with the organizations’ proposal to the Parliament. Parlia-
ment passed the act unanimously.
The Act includes seafarers who are engaged in a number of activities which include:
 Certain types of guard service as well as support and service functions,
 Construction, repair and dismantling of oil installations, wind farms or other offshore installations at
sea,
 Laying down of pipelines or cables on the seabed,
 Ice handling, and
 Housing of employees, spare parts or workshop facilities for offshore work.
It is a condition for the application of the first sentence that the ships mainly carry out the activities con-
cerned in the Danish territorial waters or continental shelf area for more than 14 days a month.
The new Act is expected to enter into force later this year.
c)
In spring 2017 collective agreements were renewed on the private labour marked after negotiations between
the social partners.
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
2
In spring 2018 the collective agreements were renewed in the public sector after negotiations between the
social partners.
No decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Conventions concerned have
been given by courts of law or other tribunals.
Reference is made to previous reports.
d)
Copies of this report have been communicated to Local Government Denmark (KL), The Confederation of
Danish Employers (DA), The Danish Trade Union Confederation (FH) and The Danish Confederation of
Professional Associations (AC).
Employers’ organisations:
- The Danish Employers’ Confederation, Vester Voldgade 113, DK-1790 Copenhagen V
- Local Government Denmark, Weidekampsgade 10, P.O. Box 3370, DK-2300 Copenhagen
Workers’ organisations:
- The Danish Trade Union Confederation, Islands Brygge 32D, DK-2300 Copenhagen S
- The Danish Confederation of Professional Associations, Nørre Voldgade 29, P.O. Box 2192, DK-1358
Copenhagen K
Hearing parties of the Danish Maritime Authority:
- The Danish Shipping
- The Car Ferry Association
- The Trade Association for the Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Industry (HORESTA)
- The Danish Metalworkers' Union Maritime Section/CO-SEA
- The Public Services Union – Maritime Section
- The United Federation of Danish Workers
- The Maritime Section of the United Federation of Danish Workers
- Lederne Søfart
- Maskinmestrenes Forening
- The Association of Ferry Companies of Danish Small Islands
- Sammenslutningen af Mindre Erhvervsfartøjer
- Træskibssammenslutningen
- SKULD
- The Danish Shipbrokers Association
- Danish Ship Finance
- Danish Freight Forwarders
- Foreningen af Danske Søassurandører
- Danish Maritime
- The Danish Shipping Tribunal, Danish Appeals Boards Authority
- SEA HEALTH & WELFARE
e)
Comments received from the Danish Trade Union Confederation FH:
By way of introduction, FH refers to earlier contributions from LO – The Danish Confederations of Trade
Unions to reports on the DIS-Act – most recently in September 2016 and the subsequent comments/updates
regarding the government’s comments to the ILO to this date.
The independent Committee of Experts in its 2016 report requested the Danish government to make every
effort to ensure full respect of the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining so that Danish trade
unions could freely represent all their members in collective bargaining process – Danish or equated resi-
dents as well as non-residents, working on ships sailing under Danish flag – and that collective agreements
concluded by Danish trade unions may cover all their members working on ships sailing under Danish flag
regardless of residence.
3
The Committee of experts also requested the Danish government to engage in national tripartite national
dialogue and to take the necessary measures to enable all the relevant worker’s and employer’s organisa-
tions to participate therein, if they so wish, so as to find a mutually satisfactory way forward, and to indicate
in its next report its outcome and any contemplated measures.
FH finds it deeply regrettable that the Danish government for more than 30 years now, based on varying ar-
guments, has refrained from taking seriously the criticism of the Committee of Experts and the call to bring
article 10 of the DIS-Act in accordance with the ILO’s conventions.
In the report on Convention 98, the government refers to a recent amendment to the DIS-Act. FH recognises
the importance of this change.
However, the amendment to the DIS-Act referred to in the government’s report is in no way a sufficient an-
swer to the requests in the report from the Committee of Experts.
The scope of the amendments are limited to vessels operating in Danish territorial waters or continental
shelf whereas the amendment will have no effect to vessels already covered by the DIS-Act.
The case regarding the Danish International Ships' Register (DIS) has been ongoing since 1988, at which
time FH’s predecessor, LO, brought the legislative intervention to the attention of the ILO, and in 1989,
when the Committee of Experts decided that article 10, 2 and 3 of the Act is not in accordance with ILO-
Conventions 87, 98 and 111.
…
FH finds it urgent that the Danish government initiates actual dialogue on article 10 of the DIS-Act with all
parties from the worker-side with a view to bringing it in accordance with the ILO’s Conventions.
Attached, is a copy of FH’s letter of 16 September 2019.
Reply by the Danish Government:
A number of the remarks made in FH’s letter of 16 September 2019 are in line with the previous comments
to the reporting on ILO conventions 87 and 98 respectively forwarded by the organisation, including com-
ments given in 2016. In light of this and for the time being, reference is made to previous reportings and
remarks forwarded to the ILO by the Danish Government.
The fact remains, that the conditions leading to the establishment of the Danish International Ship Register
(DIS) still apply. Traditional shipping nations – such as Denmark – compete with a number of ship registers
all over the world, and Danish ships still face fierce international competition. Today, shipping has become
even more international by nature, and Danish ships are engaged in voyages all over the world. The ability
to easily transfer ships from one ship register to another as well as ship owners’ ability to establish abroad
remain basic conditions of the shipping industry.
Ships registered in DIS are subject to regulations ensuring seafarers high standards of social conditions,
including conditions of employment. Denmark is among the countries that have ratified the ILO Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006.
The additional remarks made by FH under convention no. 87 to the recent amendment to the DIS-Act are
duly noted.
On a general level the underlying reasons for maintaining the DIS remain. Thus, no amendment to the re-
port has been conducted following the letter from FH.


NOTE
LO-Denmark’s comments to the Danish Government’s reporting to
ILO on Conventions nos 87 and 98
A number of the remarks made in LO’s letter of 23 August 2016 are in
line with the previous comments forwarded by the organisation, including
comments given in 2013. In light of this, reference is made to previous
reportings and remarks forwarded to the ILO by the Danish Government.
As stated in the Danish report, the conditions leading to the establishment
of the Danish International Ship Register (DIS) still apply. Traditional
shipping nations – such as Denmark – compete with a number of ship
registers all over the world, and Danish ships are still faced with fierce in-
ternational competition. Today, shipping has become even more interna-
tional by nature, and Danish ships are engaged in voyages all over the
world. The ability to easily transfer ships from one ship register to anoth-
er as well as ship owners’ ability to establish abroad remain basic condi-
tions of the shipping industry.
Ships registered in DIS are subject to regulations ensuring seafarers high
standards of social conditions, including conditions of employment.
Denmark is among the countries that have ratified the ILO Maritime La-
bour Convention, 2006.
In February 2016, the Danish Minister for Business and Growth informed
ILO on the state of play of consultations with workers’ and employers’
organizations in order to explore the possibilities to accommodate the
ILO Expert Committee’s Invitation to the Danish Government to engage
in a national tripartite dialogue with the relevant workers’ and employers’
organizations on Section 10 of the Danish International Ships Register
(DIS) Act.
The State of play has also been reflected in the Governments’ report to
ILO on Convention no 98.
It’s important to notice the Act on The Danish Maritime Register of
Shipping does not prevent a seafarer from joining a Danish Union. The
translated report from a Danish Union, which has been enclosed, also
gives documentation of work carried out by Danish Unions on some of
the issues concerning non-domiciled seafarers. Thus, no amendments to
the report have been conducted following the letter from LO.
1 September 2016
Our reference:
Case nr. 2016019383
Direktionssekretariatet
Mette Vesterskov
DANISH MARITIME AUTHORITY
Carl Jacobsens Vej 31
DK-2500 Valby
Denmark
Tel. +45 72196000
Fax +45 72196001
CVR-nr. 29 83 16 10
EAN-nr. 5798000023000
dma@dma.dk
www.dma.dk
MINISTRY OF BUSINESS AND GROWTH
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt


Til Folketinget – Skatteudvalget
Vedrørende L 72 - Forslag til lov om ændring af sømandsbeskatningsloven, tonnageskat-
teloven og forskellige andre love (Tilpasning af DIS-ordningen, refusionsordningen for
sandsugere og tonnageskatteordningen til EU-retten m.v. og udvidelse af sømandsfradra-
get til søfolk på forsknings- og havundersøgelsesskibe).
Hermed sendes svar på spørgsmål nr. 35 af 9. december 2019. Spørgsmålet er stillet efter
ønske fra Henning Hyllested (EL).
Morten Bødskov
/ Søren Schou
16. december 2019
J.nr. 2019 - 4014
Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget, Skatteudvalget 2019-20
L 72 , L 72 A , L 72 B
Offentligt
Side 2 af 2
Spørgsmål
Ministeren bedes oversende den korrespondance/afrapportering, som regeringen har fo-
retaget til FN-organisationen ILO i anledning af den kritik, som ILO (gennem mange år)
har rejst af DIS-lovens § 10 – især stk. 2 og 3. Det drejer sig om rapporteringen siden
2016, hvor ILO igen kom med en rapport med kritik af DIS-loven, hvilket er blevet gen-
taget for nylig i en ny rapport fra ILO med deraf følgende afrapportering fra den danske
regering. Afrapporteringerne indeholder efter spørgers viden bidrag fra både fagbevægel-
sen og rederierne, og det er derfor rapporteringen i sin helhed, som ønskes.
Svar
DIS-loven hører under Erhvervsministeriets ressort. Til besvarelsen af spørgsmålet har
jeg derfor indhentet bidrag fra erhvervsministeren, som har fremsendt følgende:
»Vedlagt er regeringens afrapportering til ILO siden 2016 på ILO-konventionerne nr. 87
om retten til at organisere sig og nr. 98 om retten til kollektive forhandlinger. Afrapporte-
ringerne indeholder tillige henstillinger fra ILO om DIS-loven og svar på disse samt hø-
ringssvar til afrapporteringen fra arbejdsmarkedets parter.
Vedlagte dokumenter udgør al korrespondance/afrapportering foretaget mellem regerin-
gen og ILO siden 2016 om DIS-loven.«