Obligations towards crew etc who wish to disembark or are no longer welcome

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

You can put whatever you want in your contract with the crew members. But that doesn't change the fact that the authorities will expect the Ship's Master to present proof of outbound transport for the missing crew member.

If it isn't obvious, the Captain is NOT required to BUY the ticket, just show it exists. If the crew member skips out and doesn't (or can't) pay for their ticket, the Captain can wave his contract around all he wants, the immigration authorities will not care. Not their problem.

All they want is to be sure than somebody is not left behind without the resources to leave. Then it DOES become their problem, and they will not be happy.

Well, yeah. Of course. Immigration has to be involved with the whole thing. Doesn’t matter if you are firing them or if they are leaving. You still have to work with immigration.

I might be guilty of reading the thread title and not enough of the thread. It says responsibilities of the ship to the crew. Not responsibilities of the ship to immigration. So I didn’t answer anything about immigration.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by leecea

I saw on a crew finding website an example contract for large yachts that included very clear wording that crew accepts they are responsible for all travel costs after leaving the boat, no matter whether it is voluntary or not.

I suspect there is some complexity here.

It is quite normal for lawyers to draft form contracts and set rules in their own client's favor as much as possible, but the law is the law and should the issue come to law enforcement, they don't really care about private arrangements and agreements, which cannot trump international law and treaties that they must enforce.

The master is responsible to ensure the crew (and everyone aboard is crew unless you operate a licensed passenger vessel) they bring into the country, can leave the country. Why they leave is nobody else's business. The crew and master may sort out who must compensate whom later in a separate lawsuit if they want in which case that contractual language could be relevant but that doesn't alter the basic legal duties to the govts involved

Needless to say waving guns around is not OK regardless

[SocalBen]

From my recent experience, in a foreign country crew is dependent on the country in question doing something to the captain/owner, all talk of legal and illegal is ultimately meaningless if nobody enforces what is 'required'. Those of us who are used to US law, or even laws in other first world countries, do not expect other less wealthy countries to spend much time worrying about laws and what is right or wrong.

The other factor, from crew perspective, is that the power dynamic between crew and owner is huge and cannot be ignored. You are on their boat, you are at their mercy, and if things go South, ultimately it is going to be a humiliating, expensive situation with little real recourse.

Anyhow, now that the forum has deleted the thread with my story, should anyone want to contact me, send me a PM, I am not hiding nor will I be easily silenced.

Fair winds and calm seas,

Ben Cahan

[Celestialsailor]

I had a crew (husband and wife) join me in the Sea of Cortez to help with moving my boat from the North sea to La Paz. *I had met them a few year previous on their own boat, so I thought I knew them. They were argumentative and drank to excess, becoming a royal PITA. There was one port where I could have got rid of them but decided to tough it out and things got worst to the point where we had a major blow-up in an anchorage where there was nothing. We would be in port in a day and I tolerated them to that point and they left...I'm sure to replenish their need for alcohol.

I have had a number of sailing friends join me without incident but this team was a nightmare. I think, usually, if you want crew gone, the feeling is probably mutual.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I had a crew (husband and wife) join me in the Sea of Cortez to help with moving my boat from the North sea to La Paz. *I had met them a few year previous on their own boat, so I thought I knew them. They were argumentative and drank to excess, becoming a royal PITA. There was one port where I could have got rid of them but decided to tough it out and things got worst to the point where we had a major blow-up in an anchorage where there was nothing. We would be in port in a day and I tolerated them to that point and they left...I'm sure to replenish their need for alcohol.

I have had a number of sailing friends join me without incident but this team was a nightmare. I think, usually, if you want crew gone, the feeling is probably mutual.

Similar with my crew I booted in Fiji. The voyage was from Hawaii to New Zealand. Drinking became a problem in A. Samoa. I thought about kicking him off there, but held my tongue thinking I could manage until NZ. Then it escalated in Fiji, and I found he was also smoking weed with locals. Bye bye.

[JPA Cate]

A question for the legal eagles: is "port of call" limited to entry and exit from country ports? or is it any place accessible to one's own vessel where the person coming off the boat (for any reason) could hire food and bed?

Ann

[SocalBen]

Clearly blame for problems aboard a boat can be on either side, and I do agree that when things go bad, if both sides are at all rational, everyone will want the experience to be over and will work to make that happen in a fair way. As I had mentioned in my deleted thread, I was a bit cash strapped and tried to ride it out, but obviously there are times when something has to be done to get it over with and move on. I commend the captains who had bad guests who stuck it out to ensure the problem folks could get home with their things, albeit not at the desired location. I can only hope to sail with some of you folks down the line, you all sound like reasonable people who at least try to work through the bad days.

[TrentePieds]

@ #21:

I'm not a "legal eagle", as you know, but I'm sufficiently conversant with the jargon of that trade to be ever conscious that in a legal context a word only means quite occasionally what it means to thee and me.

We yotties bandy about the phrase "port of call" quite freely, knowing what we, as laymen, mean by it, but in a court room I'm sure the phrase will carry the meaning it was originally intended to have, viz: A port where a COMMERCIAL vessel, operating as a "liner", CUSTOMARILY calls while operating on a DEFINED ROUTE.

If a commercial vessel occasionally skips a port of call, that port remains a "port of call" nevertheless. That a commercial vessel makes a call, while en route, at a port where she does NOT customarily call, does not make that port a "port of call"

So the phrase really has no applicability to what is under discussion here.

But there IS a legal concept that is of utmost importance in our context — that of the "reasonable man". The lawyers among us will have opinions that are more reliable than mine in that respect, but I would think that if you wind up before the law, whether as skipper or as crew, or as the subject of an enquiry, your culpability/liability will be determined with due regard to that legal concept.

Thus, if as skipper you would dismiss a crew member from your boat, you'd better be sure you do it in a manner that legal eagles will deem "reasonable" under the obtaining circumstances.

TrentePieds

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wholybee

If a master kicks a crew off before the previously arranged disembarking port, the master is responsible for getting them home. I'm many countries, that is a legal obligation. But if the crew leaves on their own, the master has no responsibility.

If you are crossing borders, this is very true.

It's funny when people try to fly internationally without plans and the airline refuses to board them without an onward ticket...why? Because they are legally responsible for returning them if the country doesn't let them in.

The issue with hitching a ride on a small pleasure boat is you may or may not slip thru the cracks depending on how detailed the immigration folks are.

Also, if the disembarked rider simply buys a ticket and fly out, odds are there will be no issues. If they overstay and/or don't have the money to buy a ticket, you might be tracked down and held responsible.

Domestically, it's more of an ethical issue and depends on what happened. Dumping them off on a remote rural dock with no access to transport is a much tougher justification vs in a major city where they can catch a bus or taxi to get to an airport. But it depends on what is causing the kerffule. If she is a little too gassy for your tastes, dropping her off in the wilderness would be wrong. If she's a psycho threatening to kill you, first dock you can find is reasonable and deal with the consequences.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by leecea

I saw on a crew finding website an example contract for large yachts that included very clear wording that crew accepts they are responsible for all travel costs after leaving the boat, no matter whether it is voluntary or not.

I suspect there is some complexity here.

It doesn't relieve the ship from repatriating the crew.

It would potentially give you a civil case but that would be after the local officials forced you to pay for a ticket out. Of course, pursuing a civil case over $1000 in a different country is going to be expensive and may not hold up

This is typical lawyeresse where they try to make people believe something even if it's unenforceable.

[mvweebles]

As a guy who delivered yachts in/out of Mexico, US, and Canada, the Port Captain doesn't care why your crew manifest has changed, only that it did change - the ship's captain was responsible. There is not a country on the planet who considers it legal to arrive with X persons on board and depart with X-1 PoB without an explanation. If the question is whether it's always discovered or enforced, that's another matter. If someone gets off a boat and flies home for whatever reason, no one is the wiser. Crew goes out, get's drunk and plows a car into a pedestrian, you can bet the captain will have some explaining to do.

[El Pinguino]

I've never kicked anyone off although I have been happy when some have left.
I have never had my arrival crew list checked against my departure crew list either.
That includes departing with different crew from French Polynesia - the crew that disembarked there did have EU passports.
Never paid to repat anyone either.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I've never kicked anyone off although I have been happy when some have left.
I have never had my arrival crew list checked against my departure crew list either.
That includes departing with different crew from French Polynesia - the crew that disembarked there did have EU passports.
Never paid to repat anyone either.

The US system of justice is firmly rooted in "Presumption of Innocence." Few countries underpin their laws this way. So when something bad happens, they are free to round-up folks and assume the worse until they prove otherwise.

The Exam Question the OP posed is what is the obligation. Not whether it is enforced. It may vary somewhat by country, but in developing countries, you're safe in assuming the vessel's master is responsible for crew until such obligation is formally discharged.

As I mentioned in the other thread, when you fly internationally, the gate agent at the departure gate checks your passport. Why? Because if you show-up in the arrival country and are denied entry for any reason ('forgot my passport' being the most common, but includes carrying drugs), the airline is responsible for your departure. The airline may have a cause of action to recover the cost of the ticket, but the arrival country doesn't care. Bottom line is the airline is responsible for your arrival into the country where their obligation is dischared. If you are denied entry, customs contacts the airline and they are responsible to get you home.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by wholybee

Similar with my crew I booted in Fiji. The voyage was from Hawaii to New Zealand. Drinking became a problem in A. Samoa. I thought about kicking him off there, but held my tongue thinking I could manage until NZ. Then it escalated in Fiji, and I found he was also smoking weed with locals. Bye bye.

The husband and wife team I had informed me the first day that "they really weren't into regular bathing". That was a red flag for me. After storing my boat in Guaymas, my diesel lift pump went out...that got them nervous and I spent a day (no help from them) securing a pump in town). Then the wife felt the boat wasn't ready because of the pump and a lack of Buntlines on my reef points...something I had forgot to do when I bent the main after storage. Soon after, my 2 year old depth sounder went on the fritz. She wanted to bail which I was starting to be ok with. I told them if the wanted to get off then and I would buy bus tickets for them but they wanted to proceed. The first over-nighter, the wind was almost nonexistent but the husband insisted to try and sail, so I had to listen to block banging on the deck during my off-watch until he gave up and we motored. he was some sort of IT guy and was good with programming the GPS. Then he would short cut his own plot lines because..."he knew the area like the back of his hand". Then I was ridiculed for using chart guides and since the sounder was out, I wanted to creep into anchorages with a lead plug on a sounding line. His sarcasm got worst. Then he got ill with a cold or virus but insisted it was allergies (in the Sea of Cortez)...right! But the clincher was the wife Ukulele playing 8-10 hours a day of the same songs over and over again. I wanted to stick ice picks in my ears. I extended my watches from 4 to 6+ hours in order to 1) allow him some rest time and avoid being in the cabin listening to the wife's playing.

It all came to the head when to prove a point, he motored into an anchorage at 5kts while I was telling him to slow down and he refused. That's when I finally let him have it. The next day we were in La Paz and I finally got rid of them. It took me 2 days to clean the inside of the boat.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

The US system of justice is firmly rooted in "Presumption of Innocence." Few countries underpin their laws this way. So when something bad happens, they are free to round-up folks and assume the worse until they prove otherwise.

The Exam Question the OP posed is what is the obligation. Not whether it is enforced. It may vary somewhat by country, but in developing countries, you're safe in assuming the vessel's master is responsible for crew until such obligation is formally discharged.

As I mentioned in the other thread, when you fly internationally, the gate agent at the departure gate checks your passport. Why? Because if you show-up in the arrival country and are denied entry for any reason ('forgot my passport' being the most common, but includes carrying drugs), the airline is responsible for your departure. The airline may have a cause of action to recover the cost of the ticket, but the arrival country doesn't care. Bottom line is the airline is responsible for your arrival into the country where their obligation is dischared. If you are denied entry, customs contacts the airline and they are responsible to get you home.

Yes - but -
Its up to me to check that the crew that is joining my boat has a passport that allows him to enter the country at the far end. Frinstance - I would not take crew on an Australian passport to Chile unless they could show me that - before departure - they had a Chilean visa. ( yep Australia has really screwed the pooch on that one).

However if I take crew that has a UK passport I know that on arrival they will get a 90 day visa stamped in their passport with no fuss.
They are then free to go their way and I am free to go mine. Like the airliner pilot I can fly/sail away the next day without them.
If they overstay their visa that is their problem not mine.

Interestingly I have never -when arriving by air- had anyone in a south american country ask me about a return ticket and that is without them knowing I was joining a boat.