Melogy v. Maersk: When MLAA Founder Filed A Union Grievance Against A Sexually Predatory Maersk Captain, Disgraced MMP President Don Marcus & Maersk Leadership Conspired to Shield Him From Justice
The Grievance that started it all. April 19, 2019.
GRIEVANCE
I served as Second Mate aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, a container ship operated by Maersk Line, from November 26, 2014 through February 3, 2015. On February 3, 2015, while still a crew member aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, I delivered a Report to Captain Paul Willers, the master of the M/V Maersk Idaho and a member of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (IOMMP) labor union.
In my Report, I described numerous specific instances of disgusting, abusive, and illegal behavior directed towards myself and other crew members by Chief Mate Mark Stinziano, my direct supervisor aboard the Maersk Idaho.
Captain Willers had joined the M/V Maersk Idaho in Spain, approximately one week before I departed the vessel in Genoa, Italy on February 3, 2015. Captain Willers had not been aboard the ship during the period of time when most or all of the incidents described in my Report occurred. It was my understanding that Captain Willers had never worked with Chief Mate Stinziano, or had only briefly worked with Stinziano in the past, although I am not certain of that. It seemed that they did not know each other well.
On the morning of February 3, 2015, while the ship was docked in Genoa, Italy, I posted the Report on Captains Willers office door. Later, I saw Captain Willers at breakfast in the Officer’s Mess. Our conversation was brief and tense. I asked Captain Willers if he had read my Report. Willers told me that he had read the Report, and he said “I was shocked.” Willers told me that because of the Report I had written he would have to conduct an investigation. By his tone Willers indicated to me that conducting an investigation into the allegations I made in my Report would be an annoyance to him and that he was unhappy about having to do an investigation. Willers also told me that I should expect to be contacted by Maersk Line regarding my Report. I told Willers that I looked forward to speaking with Maersk about my Report.
Willers did not ask me any questions about the allegations I made in the Report, and he did not ask me to submit to any questioning or to provide any additional details. I remained aboard the vessel for several more hours, performing work on the bridge, while I waited for the new 2nd Mate (the officer who would be relieving me) to arrive at the ship.
When the new 2nd Mate arrived I performed a standard turnover with him that lasted approximately one hour, and afterwards went to Captain Willers’ office. Willers handed me my seaman’s discharge, my merchant mariner’s document, a copy of my performance evaluation, to which the Report was attached, and other papers related to the wages I had earned aboard the ship.
At no time did Willers ask me any questions regarding the Report or about my experience aboard the ship. After being relieved I remained aboard the ship for several more hours while I waited for the shuttle bus to arrive that would drive myself and other departing crew members to hotels in Genoa. During this time Willers never attempted to ask me any questions about the Report or about Stinziano.
Since departing the ship in Italy on February 3, 2015, I have never been contacted by Maersk Line or by anyone else regarding the Report or my allegations of sexual misconduct against Stinziano.
Since February 3, 2015 I have not worked aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, or aboard any other ship in the Maersk Line fleet. I have never seen or spoken to Captain Willers or Stinziano since departing the ship in Italy on February 3, 2015.
My Experience Aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho
I joined the M/V Maersk Idaho in the Port of New York-New Jersey on November 26, 2014. Captain McHugh was the master of the vessel and would remain master until relieved by Captain Willers in Spain at the end of January. Stinziano was not the Chief Mate when I joined the ship on November 26, 2014. Brian Mossman was initially the Chief Mate. Stinziano relieved Mossman and joined the ship in Miami at the end of the coastwise voyage, approximately 7-10 days after I joined the vessel.
On or about December 10th, 2014, shortly after Chief Mate Mark Stinziano joined the ship, he posted a note on the bridge, near the chart table. The note said “IF YOU ARE HUNGRY PLEASE EAT FOOD - NOT PENS - WE ALL TOUCH THESE & IT IS NASTY. --C/M.”
I am in possession of multiple time-stamped digital photographs of this note.
Stinziano posted the note because the 3rd Mate (whom Stinziano had nicknamed “The Penible”) had been chewing on the ballpoint ink pens that all deck officers and the Deck Cadet used to make logbook entries. The 3rd Mate was named Peter Feliccia (or possibly “Felicia”). I believe that Feliccia was a member of the MEBA labor union working on a IOMMP-contracted ship via a “pass through” agreement between the IOMMP and the MEBA.
Stinziano also taped four of the chewed-up pens to the note. Despite Stinziano’s note, the 3rd Mate continued to chew the pens, and this made Stinziano very angry. Several days after posting the note, Stinziano told me and the 3rd Mate that in order to deter anyone from chewing a pen on the bridge, he had inserted one of the pens into his own “ass” and then placed the pen back into the container that held the bridge pens.
Stinziano refused tell us which pen he had inserted into his rectum. He told us that the knowledge that one of the pens in the jar had been inside his rectum was intended to serve as a deterrent to any future chewing of the bridge pens.
According to time-stamped electronic notes I made at that time (and that I shared with others who have their own time-stamped digital copies), Stinziano said (to myself and the 3rd Mate), “This situation is ridiculous. I want you both to know that I took one of the bridge pens and I put into in my a**. I’m serious...So chew away.”
Initially, I did not believe Stinziano. But the Deck Cadet (who stood watch with Stinziano) told me that Stinziano made the Deck Cadet watch as Stinziano pulled down his pants in front of the Deck Cadet and stuck one of the pens into his own rectum before placing it back into the container that held the bridge pens.
For the rest of the voyage (nearly 2 months), I was deeply paranoid about ensuring that I was only using clean pens that I carried with me at all times. Any time I accidentally picked up a loose pen on the bridge to make one of my many required logbook entries, I became physically disgusted and physically nauseous by the thought that I had touched something that had been inside Stinziano’s rectum.
I am in possession of a time-stamped digital copy of a conversation regarding the posting of the initial Note between Stinziano and a 3rd Person in which Stinziano, in his own words, admits to sticking a bridge pen into his rectum.
In the conversation, the 3rd Person says to Stinziano “[you should] stick the pens in things no one would put in their mouth and post notes around saying where those pens have been. I bet it stops.”
Stinziano replied, “I already did that and I check that pen daily for bites!”
It was obvious that Stinziano enjoyed all of this as a sick game. For weeks afterwards he would make frequent jokes about the dirty pen and wonder aloud as to whether or not one of us had accidentally touched it or placed it into our mouth. It was clear that he wanted us to live in fear of touching something that had been inside his ass. To Stinziano, the game was extremely funny, but like almost all of his humor, he was the only person laughing.
The incident in which Stinziano stuck a ballpoint pen into his rectum in front of a USMMA Deck Cadet on the bridge of a Maersk container ship (before placing it back into the container holding all of the bridge pens) happened at the beginning of my time with Stinziano. There were nearly two months still to endure, and his behavior became increasingly outrageous as the voyage progressed.
His disgusting behavior was constant. It seemed almost impossible to have any interaction with Stinziano in which he did not say or do something that was completely inappropriate. As I wrote in the Report I submitted to Captain Willers on February 3, 2015, “The Chief Mate [Stinziano] speaks about sex, rape, sexual violence, pedophilia (or “kid touching” as he calls it) almost constantly. These topics ooze from him and made me deeply uncomfortable to be around him at any time.”
Illegal and Abusive Sexual Contact Against Me by Mark Stinziano
On or about January 16, 2015, our ship was moored to the pier conducting cargo operations in Salalah, Oman. Prior to arriving in Salalah, Stinziano came to me and told me that he would be conducting a test of the ship’s lifeboat while we were in port in Salalah. He told me that we would be lowering the lifeboat down to the water, and then testing the lifeboat engine in the water. Normally it would have been the 3rd Mate’s job to assist Stinziano, the Chief Mate, with the lifeboat lowering operation. But Stinziano told me that he did not trust the 3rd Mate to assist him with the lowering and testing of the lifeboat, and that, instead, I would be required to assist Stinziano with the operation.
Riding inside of an enclosed lifeboat that is being lowered down to the water, and then riding in the lifeboat as it is lifted all the way back up onto the ship from the water, are among the most dangerous activities that can be encountered at any time onboard a ship. It was not something that I wanted to do, and I was very nervous about having to participate in the testing of the lifeboat. It is common knowledge among seaman that many people have died while riding in lifeboats that were being tested or used in periodic drills, and I had seen multiple videos of sailors falling to their deaths when machinery failed during the testing of a manned lifeboat.
As I entered the lifeboat to be lowered to the water, I was very nervous, and I was thinking about the possibility, however remote, that I could die or be seriously injured during the operation. I took a seat in the lifeboat and strapped myself to the boat using my safety harness. Stinziano came into the boat after me and sat directly next to me, on my right side. The Deck Cadet was also present in the lifeboat. The Deck Cadet was seated on the opposite side of the boat from myself and the Chief Mate. We were the only three people in the boat.
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“As the lifeboat was being lowered to the water, I was sitting next to the Chief Mate and we were both strapped in to safety belts. This is an extremely dangerous operation and the threat of the lifeboat falling and killing you is in the mind of anyone in this situation. Halfway down to the water he reached over and placed his hand on my upper thigh just inches away from my penis, and then looked at me and said something about how “we’re trapped in here now.” It was a very sexually aggressive and disturbing event, and I was in something like a state of shock.”
Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in my life, and I was completely unprepared for it. The temperature inside the lifeboat was extremely hot, the boat was filled with loud noises from the lowering cables, and I was filled with fear and anxiety about safely reaching the water when Stinziano placed his hand on my upper, inner thigh. I remember that I simply froze and tried to ignore what was happening. After several seconds his hand was still on my thigh, and I turned to look at him. He then removed his hand.
The Deck Cadet was seated on the opposite side of the lifeboat, but due to visual obstructions, I do not believe that he was able to see, or that he did see, Stinziano’s assault of me. However, I never spoke to the Deck Cadet about this incident and do not know for sure whether or not he witnessed it.
When the boat reached the water there were immediate tasks that needed to be performed, and we all three sprung into action. We had to start the lifeboat engine, release the boat from the hooks, drive the boat around to test it, reattach the hooks, etc. As we went about these tasks I began to recover from the initial shock, and I became very angry. When we completed the operation and reseated ourselves for the dangerous ride back up to the boat deck, I purposefully seated myself on the opposite side of the boat from Stinziano.
Later, as I thought about what Stinziano had done to me in the lifeboat, I realized that the sexual assault was likely a premeditated act, carefully planned and executed by Stinziano. He had come up with a reason to get me into the lifeboat (his claim that he didn’t trust the 3rd Mate), then seated himself directly next to me, then waited for the most opportune time to grope me (while I was strapped into a safety harness, suspended over the water in the water in a moving lifeboat).
Several days after he sexually assaulted me in an enclosed lifeboat, Stinziano sexually assaulted me again.
I was on the bridge during my afternoon watch from 1200-1600. I was standing at the bridge computer, making required logbook entries, when I heard the door behind me open. The door leads from the bridge down the ship’s interior ladderwell. Without warning, Stinziano entered the bridge, approached me from behind, and slapped me upwards between my legs, forcefully striking my anus and my scrotum.
I described this incident in my Report to Captain Willers. In the Report I wrote:
“while I was standing at the bridge computer, the Chief Mate came onto the bridge and slapped me upwards in between my legs, striking my anus and genitals. He said “Oh, got a good one there!” I began to understand that he was trying to see how far he could push his touching and sexual intimidation of me, and I gave him a look that I thought made it very clear that I was not amused and that he should not touch me ever again. It took a great deal of restraint on my part to resist the strong urge to use violence to defend myself against this predator. After that day, every time the door to the bridge would open while I was standing at the bridge computer I would be afraid that it was the Chief Mate and that he was going to sexually assault me again.”
As the 2nd Mate on a cargo ship at sea, I spend at least 8 hours a day on the bridge, and a significant portion of that time is spent standing at the bridge computer making log entries and completing a variety of required tasks that are key responsibilities of the 2nd Mate and other watch officers. However, for the remaining portion of the voyage (which was several weeks) I would flinch and turn around any time I was standing at the computer and heard the door to the bridge opening. This was in addition to the paranoia that I constantly lived with on the bridge concerning the ball point pen that Stinziano had stuck into his own ass and hidden amongst the bridge pens.
Stinziano did not touch me again after this incident. I believe he recognized that he had deeply angered me, and my attitude towards him after this second incident became subtly, yet openly hostile.
More than anything, I did not want to see Stinziano’s face at any time. Unfortunately, I was on a ship, and I could not get away from him. I had to relieve Stinziano of the watch and do a watch changeover with Stinziano 2-4 times per day (depending on whether or not I had the supper relief). I had to eat meals with him, see him at fire drills and safety meetings, see him at odd hours of the day and night, and I was required by law to follow any lawful orders that he gave me.
I believe Mark Stinziano is a sexual predator. His illegal sexual conduct is premeditated, well planned, and designed to progress incrementally.
I believe that Stinziano committed a Federal crime each time he assaulted me.
18 U.S. Code § 2244 (“Abusive Sexual Contact”) states:
(b) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person’s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2246 states:
(3) the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
In my Report to Captain Willers, I made very clear allegations that on two separate occasions Stinziano had made sexual contact against me, without my permission.
I alleged in my Report to Captain Willers that Stinziano had, through my clothes, intentionally touched or struck my inner thigh, anus, groin, buttocks, and genitalia.
From the totality of my report and from my use of the term “sexual predator” to describe Stinziano, I also clearly alleged that Mark Stinziano had engaged in this conduct with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, and degrade me, and for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his own sexual desires.
Stinziano’s Treatment of USMMA Cadets Aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho
In my Report to Captain Willers, I alleged that Mark Stinziano made unwanted and abusive sexual contact with me on two separate occasions, and that he subjected me to a pattern and climate of extreme and persistent sexual harassment.
However, the bulk of my Report dealt with Stinziano’s treatment of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Cadets aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, primarily the Deck Cadet. The Cadets were aboard the ship participating in “Sea Year,” a program at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy under which students are sent out to work on seagoing cargo ships for nearly an entire calendar year.
Stinziano’s Attack of the Deck Cadet on the Bridge
In the Report I delivered to Captain Willers on February 3, 2015, I gave numerous, specific examples of illegal conduct directed at the Deck Cadet by Stinziano.
In the Report, I wrote:
“On the bridge, at sea, I saw the Chief Mate approach the Deck Cadet from behind, grab him and simulate “humping” or anal sex on the cadet’s backside.”
Stinziano is a short, stocky, and strong man. What I saw was Stinziano approach the Deck Cadet from behind, and without warning, wrap his powerful arms around the Deck Cadet’s arms and around the Cadet’s body, and then proceed to repeatedly and forcefully grind his own genitals into the Deck Cadet’s buttocks, simulating anal sex.
Stinziano laughed throughout the attack, and the Deck Cadet was powerless to remove himself from Stinziano’s grasp. I did not laugh at Stinziano’s behavior, but I also did not voice my objection to his behavior. He was my boss and my superior officer aboard the vessel, and as such, he held tremendous power over me while aboard the ship. He also held great power over my career as a deck officer in the U.S. Merchant Marine. He was a senior officer who held an unlimited tonnage Master’s license, a full “A-Book” Member of the IOMMP, and a full-time employee of Maersk who held a permanent position aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho.
In contrast to Stinziano, I was a junior officer and an entry level member of the IOMMP with no seniority or security in the union. I was working aboard the ship under a 70-day contract that contained no guarantee of ever being employed by Maersk again. Stinziano held the power to essentially destroy my reputation and career within both Maersk and the IOMMP, and this was a major factor in my unwillingness to take a stand against his behavior towards me and other crew members.
I believe that Stinziano committed a Federal crime when he grabbed the Deck Cadet from behind, repeatedly and forcefully rubbed his own genitals into the Deck Cadet’s buttocks and anus while simulating anal sex on the Cadet.
It is possible that Stinziano’s assault of the Deck Cadet qualifies as a “Sexual Act,” per 18 U.S. Code § 2246. A “sexual act” is a more serious crime than “sexual contact.”
18 U.S. Code § 2246 states:
(2) the term “sexual act” means—
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus;
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
The penalties for committing sexual abuse aboard a ship are much stiffer than when the assault is a “sexual act” as opposed to merely “sexual contact.”
Per 18 U.S. Code § 2242 (“Sexual Abuse”):
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or
(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—
(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
Stinziano’s Repeated Threats to Punch the Deck Cadet in his Genitals
In my Report to Captain Willers, I wrote:
“On numerous occasions I saw the Chief Mate threaten to punch the cadet in the genitals. The Chief Mate would pull back his fist as if about to strike a punch while the cadet stood recoiling, unsure if his boss is joking or not.”
Stinziano engaged in a sustained campaign of sexual assault and sexual harassment against the Deck Cadet throughout my time aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho. I never saw Stinziano punch the Deck Cadet in his genitals, but he may have done so. What I did see on numerous occasions was Stinziano holding a clenched fist, and repeatedly drawing back his fist in the motion of someone about to throw a punch while telling the Deck Cadet that he was going to punch him in the genitals.
The Cadet was genuinely afraid, and would place his own hands over his genitals to protect himself from the punch or turn his body in a way that made it more difficult for Stinziano punch him in the genitals.
The Deck Cadet did not know if Stinziano was joking or if Stinziano was actually going to punch his genitals.
I also did not know if Stinziano was joking or if he would follow through with one of his threats. On numerous occasions, I believed there was a very real possibility that Stinziano would follow through on his threat to punch the Deck Cadet in the genitals.
Threats of sexual violence, and the actual commission of sexual violence against the Deck Cadet, were essential elements of Stinziano’s sadistic sexual, physical, and emotional domination and humiliation of the young man.
Stinziano Forced the Deck Cadet to use Sexual Nicknames
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“The Chief Officer has a practice of assigning nicknames to the Deck Cadet and to himself and he would order the Deck Cadet to use the nickname assigned to him instead of his real name or the title “Deck Cadet.” “One particularly memorable set of nicknames that the Chief Mate required the Deck Cadet to use were “Big Daddy” and “Buttercup.” A typical inter-ship working-radio conversation, which I heard while on watch on the bridge and which could be heard by anyone else on the ship carrying their radio, went like this: Cadet: “Chief Mate, this is the deck cadet, do you copy?” Chief Mate: “Nooooo, your name is not Deck Cadet and my name is not Chief Mate. Now be a good boy and say it the way you know how.” Cadet: “Ummm, Big Daddy, this is Buttercup, do you copy?” Chief Mate: “Ohhhhh yeahhhh, that’s a good boy. What can Big Daddy do for you, Buttercup? This is one example of many different nicknames, almost all sexual in nature, that the Chief Mate required the Deck Cadet to use publicly.”
There were many disgusting sexual nicknames that Stinziano assigned to himself and the Deck Cadet and that he forced the Deck Cadet to use when speaking about himself and when addressing Stinziano. In the Report I only included one example, but there were many, and they would change daily or near daily when at sea.
Stinziano’s Disturbing Threats to Commit Sexual Violence Against the Deck Cadet
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“The Chief Mate repeated to me, or within my hearing, dozens of threatening statements about “Raping” the Cadet. He seems to have a fixation with the idea of rape generally, and raping the cadet specifically. He would talk about “raping the cadet” on an almost daily basis. It became truly disturbing. The Chief mate would boast to me his of threats to “Rape the Cadet,” and presumably thought that I found that funny or that I was “in on the joke.” “The Chief Mate made threats to punch a hole completely through one of the Cadet’s body at the location of his genitals. I do not remember if he said it was the Engine Cadet or the Deck Cadet or both. He explained to me in exhaustive detail how he could punch a cadet from behind at the location of his genitals and then push his hand all the way though his body so that at the end there would be a hole that he could see through to the other side where the cadet’s genitals had been. How do you respond when you are in the middle of the ocean on a ship and your boss tells you that?” “The Chief Mate bragged to me that he had made a “bet” or “wager” with another crew member on the ship. The Chief Mate said to me: “Yeah, here’s the deal. If I win the bet, I get to punch the Deck Cadet in the Balls. If [the other crew member wins], I get to punch the Deck Cadet in the Balls. Hahaha. Do you get it? Either way I punch the Deck Cadet in the balls.” Upon hearing this statement I reacted the way that I generally reacted to the nearly constant stream of disgusting sexual and sexually violent statements that came out of the Chief Mate’s mouth: I stared at him quizzically and said nothing, or perhaps uttered something without any meaning such as “Huh, you don’t say, Chief Mate?”
“The Chief Mate said to me several times that “Cadets are not People.” If he had said it once, I might have dismissed it as a joke, but he repeated the statement on several occasions, and I do believe that statement reflects his actual philosophy on how he treat cadets that serve under him.”
Stinziano Forced the Deck Cadet to Come to His Room to Watch Movies
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“The Deck Cadet complained to me that the Chief Mate on at least one occasion called the Deck Cadet after the Chief Mate’s watch ended at 2000 and forced the Cadet to come to his room to watch a movie. I do not know how many times this happened.”
The Deck Cadet told me that Stinziano was Sexually Harassing Him
I did not include this my Report to Captain Willers, but on one occasion the Deck Cadet complained to me that he believed he was being “sexually harassed” by the Chief Mate.
Stinziano Sexually Assaulted the Engine Cadet at the Dinner Table
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“At dinner one night at sea I saw the Chief Officer reach under the dinner table in the Officer’s Saloon and place his hand on the engine cadet’s thigh. The Engine Cadet said “Don’t touch me,” whereupon the Chief Mate responded by smiling and saying “I’m not touching you,” while maintaining his hand on the engine cadet’s thigh under the table. The Engine Cadet backed away from the table.”
The Engine Cadet was sitting in a chair at the dining table when Stinziano assaulted him in front of me. The Engine cadet was sitting across the table from me, and Stinziano was sitting to my right (and the Engine Cadet’s left) at the end of the table. After very forcefully telling Stinziano to remove his hand from the Cadet’s thigh, Stinziano refused. At that point the Engine Cadet pushed himself and his chair backwards away from the table in order to escape Stinziano’s grasp.
I believe this groping of the Engine Cadet under the dinner table in the Officer’s Mess (“Officers Saloon”) was illegal “Abusive Sexual Contact” per 18 U.S. Code § 2244. It was an intentional touching of the Engine Cadet’s inner thigh or groin with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, and/or degrade the Engine Cadet, and to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of Stinziano.
There was nothing funny about this situation. The Engine Cadet was very upset, and he left the table.
Stinziano Sexually Harassed and Humiliated the Engine Cadet in Front of the Crew
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“During a fire drill, in the Cargo Control Room with most of the crew mustered, the Chief Officer made the engine cadet stand in place while the Chief Officer used a Sharpie to draw what he called a “sperm” on the front of the engine cadet’s hard hat. The Drawing was a squiggly line with a circle at the top which represented a single sperm. The Chief Officer announced that the engine cadet was now going to be known as “Cadet Hot Load.” A “Hot Load” he explained was the fresh ejaculation from a man’s penis — still warm and at body temperature. The engine cadet had to stand and receive this demeaning sexual humiliation from the Chief Officer in front of the rest of the crew and to wear this drawing on his hat.”
The crew were not laughing at Stinziano’s “joke.” As usual, Stinziano was the only person laughing.
Stinziano Forced the Deck Cadet to Work an Excessive and Illegal Number of Hours
Federal law provides strict rules regarding the number of rest hours required for crewmembers.
46 CFR § 15.1111 states:
“Work hours and rest periods”
(a) Every person assigned duty as officer in charge of a navigational or engineering watch, or duty as ratings forming part of a navigational or engineering watch, or designated safety, prevention of pollution, and security duties onboard any vessel that operates beyond the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this chapter, must receive -
(1) A minimum of 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period; and
(2) 77 hours of rest in any 7-day period.
(b) The hours of rest required under paragraph (a) of this section may be divided into no more than two periods in any 24-hour period, one of which must be at least 6 hours in length, and the interval between consecutive periods of rest must not exceed 14 hours.
(c) The requirements of paragraph (a) and (b) of this section need not be maintained in the case of an emergency or drill or in other overriding operational conditions.
46 CFR § 15.1111 contains the minimum hours of rest required for a Deck Cadet aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho or any other U.S. Flag ship subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978.
However, it is not customary to work Cadets aboard U.S. Flag ships at anywhere near the maximum number of hours permitted by law. Cadets have independent studies called “Sea Projects” that must be completed at sea, and Cadets are not supposed to be a mission-critical member of any operation conducted by the ship or its crew. Section II(11) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Between the IOMMP and Maersk specifically states, “Cadets are on the vessel for educational purposes only.”
In his treatment of the Deck Cadet, Stinziano did not follow the CBA or customary standards (or any standard of basic human decency) in the work hours that he required of the Deck Cadet. Stinziano was consistent in following his “cadets are not people” philosophy in his abusive and tyrannical treatment of the young man.
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“I attended the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, sailed for 1 year as a cadet aboard various ships and know hundreds of other USMMA graduates who have sailed as cadets. I have never seen or heard of a cadet being treated as unacceptably and abusively as the deck cadet [NAME REDACTED] has been treated aboard the Maersk Idaho. Cadet [NAME REDACTED] “STCW Records of Hours of Rest” (ATTACHED) is full of inaccurate and fraudulent entries which overall dramatically understate the hours that Cadet [NAME REDACTED] has been required to work, and dramatically overstate the hours of rest that he has been allowed. Cadet [NAME REDACTED] has been made to work in excess of 16 hours in a 24 hour period on numerous occasions, and on several occasions has worked more than 20 hours in 24 hour periods. I have seen him dizzy with exhaustion on several occasions when he was required by the Chief Mate to work many more hours than even I was working. I believe that the Deck Cadet was frequently required to work more hours than any other crew member on the ship, with the possible exception of the Chief Mate himself. He has not been given enough time to complete his sea projects, he has not been given set working hours, his time has not been respected, and he has been treated as the personal property of the Chief Mate, on call to do anything the Chief Mate wants him to do at any time. On top of this abusive work load, Cadet [NAME REDACTED] has been sexually harassed, intimidated, and in cases suffered from conduct that could be considered sexual abuse at the hands of the Chief Mate. I found the Chief Mate’s treatment of Cadet [NAME REDACTED] and at times the Engine Cadet [NAME REDACTED] to be nauseating — sickening.”
On numerous occasions the Deck Cadet complained to me about the number of hours and the intensity of the workload that Stinziano was requiring him to work. He also complained that he had not been given enough time to complete his Sea Projects. On at least one occasion the Engine Cadet also came to me and told me that he was very unhappy with the way that the Chief Mate was treating the Deck Cadet, and asked me if I agreed that the Chief Mate was treating him abusively. I told the Deck Cadet and the Engine Cadet that I was upset about the way the Deck Cadet was being treated, that I believed his workload was outrageous and illegal.
A few days before I departed the vessel in Italy, I told the Deck Cadet that I was going to report the matter of his treatment at the hands of the Chief Mate to Captain Willers before I departed the vessel. I showed the Deck Cadet his “STCW Records of Hours of Rest,” which I had printed from the bridge computer. The Deck Cadet confirmed that Stinziano, not the Cadet, had entered all of the Deck Cadet’s hours, and that the Record dramatically underreported the number of hours that the Deck Cadet had been required to work.
During that conversation the Deck Cadet told me that, soon after Willers had joined ship (only a few days before my conversation with the Deck Cadet regarding his work hours), the Deck Cadet had mentioned to Captain Willers, in general terms, the number of hours Stinziano had been requiring him to work. The Deck Cadet told me that Captain Willers did not say anything in response, but that Captain Willers did make movements with his eyes and face that indicated surprise and strong disapproval.
The Deck Cadet also told me that Captain Willers told the Cadet that, upon assuming command of the ship in Spain, Captain Willers had discovered numerous irregular and unsatisfactory conditions aboard the vessel, that he believed Stinziano and Captain McHugh were poor leaders, and that the M/V Maersk Idaho was suffering from a “leadership problem.”
The Conclusion of my Report to Captain Willers:
At the end of my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“these are just a few notable examples that I personally saw or was told about. I can only imagine how many other things happened that I did not see or was not made aware of. The treatment of the Deck Cadet by the Chief Mate on this ship made me nauseous and deeply angry. I remembered my first ship as a cadet and how powerless I felt compared to the senior officers on the ship. I also remembered my own ignorance about what it even meant to “go to sea,” and I began to realize that this cadet thought that the sexual abuse and excessive work hours that he was being subjected to were normal. I believe that an investigation also needs to be conducted into the illegal work hours that cadets on this and other company ships being forced to work, and the fraudulent documentation of their STCW work hours. I was deeply ashamed to have been a member of the deck department on this ship and to have been associated with the deeply unprofessional conduct of my boss, the Chief Mate. There is no place for his physically, mentally, emotionally, and sexually abusive conduct on a ship, or anywhere. Unfortunately, a ship is the kind of place where a person like this can hide. I pray that something is done about it.”
Captain Willers’ Duty to Notify the U.S. Coast Guard of My Report
46 U.S. Code § 10104 “Requirement to Report Sexual Offenses” states:
(a) A master or other individual in charge of a documented vessel shall report to the Secretary a complaint of a sexual offense prohibited under chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code.
(b) A master or other individual in charge of a documented vessel who knowingly fails to report in compliance with this section is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000.
The relevant terms used in chapter 109A of title 18 of the U.S. Code are defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2246 (above). On February 3, 2015 I made a complaint of a sexual offense prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 109A to Captain Willers, and Captain Willers had a clear duty under 46 U.S. Code § 10104 to report the matter to the U.S. Coast Guard, or to the “Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating (46 U.S. Code § 2101(44)).”
In an article titled “Sexual Harassment” from the Fall 1995 issue of "Maritime Consultant" Magazine, the author explains the duties of the Master in this situation:
“46 USC 10104 requires the master or person in charge of a documented vessel to report to the Coast Guard any complaints of sexual offenses under 18 USC 2244 et seq. The sexual offenses which are covered include knowingly engaging in or causing a sexual act or contact. Sexual contact includes intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The statute does not allow the master to make a judgment of the validity of the complaint - he must report it. The consequences of a failure to report could be action taken against any license which the master or person in charge is acting under at the time the complaint was made, and/or a civil penalty of up to $5000. As a separate matter, the master is responsible for the safety of the crew and the seaworthiness of the vessel. Failure to investigate a complaint and take action on valid complaints would be a violation of these duties.”
The law is clear. Captain Willers was not allowed to make his own judgment as to the validity of the allegations I made in my Report. I made the complaint, and he was required by Federal law to report the matter to the United States Coast Guard for further investigation.
I do not know if Captain Willers notified the U.S. Coast Guard about the complaints contained in my Report, but I have never been contacted by the Coast Guard regarding my Report. It seems very unlikely that the U.S. Coast Guard would have failed to contact me if Willers had followed the law and notified the Coast Guard as required by Federal law.
Requirement of Master to Log Report of Sexual Offenses in Ship’s Official Logbook
Because Captain Willers was legally required to notify the U.S. Coast Guard that I made a complaint of sexual offenses against Stinziano, Willers was also required to make an entry into the ship’s Official Logbook noting that he had received my Report and that he had notified the U.S. Coast Guard.
The failure of the Master of a vessel to make a required entry in the ship’s Official Logbook is a violation of Federal law.
46 U.S. Code § 11303 states:
Penalties
(a) A master failing to maintain an official logbook as required by this part is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of $200.
(b) A master failing to make an entry in the vessel’s official logbook as required by this part is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of $200.
Captain Willers’ Investigation of my Allegations
After Captain Willers read my Report, I remained aboard the vessel for several more hours waiting for my relief to arrive, and then after I was relieved and signed off, I continued waiting aboard the ship for the shuttle to arrive to take me and other departing crew members into Genoa.
After I delivered my Report to Willers (a Report which contained allegations that I had been sexually assaulted by Stinziano and that I had seen two USMMA Cadets sexually assaulted by Stinziano), Willers did NOT keep the Report confidential. Instead, he immediately began a campaign in which he shared selective details about the Report with crew members, added his own opinions as to the validity of my allegations, and attempted to create the impression that the Chief Mate was being unfairly attacked by me, the 2nd Mate.
Less than an hour after delivering the Report to Willers, I was on the bridge working on a route for the ship’s Electronic Chart (ECDIS) when Stinziano appeared on the bridge. Stinziano approached me and said that if I had “a problem” with him that he wished I had come to him first before going to the Captain. I told Stinziano that he disgusted me, and that I wanted him to leave the bridge. He then left the bridge.
I later saw the Deck Cadet and the Engine Cadet at the elevator on one of the lower decks. The Deck Cadet told me that Stinziano had come to him complaining that I had filed an unfair report about him with the Captain. The Deck Cadet also told me that Captain Willers told the Cadet that I had been “keeping a file” on Stinziano and that the Deck Cadet would be required to “submit a written statement.”
The Engine Cadet was angry with me and said “it’s a shame that it had to come to this.” The situation was confusing to me because I did not know what the Deck Cadet or the Engine Cadet had been told about my Report. But it was obvious that the Engine Cadet’s perception of what was happening had been shaped by Willers, Stinziano, and the engineering officers who supervised the Engine Cadet. And it was also obvious that the Deck Cadet was very afraid of Stinziano and Willers and very nervous about having to submit a written statement.
My impression from my interactions with the Deck Cadet, Engine Cadet and with other crew members during the very awkward period of time that I remained aboard the ship after giving Willers my Report was that Willers had set out to convince everyone that I had wronged Stinziano, that I was the bad guy, and that everyone needed to protect Stinziano. Willers had also allowed Stinziano to go around the ship defending himself and also allowed Stinziano to intimidate the Deck Cadet ahead of the submission of his “written statement.”
I do not know if Willers shared any of the specific allegations that I had made in my report with the Cadets or with other crew members, or if he shared the nature of the allegations. But I do know that he did not keep the fact that I had submitted a Report confidential, and he did not treat the Report the way that the Master of of U.S. Flag merchant ship should treat a Report from a licensed deck officer that contains extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct by the Chief Mate.
In the days, months and years following the delivery of my Report to Captain Willers, I often wondered about how Captain Willers had handled my Report, how he had conducted his “investigation,” and what he had told his supervisors ashore at Maersk. I also frequently wondered why I had never been contacted by Maersk or by the U.S. Coast Guard.
I did not learn anything about how Willers had handled his investigation into my Report until February 11, 2019, when Don Marcus, President of the IOMMP, told me that he learned about my Report in 2015, and that he knew Captain Willers had conducted an investigation into the allegations contained in my Report [the information I learned from Don Marcus in February 2019 is detailed later in this Grievance].
In a telephone call with Don Marcus on February 11, 2019, Marcus told me that Captain Willers had done a “thorough investigation” of my allegations, that Captain Willers had forwarded the results of his investigation to the shoreside management personnel at Maersk who had then “put Captain Willers through the paces” regarding his handling of the investigation, and that the result of the investigation was that Stinziano was completely cleared of any wrongdoing.
It is critical to the safety of every Cadet and every other mariner who works for Maersk that we learn how Captain Willers’ investigation was conducted and how the decision was made by Maersk officials to clear Stinziano of any misconduct.
The way in which the Deck Cadet was interviewed by Willers is crucial to understanding the “investigation.”
What did Willers tell the Deck Cadet? Did Willers simply tell him that he had to submit a written statement about his time aboard the ship and his experience working with Chief Mate Stinziano without asking the Deck Cadet to respond to specific allegations I had made in my Report?
Did Willers tell the Deck Cadet that he wanted him to answer his questions truthfully, while giving the Cadet assurance that his statement would be kept confidential and that he would not face any retaliation from Stinziano, Willers or other aboard the ship?
That seems very unlikely. The Deck Cadet and everyone onboard the ship saw what immediately happened to me when I, a grown man and a licensed deck officer, had accused the Chief Mate of some unspecified (or specified?) wrongdoing.
This is precisely the scenario that 46 U.S. Code § 10104 “Requirement to Report Sexual Offenses” is designed to protect against. Unfortunately, it seems very likely that Willers and Maersk did not contact the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the complaints of sexual offenses contained in my Report as required by Federal Law. If Willers and Maersk weighed the risk of getting caught for not notifying the U.S. Coast Guard against the penalty, they may have decided that a mere $5,000 fine was well worth the risk of not reporting.
It is critical to the safety of every Cadet and every other mariner who works for Maersk that we learn how and why Maersk decided to place a senior officer who was credibly accused of sexually assaulting three different crew members (within a span of only 2 months) back on a Maersk ship in a position of authority over Cadets and other members without ever attempting to interview the officer (a Maersk employee) who made the Report, and without notifying the U.S. Coast Guard as required by Federal law.
Willers Employment Aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho
As an “Applicant” in the IOMMP, I had access to a members-only website that displays the “Assignment History” of all IOMMP members who are dispatched to IOMMP-contract vessels (including the M/V Maersk Idaho). According to the IOMMP assignment history, as of February 3, 2015 (the day I delivered my Report), Captain Willers had been sailing as a permanent Captain with Maersk for at least 10 years, and had been one of the 2 permanent Captains aboard the Maersk Idaho since the vessel entered service as a U.S. Flag vessel in 2009.
According to IOMMP records, on April 17, 2015 (approximately 2.5 months after I delivered my Report to Willers), Captain Willers was relieved by Captain McHugh, the Idaho’s other permanent Captain. However, records show that Captain Willers never sailed aboard the Maersk Idaho again. He was replaced as Master of the Maersk Idaho by Captain Paul Coan.
Records also indicate that Captain Willers never worked aboard any Maersk ship on a IOMMP-contract after April 17, 2015.
However, according to IOMMP records, Stinziano has been continuously employed by Maersk aboard IOMMP-contracted ships since the delivery of my Report to Captain Willers on February 3, 2015. Incredibly, according to IOMMP records, Stinziano has also recently been PROMOTED to Captain by Maersk [as detailed later in this Grievance].
Aftermath
When I departed the M/V Maersk Idaho in Genoa, Italy on February 3, 2015, I was emotionally exhausted, distraught, and extremely angry about what had happened to me and to others aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho. The humiliating treatment I received from Captain Willers after I gave him my Report had made the experience much more traumatic and angering.
I expected to be immediately contacted by Maersk regarding my report, but Maersk never attempted to contact me.
As time went by, I tried to forget about Stinziano and the events that took place aboard his ship, but I have never been able to forget the experience. Since February 3, 2015, there has not been a single day that I have not thought about what Stinziano did to me and others aboard the Maersk Idaho, about the humiliating and embarrassing treatment I received from Captain Willers upon the delivery of my Report, or about the way Maersk handled the entire situation.
Worse, there has not been a day that has passed in which I have not worried that some new junior deck officer or deck cadet was sailing aboard Stinziano’s ship, receiving the same treatment from him, or receiving some worse treatment from an emboldened harasser and assaulter who now believes he is completely untouchable.
June 16, 2016: DOT and MARAD Announce a “Sea Year Stand Down”
Approximately 16 months after I departed the M/V Maersk Idaho in Italy, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Maritime Administration announced that “Sea Year” for Cadets at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy was being indefinitely suspended.
The reason for the indefinite suspension of the Sea Year program, which had been a fixture of the curriculum of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and a foundation of the U.S. Merchant Marine for over 70 years, was the safety of USMMA Cadets at sea aboard ships like the M/V Maersk Idaho.
On June 16, 2016, the Federal government published the following press release announcing the “Sea Year Stand Down”:
“While the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) have made consistent efforts to address sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus over the last few years, we’ve grappled with appropriate means of extending these efforts during “Sea Year” when the Midshipmen are off campus training on working U.S. merchant marine vessels. The safety of these young women and men are our highest priority, and the USMMA is standing down having Midshipmen serve on these vessels until it is assured that their training will be carried out in a safe environment.
On June 24th, MARAD is convening a Call-to-Action with the maritime industry to address these issues, as well as their overall safety, as we begin to develop a comprehensive plan that protects the Midshipmen.
When I learned of the announcement, some of my anxiety and guilt surrounding my fear that Stinziano was still supervising USMMA Cadets aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho dissipated. But 8 months later it all returned.
MARAD, DOT, Shipping Companies (including Maersk) and U.S. Maritime Labor Unions (including the MEBA and the IOMMP) Spend the 8-Month “Sea Year Stand Down” Developing a “Comprehensive Plan” to Solve Endemic Problem of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault of USMMA Cadets at Sea
To understand why Maersk would agree to create new, government-mandated company policies regarding Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault (SASH), it is necessary to understand Maersk’s business model, corporate structure, and relationship to, and dependence on, the U.S. government.
Maersk’s Connections to the U.S. Government
Maersk is a Danish business conglomerate with its headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark, which bills itself as the “largest container ship operator in the world.” Through a complex arrangement of more than 900 subsidiary companies, Maersk operates over 700 ships around the world, employs more than 88,000 people, and has annual revenues in excess of $35 Billion.
“Maersk Line, Limited” is an American subsidiary of the Maersk parent company, with its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. The M/V Maersk Idaho is owned and/or operated by Maersk Line, Limited.
Maersk Line, Limited is almost completely dependent on its financial relationship with the U.S. government. It is essentially a defense contractor. Maersk Line, Limited manages a fleet of at least 22 U.S. Flag merchant vessels, employs over 3,500 U.S. mariners annually, and provides U.S. Federal Government agencies and their contractors with transport and logistics services. Maersk Line, Limited is perhaps the largest U.S. Flag shipping company in the world.
There are at least 3 pillars of Maersk Line, Limited’s Business Model: 1) Contracts to operate, manage, maintain, and repair U.S. Navy Vessels, 2) Contracts worth billions of dollars with the U.S. Government for the carriage of military and humanitarian “Preference Cargo,” and 3) Direct operating subsidies received through the U.S. Government’s “Maritime Security Program (MSP).”
Operation and Management of U.S. Navy Vessels
On September 15, 2017, the Department of Defense announced in a press release that U.S. Marine Management Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Maersk Line, Limited, had been awarded a contract worth nearly $200,000,000 to operate and maintain seven large, grey-hulled, military supply ships for the U.S. Navy. The press release stated:
U.S. Marine Management Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, was awarded a $36,070,998 firm-fixed-price contract for the operation and maintenance of seven USNS Bob Hope class surge large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off vessels. This contract includes a 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods and a six-month option, which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $196,303,408. Work will be performed at sea worldwide and is expected to be completed September 2018. If all options are exercised, work will continue through March 2023. Working capital contract funds in the amount of $27,004,384 are obligated for fiscal 2018, and will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N32205-17-C-3000). Awarded Sept. 15, 2017
The U.S. Navy’s seven Bob Hope class Large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off vessels (LMSR’s) managed by Maersk are the USNS Bob Hope, USNS Fisher, USNS Seay, USNS Mendonca, USNS Pililaau, USNS Brittin, and the USNS Benavidez. Each LMSR cost the U.S. government approximately $265 million to build.
The primary mission of the Bob Hope Class LMSRs is to transport shore-based combat equipment and supplies to US forces overseas in support of wartime and humanitarian operations. The LMSRs are crewed by approximately 30 civilian merchant mariners who are Maersk employees.
Maersk is also responsible for supervising and supporting up to 50 embarked U.S. military personnel who live aboard the ships and monitor and maintain the equipment being transported.
Aboard the LMSRs, Maersk is now managing hundreds of civilian mariners, including the captains, deck and engineering officers, cadets, and unlicensed crew members. Maersk and its employees (people like Mark Stinziano and Captain Paul Willers) are also managing hundreds of active duty U.S. Military personnel.
According to 32 CFR § 700.847, aboard these LMSR’s, the ship’s Master has absolute authority over all civilian and military personnel aboard the vessels.
32 CFR § 700.847 states:
“Responsibility of a master of an in-service ship of the Military Sealift Command.”
(a) In an in-service ship of the Military Sealift Command, the master's responsibility is absolute, except when, and to the extent, relieved therefrom by competent authority. The authority of the master is commensurate with the master's responsibility. The master is responsible for the safety of the ship and all persons on board. He or she is responsible for the safe navigation and technical operation of the ship and has paramount authority over all persons on board. He or she is responsible for the preparation of the abandon ship bill and has exclusive authority to order the ship abandoned. The master may, using discretion, and when not contrary to law or regulation, delegate authority for operation of shipboard functions to competent subordinates. However, such delegation of authority shall in no way relieve the master of continued responsibility for the safety, well-being, and efficiency of the ship.
Aboard these LMSRs, the Master/Captain is a Maersk employee, and answers to Maersk for his job performance and continued employment.
I believe that Maersk’s handling of my Report raises very serious questions about how Maersk handles similar complaints of sexual offenses made aboard the U.S. Navy LMSR’s that Maersk is paid very large sums of money to crew and manage for the U.S. government. Maersk’s approach to this issue is not only affecting USMMA Cadets and civilian merchant mariners, but also affects active duty U.S. Military personnel who serve aboard these Maersk-managed ships under Maersk employees who have “Absolute Authority” over these men and women in uniform.
Through the USMMI label, Maersk also has numerous other contracts under which they provide ship operations, maintenance, conversion, modification and retrofit services to U.S. naval vessels, and Maersk may be actively managing other U.S. military vessels and other U.S. Military personnel.
Cargo Preference Contracts
“Cargo Preference” laws require that some U.S. government-owned (or financed)
cargo shipped internationally be carried on U.S.-flag vessels. Cargo subject to these laws is known as “Preference Cargo.” According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Cargo Preference laws dramatically increase the Federal government’s transportation costs, because U.S. Flag vessels generally charge much more than their foreign-flag vessel counterparts to carry cargo for the U.S. government.
Rules regarding “Cargo Preference” can be found in 46 CFR Part 381. The “Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904” established a rule that 100% of all U.S. Military cargo sent around the world by the U.S. Department of Defense and other Federal agencies must be shipped on U.S. Flag vessels under the Cargo Preference Program, which is administered by the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The “Cargo Preference Act of 1954” established a rule requiring that at least 50% of U.S. government agricultural cargoes (such as food aid), and 50% of the cargo of federal civilian agencies, be shipped on U.S. Flag vessels.
Maersk has been awarded billions of dollars in Cargo Preference contracts with the U.S. government to move military equipment and other materials around the world.
Direct Subsidies: Maersk Receives Over $100 Million Per Year From the U.S. Government in Direct Subsidies through the “Maritime Security Program (MSP)”
In order to participate in the Cargo Preference Program, Maersk needs U.S. Flag ships. To help fund its U.S. Flag fleet, Maersk participates in a direct subsidy program known as the “Maritime Security Program (MSP).” The MSP is funded by Congress and administered by the Maritime Administration.
Congress has allotted money for 60 ships in the MSP. During Fiscal Year 2019. participating U.S. Flag shipping companies are receiving $5,000,000 in direct subsidies, paid monthly, for each ship enrolled in the MSP. Maersk is the largest beneficiary of the U.S. taxpayer money that is given out companies operating MSP ships. Of the 60 slots available, Maersk has been able to place at least 22 of its own ships in the MSP. Those ships are:
M/V MAERSK SENTOSA
M/V MAERSK CHICAGO
M/V MAERSK PITTSBURGH
M/V SAFMARINE KURAMO
M/V MAERSK MEMPHIS
M/V MAERSK HARTFORD
M/V MAERSK DETROIT
M/V SAFMARINE NIMBA
M/V MAERSK COLUMBUS
M/V MAERSK SELETAR
M/V ALLIANCE FAIRFAX
M/V MAERSK KENSINGTON
M/V MAERSK DENVER
M/V MAERSK KINLOSS
M/V SAFMARINE NGAMI
M/V MAERSK IDAHO
M/V MAERSK KENTUCKY
M/V ALLIANCE NORFOLK
M/V ALLIANCE ST. LOUIS
M/V MAERSK OHIO
M/V MAERSK MONTANA
M/V MAERSK IOWA
With at least 22 U.S. Flag ships participating in the MSP, Maersk (a Danish company) will receive at least $110,000,000 in direct, U.S. taxpayer-funded subsidies during Fiscal Year 2019.
Maersk has Repeatedly Defrauded the U.S. Government and U.S. Military via the Cargo Preference Program, Paid Fines, and then Been Rewarded with More and Larger Contracts
In 2012 the Department of Justice announced that Maersk Line, Limited had agreed to pay the U.S. government $31.9 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false claims to the United States in connection with contracts to transport cargo in shipping containers to support U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The government alleged that Maersk knowingly overcharged the Department of Defense to transport thousands of containers from ports to inland delivery destinations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In announcing the fine, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, said “Our men and women in uniform overseas deserve the highest level of support provided by fair and honest contractors. As the Justice Department’s continuing efforts to fight procurement fraud demonstrate, those who put profits over the welfare of members of our military will pay a hefty price.”
But less than three years later Maersk was again in trouble for defrauding the government. On November 5, 2014 the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois announced that Maersk had agreed to pay the government $8.7 million to settle claims that it had again submitted forged documents on a Cargo Preference contract to ship cargo to military outposts in Afghanistan. The government found 277 instances in which claims verifying receipt of shipments in Afghanistan contained forged signatures.
In 2016 Maersk was again fined by the Department of Justice for fraud. In that case, a wholly owned Maersk subsidiary was fined $3.66 million for violations of a U.S. government defense contract in which Maersk submitted 563 fraudulent billing invoices to the U.S. government.
Like other defense contractors, Maersk is well stocked with former high ranking U.S. Military and Coast Guard Officers, including Admirals and Generals, high level veterans of the Maritime Administration, and other high ranking former government employees who possess the knowledge and influence to ensure that Maersk continues to obtain a disproportionate share of Cargo Preference contracts and MSP subsidies relative to other U.S. Flag shipping companies. And these former military and government employees help to ensure that Maersk is never seriously punished when caught defrauding the government.
The Board of Directors of Maersk Line, Limited includes Charles T. Robertson Jr., a retired 4 star General in the U.S. Air Force who served as Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). USTRANSCOM’s mission is to provide air, land, and sea transportation for the Department of Defense in times of peace and war. USTRANSCOM relies heavily on commercial carriers to fulfill its mission, and USTRANSCOM is one of Maersk’s largest customers.
USTRANSCOM spends billions of dollars on Maersk’s services, and Maersk’s history of repeatedly defrauding USTRANSCOM has somehow not dented Maersk’s relationship with the organization. Just a few months after the announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice that Maersk had agreed to pay a massive and record $31.9 million fine for defrauding USTRANSCOM, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that Maersk had been awarded a $2.1 BILLION contract to ship military cargo internationally for USTRANSCOM.
In recent years USTRANSCOM has continued to award Maersk contracts worth hundreds of millions per year, including a recent contract worth $613,388,416 for deep sea freight transportation services,
Federal Law Requires Ships Participating in the Maritime Security Program to Carry USMMA Cadets
When MARAD and the Department of Transportation suspended the USMMA Sea Year Program due to the persistent and endemic problem of USMMA Cadets being subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault at sea, MARAD had a tremendous amount of leverage over Maersk and the other U.S. Flag shipping companies who rely on the Maritime Security Program to fund the operations of their ships.
46 CFR § 296.31 lists certain conditions required to be met by shipping companies in order to receive the MSP direct subsidies, and one very important requirement contained in 46 CFR § 296.31 is the requirement that any Eligible Vessel carry Cadets from the USMMA.
46 CFR § 296.31(f) states:
MSP assistance conditions.
(f)U.S. Merchant Marine Academy cadets. The MSP Operator shall agree to carry on the MSP vessel two U.S. Merchant Marine Academy cadets, if available, on each voyage.
If MARAD (or Congress) barred USMMA Cadets from sailing aboard Maersk ships due to safety concerns, Maersk would become ineligible for the $5 million annual direct subsidies paid to each of their (at least) 22 U.S. Flag vessels.
Because Maersk has at least 22 ships participating in the MSP, this ban on USMMA Cadets being allowed to serve aboard Maersk’s U.S. Flag ships would cost Maersk at least $110 million per year in direct subsidies.
The result would be that Maersk would be much less competitive against the other U.S. Flag shipping companies who are competing with Maersk for the billions of dollars in annual U.S. Government “Preference Cargo” contracts. Ultimately, other competing U.S. Flag shipping companies might expand their own fleets in order to capture the huge amount of money in direct subsidies and Cargo Preference contracts that were off-limits to Maersk, and to help sustain and maintain the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Because of 46 CFR § 296.31(f), Maersk’s U.S. Flag operation depends heavily on Maersk being able and allowed to carry USMMA Cadets aboard their U.S. Flag ships.
February 15, 2017: “Sea Year Stand Down” Ends. Sea Year is Reinstated
On February 15, 2017, eight months after the “Sea Year Stand Down had begun, MARAD published a press release announcing the resumption of the Sea Year program following the implementation of “comprehensive new policies, including a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and sexual harassment” aboard U.S. Flag commercial vessels participating in the Sea Year program.
Maersk was one of the first three companies (along with Crowley and American President Lines) to implement new internal company policies that complied with MARAD’s new “Strict Zero-Tolerance Policies” regarding the Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment of USMMA Cadets at sea.
In the press release announcing the resumption of the Sea Year program, MARAD praised Maersk for its leadership in combating Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at sea:
WASHINGTON – The United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) today announced that Sea Year training for USMMA Midshipmen will resume on three commercial carriers beginning in March 2017. The reinstatement of the program follows the implementation of comprehensive new policies, including a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and sexual harassment to ensure that the Academy’s standards for behavior, leadership and integrity are upheld.
“I commend the maritime industry’s efforts to combat sexual assault, sexual harassment and other coercive behaviors, particularly Crowley, Maersk and APL, which are the first companies to meet MARAD’s Sea Year requirements,” said Maritime Administration Executive Director Joel Szabat. “Commercial Sea Year training is a core training component of the Academy and its Midshipmen, and critical to the success of the industry, as today’s Midshipmen are tomorrow’s operators.”
“The results of these collaborative efforts establish a formal protocol that will improve conditions for the United States Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen. These young men and women will receive valuable training on commercial ships that will strengthen the industry overall,” continued Szabat.
Crowley Maritime Corporation, Maersk Line Limited, and American Presidents Line (APL), comprised half of the Academy’s commercial Sea Year program before it was suspended...
Since that time, MARAD, along with the industry and unions, has worked to establish requirements for companies providing Sea Year training opportunities for Midshipmen. These requirements include zero tolerance for sexual assault sexual harassment (SASH), vetted mentors, regular crew training, and no fraternization between crew and Midshipmen. These requirements will be reviewed after six months, and annually thereafter...
In 2018 I Obtained a Disgusting USMMA “Shipboard Performance Evaluation” Given to a USMMA Cadet by Mark Stinziano, Independent Evidence that Stinziano Sexually Harassed at Least One Additional USMMA Cadet
When Sea Year was reinstated in February 2017, much of my anger and anxiety about the fact that Stinziano had gone unpunished, and the fact that he was once again being put in charge of junior deck officers and USMMA Cadets, returned.
In the early part of 2018, I obtained a former USMMA Cadet’s “Shipboard Performance Evaluation,” signed and dated by Mark Stinziano, the Chief Mate of the Maersk Idaho and the Cadet’s direct supervisor. I have never worked on a ship with the Cadet who received the Shipboard Performance Evaluation from Stinziano.
According to its own self-study, the USMMA believes that the Shipboard Performance Evaluation forms are “invaluable tools for identifying weaknesses, strengths, trends, and anomalies” among Cadets at sea.
In a draft of a “Comprehensive Self-Study Report” prepared by the USMMA for submission to the “Middle States Commission on Higher Education,” the USMMA called the Shipboard Performance Evaluation an “integral part of the success of the Sea Year Program.”
According to the USMMA’s own Comprehensive Self-Study Report,
“An integral part of the success of the Sea Year program is the fact that professional, practicing merchant marine officers evaluate the performance of each midshipman under their supervision every 45 days. As these supervising ships’ officers are independent of the Academy, they are dispassionate and impartial appraisers of cadet performance. These evaluations are a direct measure of the Academy’s MET [Maritime Education and Training] program effectiveness. The two-page report, “Shipboard Performance Evaluation,” captures candid observations by seagoing officers of cadet competencies ranging from fire-fighting to personal safety and from social responsibility to professional development and progress. Each report is signed by the reviewing officer and then by the ship’s Master (or, “Captain”) who concurs, modifies, or disagrees. These evaluations are then provided to the Academy to be reviewed by a representative from the Office of Shipboard Training. These periodic evaluations are invaluable tools for identifying weaknesses, strengths, trends, and anomalies. Identified weaknesses are forwarded to the appropriate USMMA department for appropriate analysis and action.
The comments and performance marks received by a USMMA Cadet on a Shipboard Performance Evaluation can carry serious consequences. If a Cadet receives a poor evaluation he or she can face disciplinary hearings and serious punishment upon return to the Academy, including forced disenrollment from the Academy.
Additionally, the Cadet can be denied academic honors and the privileges and opportunities that flow from those honors.
Following the completion of a Sea Year academic period, the highest honor a USMMA Cadet can receive is a “Sea Year Academic Ribbon.” There are 4 levels of “Sea Year Ribbons” that can be earned by Cadets: Honor Ribbon, Honor Ribbon with Bronze Star, Honor Ribbon with Silver Star, and Honor Ribbon with Gold Star.
According to Captain Eugene Albert, Department Head of the Department of Shipboard Training at the USMMA, “Sea Year ribbons reflect not only academic excellence but include high marks in shipboard evaluations by their ship's officers.”
According to the USMMA’s “2019 Sea Year Academic Ribbon Criteria,” in order to earn the Sea Year Honor Ribbon with Gold Star, a Cadet must achieve:
“A QPA of at least 3.50 for the second sea year period, no failing grades, and above average (3.0 or better) on Shipboard Performance Evaluations, all of which Evaluations have been entered in to PD&CS Shipboard Data Base at the time of the initial posting of Sea Project grades, and earned Honor Ribbon with Bronze Star during first sea period.”
Additionally, the 2019 Sea Year Academic Ribbon Criteria state the following:
“NOTE respecting ALL Scholastic Honor Ribbons for Both First & Second Sailing Periods. The absence of any Shipboard Performance Evaluations for any one ship shall preclude a Midshipman from receiving the award, as will any adverse marks or any adverse reports;”
Because of the importance placed on the Shipboard Performance Evaluations by the USMMA, and the weight given to performance evaluations and comments made by ships’ officers who are completely outside of the control of the USMMA, ships’ officers know that the Evaluation forms are extremely powerful tools for the control and coercion of USMMA Cadets aboard their ships.
As previously stated, in the early part of 2018, I obtained a former USMMA Cadet’s “Shipboard Performance Evaluation,” signed and dated by Mark Stinziano, the Chief Mate of the Cadet’s vessel and the Cadet’s direct supervisor.
The Cadet gave the form to Stinziano to complete, as required by the USMMA. Stinziano completed the form, added comments, and signed and dated the form in red ink. He then returned the form to the Cadet.
In “Section 29, Comments on Performance,” Stinziano wrote:
“Why do my tax dollars go towards his education - Complete Waste of Time. Crew Enjoyed Cadet Often. Possible Homosexual. Often Heard Crying Himself to Sleep at 2100.”
In the first sentence of the Comments, Stinziano tells the Cadet that his education at the USMMA is a “complete waste of time,” and that the USMMA (the school where the Cadet worked very hard to obtain admission and then even harder to persevere through a very demanding course of study) is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
In the second sentence (“Crew Enjoyed Cadet Often.”), Stinziano states that crew members aboard Stinziano’s ship, possibly including Stinziano himself, frequently raped or sexually abused the cadet aboard the ship.
In the third sentence, Stinziano speculates as to the sexual orientation of the Cadet, and implies that there is something wrong with having a homosexual orientation.
In the fourth sentence, Stinziano ties everything together. He writes that the Cadet was often heard crying himself to sleep at night, presumably after being raped or sexually assaulted by crew members, including possibly Stinziano himself.
Additionally, for almost all of the performance standards, such as “Developing Professionally Toward License,” Stinziano gave the Cadet a score of Zero (or “Unacceptable”) on a four point scale. But, seemingly in an attempt to reinforce his comment about the crew enjoying their frequent raping of the Cadet, Stinziano gave the Cadet his only perfect score of Four (or “Exceptional and Always Exceeds Standards”) for performance standard #26: “Contributes to Effective Human Relationships Aboard Ship.”
Stinziano’s explanation to the Cadet was that the Performance Evaluation was a “joke.” It is my understanding that Stinziano did later complete a separate Performance Evaluation for the cadet to return to the USMMA, but the cadet retained the first “joke” evaluation that Stinziano signed. The evaluation was not signed by the Captain of the vessel, only by Stinziano, who was serving as Chief Mate.
In an online conversation regarding Stinziano’s “joke” evaluation, the Cadet posted a picture of the Performance Evaluation and wrote only:
“A grown man with four children and a Chief Mate’s license wrote this evaluation.”
In response, Stinziano acknowledged that he had written the disgusting Performance Evaluation and replied,
“HAHAHA… Please tell me you turned it in! Good luck when you graduate in 7 years.”
I am in possession of time-stamped digital copies of this conversation in which Stinziano admits that he created this Performance Evaluation and signed it.
In the Fall of 2018 I Learned that Instead of Firing or Disciplining Stinziano, Maersk had Promoted Mark Stinziano to Serve as Captain of a Maersk Container Ship
In September of 2018, several months after I came into possession of the disturbing Shipboard Performance Evaluation that Stinziano authored, I learned that Maersk had promoted Stinziano to Captain of the M/V Maersk Idaho. I learned about Stinziano’s promotion while browsing the “Assignment History” page on the IOMMP’s members-only website.
According to IOMMP records, on or about June 25, 2018 Stinziano was promoted to Captain of the M/V Maersk Idaho. The record states that Stinziano, who was still serving as Chief Mate of the Idaho, was now “fleeting up to Captain.” “Fleet up” is a naval term that means the second in command gains a promotion and takes his senior officer’s place in the command structure.
When I learned that Stinziano was now the Master of a ship, I became extremely concerned for the safety of those Cadets, junior officers, and crew members who would be forced to serve under his tremendous authority, and I became angry at Maersk for promoting into a position of such immense power over the lives of his crew a man I had warned them about.
In my Report to Captain Willers I wrote:
“I believe that the company [Maersk Line] needs to interview past cadets who have worked aboard this ship under this Chief Mate [Stinziano] to find out if he has raped or sexually assaulted a cadet in the past. I think he is a dangerous person, and it truly scares me to think about this man being in charge of cadets, or being the master of a vessel with no one at all to check his behavior.”
There is a common saying among seafarers that at sea, the Master is “Next After God.” Despite by warning, Maersk has made Mark Stinziano next after God onboard a Maersk container ship.
Men and women who go to sea on Maersk ships are at sea for months at a time, in many ways cut off from the outside world. Their safety and their lives are in the hands of the Master. The Master has the authority to fire anyone at any time, costing a seaman his job and livelihood, and he has the strong backing of the shipping company, his labor union, and the law.
For disobeying any lawful command of the ship’s Master while at sea, a crew member can be imprisoned in federal prison for up to one month. The Master even has the authority to confine and imprison a crew member aboard the ship for disobedience, and in certain circumstances to punish the crew member by denying him or her food.
According to 46 U.S. Code § 11501:
(4) For willful disobedience to a lawful command at sea, the seaman, at the discretion of the master, may be confined until the disobedience ends, and on arrival in port forfeits from the seaman’s wages not more than 4 days’ pay or, at the discretion of the court, may be imprisoned for not more than one month.
(5) For continued willful disobedience to lawful command or continued willful neglect of duty at sea, the seaman, at the discretion of the master, may be confined, on water and 1,000 calories, with full rations every 5th day, until the disobedience ends, and on arrival in port forfeits, for each 24 hours’ continuance of the disobedience or neglect, not more than 12 days’ pay or, at the discretion of the court, may be imprisoned for not more than 3 months.
If a crew member uses force against the Captain of a ship, the penalties are severe. According to 46 U.S. Code § 11501:
(6) For assaulting a master, mate, pilot, engineer, or staff officer, the seaman shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years.
If a Cadet or other crew member were attacked by the Master of a vessel, and used force to defend him or herself, it would be very difficult to prevail over the word of the ship’s Master as to the circumstances that led to the altercation, and the Master’s word would almost certainly be believed over that of the crew member’s. The result for the crew member would be the loss of a job and career, and the strong possibility of criminal charges and then federal prison.
Aboard his ship, Captain Stinziano is now Responsible for Implementing Maersk’s New MARAD-Compliant, “Zero Tolerance” Policies Regarding Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment (SASH)
Following the Sea Year Shutdown, at the direction of the U.S. Maritime Administration, Maersk implemented new Policies regarding Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment (SASH) in order to be able to continue their participation in the Maritime Security Program.
Aboard one of Maersk’s ships, Captain Stinziano is now responsible for implementing Maersk’s MARAD-Approved Company Policies regarding Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. In accordance with those Company Policies, Captain Stinziano must:
“ensure that crewmembers clearly understand what constitutes sexual assault and sexual harassment, its negative impact, the importance of prevention, and the severe penalties for engaging in prohibited behavior or for failing to report an incident,” and “clearly understand their responsibility as supervisors, employees, witnesses, and bystanders.”
MARAD’s new SASH policies designed to protect USMMA Cadets during Sea Year also include the creation of a concept called the “Sea Year Mentor.” Sea Year Mentors are officers who are assigned to the Cadet when he signs on to a new ship, and the Sea Year Mentor is selected through what MARAD calls “Enhanced Selection Criteria.”
In order for a Sea Year Mentor to pass through Maersk’s rigorous, zero-tolerance selection process, he or she must
“have no pending complaints or history of violations of the company’s Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment policy or anti-discrimination policy; mentor must certify that he/she does not have any pending complaints or history of violations of any other company’s Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment policies; and mentor is of good character, and knows, supports, and advocates the company’s Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment policies.”
According to MARAD and Maersk, “The Sea Year Mentors for each ship play a crucial role in the success and development of cadets.” The Sea Year Mentors assist in the “development of a well rounded mariner” by:
Guiding the Midshipmen [Cadet] in understanding shipboard protocol, sexual assault and harassment prevention and response policies, and expected code of conduct;
Supporting Midshipmen [Cadet] once they join the crew and helping them transition from their academic learning environment to the professional shipboard setting;
Participating in prescribed sexual assault and harassment prevention and antidiscrimination training and serving as a reporting mechanism for complaints of sexual misconduct.
In accordance with Maersk’s MARAD-Approved Company Policies regarding Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment, from among the crew of his ship, Captain Stinziano is responsible for assigning “Sea Year Mentors” to the USMMA Cadets serving aboard his ship, or Captain Stinziano can decide to make himself the Cadet’s “Sea Year Mentor.”
In my opinion, the promotion of Mark Stinziano to Captain constitutes a Catastrophic Failure of MARAD’s updated SASH policies, and of MARAD’s attempt to solve the pernicious problem of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment of USMMA Cadets at sea.
And the promotion of Stinziano shows that the policies were carefully designed by Maersk, other U.S. Flag shipping companies, and the U.S. maritime labor unions (including the IOMMP) in a way that made the new policies appear to be substantive, while ensuring that in reality the policies were completely toothless and did not require the U.S. maritime industry to make any actual substantive changes to the way the industry has traditionally dealt with sexual harassment and sexual assault, including the sexual harassment and sexual assault of USMMA Cadets aboard U.S. Flag merchant ships.
Upon reading the new policies, a person concerned about the sexual assault and sexual harassment of USMMA Cadets aboard U.S. Flag ships might be impressed by the Sea Year Mentor program. It seems designed to ensure that a USMMA Cadet is never placed under the supervision of a ships’ officer with a history of sexually harassing or sexually assaulting other crew members.
But that is clearly not the case. In accordance with these new “zero tolerance” polices, a USMMA Deck Cadet could be placed on a Maersk ship where both the Captain of the ship and the Chief Mate (or both the Chief Engineer and 1st Assistant Engineer for an Engine Cadet) could have an extensive history of “violations of the company’s Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment policy or anti-discrimination policy” that was known to Maersk. They could both also have pending complaints against them for violating Maersk’s Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment policy or anti-discrimination policy, and these pending complaints could be known to Maersk. In order to conform to the MARAD-imposed policies, the Captain would simply appoint the 2nd Mate or 3rd Mate or some other officer as the Sea Year Mentor.
In the case of Stinziano (and in the case of what are likely many other Maersk officers who have been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment), Maersk could also claim that he had never violated their policies because Maersk conducted a “thorough investigation” into the allegations contained in my Report and determined that they were not true. Therefore, Maersk would say, Stinziano had not violated their policies and had no “pending complaints.”
Another gaping loophole that was created in the Sea Year Mentor program is that the Sea Year Mentors “self certify” that they have no history of SASH. The “Zero-Tolerance” Sea Year Mentor policy was carefully crafted in a way that allowed the officers themselves to certify that they had no such history of sexual harassment or sexual assault, and created no mechanism for actually verifying whether or not these certifications were accurate. That ensured that Maersk, other U.S. Flag shipping companies, and the U.S. maritime labor unions would not themselves have to certify that Captains and other ship’s officers placed in positions of great authority over USMMA cadets did not have a history of sexual assault or sexual harassment.
Another loophole exists because, even if Maersk were to fire Stinziano, he would still be a member of the IOMMP and would be able to go work for a different U.S. Flag shipping company that carried USMMA Cadets. That company would have no record of his past behavior or complaints made against him. The IOMMP would never report his conduct to his new employer or to MARAD, and he would again be placed on in a position of power over USMMA Cadets without MARAD or the USMMA ever knowing.
To my knowledge, not a single person in the U.S. Merchant Marine was barred from serving aboard a ship due to a history of sexual harassment or sexual assault following the implementation of MARAD’s new “Zero-Tolerance” policies against SASH.
The new zero-tolerance policies are irrelevant, and are simply more “paperwork” aboard a ship, one more logbook, among dozens of others, that crew members are required to sign and date.
In November 2018, Shortly After I Learned Stinziano Had Been Promoted to Captain, I Told a Group of Professional Mariners About My Experience Aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho During a Leadership Class at The Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies (MITAGS)
After I learned that Stinziano had been promoted to Captain, I spent time every day wondering if there was anything I could do to protect other people from having to experience what I, and others, experienced during my time aboard his ship. On a daily basis, for several months, I experienced feelings of intense guilt, anguish, and shame due to my inaction.
Approximately one month after I learned that Stinziano had been promoted to Captain, I arrived at the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies (MITAGS) in Linthicum, Maryland. From October 9, 2018 through December 18, 2018 I was a student in residence at MITAGS.
MITAGS describes itself as “a non-profit vocational training center for individuals seeking to enter the maritime profession and for professional mariners seeking to advance their careers.” MITAGS is also the “primary training center for members of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (IOMMP),” the labor union to which I am affiliated as an “Applicant,” and to which Stinziano and Captain Willers are full union “Members.”
The headquarters of the IOMMP are located on the same campus as the MITAGS facilities, and although there is some legal separation between the IOMMP and MITAGS, the two organizations, are very closely aligned and integrated.
My reason for being at IOMMP/MITAGS was to complete the mandatory classes and training required by the United States Coast Guard in order to advance and upgrade my license from “2nd Mate, Unlimited Tonnage” to “Chief Mate, Unlimited Tonnage.”
From November 26-30, 2018 I participated in a class titled “Leadership and Managerial Skills (LMS)” at MITAGS. According to the LMS course description:
“The goal of the Leadership and Managerial Skills Course is to give professional mariners and senior vessel support personnel an in-depth overview of relevant and applicable information that describes, explains and clarifies the behavior and actions manifested by effective, efficient leaders and to provide applicable information, techniques and practices on verbal and written communications, address the issues of interpersonal conduct maritime leaders might face and provide resource management and time-saving techniques that can be applied to meetings. Collectively, the training and educational material presented in this course will augment and enhance individual leadership skills and can be applied on a day-to-day basis in leadership positions by those responsible for the safe, efficient, and effective operation of an individual vessel or a fleet of vessels.
The instructor for the LMS class was Captain Bob Kimball, a licensed deck officer who has sailed as Master of large container vessels. Captain Kimball is also a senior Member of the IOMMP. It is my understanding that Captain Kimball is currently a full-time instructor at MITAGS.
There were approximately 10 students in the class, all professional mariners. Most students were taking the course for the same reason I was taking the course: in order to upgrade their license to a management-level license.
On Thursday November 29, 2018, the fourth day of the LMS class, Captain Kimball required each student to share with the class an example of a “Good Leader” we had worked with on a ship, and an example of a “Bad Leader” we had worked with during our career.
When it was my turn to share, I began with an example of a “Bad Leader,” and began sharing details from my experience working for Stinziano aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho. I did not reveal Stinziano’s name to the class, and I did not reveal the name of the ship.
I told the class that the “Bad Leader” had sexually harassed me, that he had sexually assaulted me multiple times, and that he had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted both USMMA Cadets who were working on the ship. I also told the class about the comments that Stinziano had made on a USMMA Cadet’s Shipboard Performance Evaluation form.
Additionally, I told the class that I had filed a Report with the Captain of the ship regarding the “Bad Leader’s” actions, and that despite my Report, I had recently learned that the individual had been promoted to Captain.
The reaction of my classmates and of Captain Bob Kimball was uniform. Everyone agreed that this was a very serious issue, that there was no place on a ship for the kind of behavior I had described, and that this person needed to be reported and investigated in order to protect other people from him.
Captain Kimball asked me if the incidents had occurred aboard a ship where the deck officers were represented by the IOMMP, and I told him, yes, it was a IOMMP-contracted ship. Kimball then told me and the class that what I had described constituted “member on member harassment.” Kimball then told me and the class that there was a mechanism within the IOMMP to report member on member harassment, and that I should report it to the union leadership.
This was the first time that I had ever heard about the concept of member-on-member harassment within the IOMMP, and the first time that I had been told that there was a process through which I could report member-on-member harassment to the union.
On the morning of November 29, Bob Kimball told me, in front of the entire class, the following:
“You’ve gotta turn this stuff in [to the IOMMP leadership]. Even though it happened four years ago, the incident has to be reported….You have the obligation as an MMP member to keep other members safe from a predator...and not only does it protect the members, but it protects society.”
Other members of the class made similar statements to me, imploring me to follow through on reporting the individual’s conduct again, and emphasizing that I had a moral duty to act in order to protect other people who might serve aboard this person’s ship.
At approximately 11:30 on November 29, 2018 Bob Kimball dismissed the class for lunch break.
During the lunch hour all of the MITAGS students and teachers eat together in the large dining hall at MITAGS where food is served buffet-style. Employees of the IOMMP, which is located on the same campus as MITAGS, also eat lunch in the MITAGS dining hall. The leadership of the IOMMP, including the President and the Secretary/Treasurer, typically sit together at the same table in the back of the dining hall.
On November 29, 2018, while I was in the MITAGS dining hall during the lunch break, Captain Kimball approached me. Kimball took me aside and told me that only minutes earlier he had gone to the table where the IOMMP leadership were eating lunch, and he had told “someone” about the story I had told in class.
Kimball further stated that he believed himself to have a moral and legal obligation to tell the union leadership about what I had reported in his class. Kimball said that he did not tell the leaders of IOMMP my name, but only the outline of the story I had told the class. Kimball urged me to schedule a meeting with the union leadership at the IOMMP headquarters building, meet with the union leaders, and tell them my story.
I thanked Captain Kimball, and I told him that perhaps instead of scheduling a face-to-face meeting with the union leaders, that I might instead be more comfortable organizing the story into an email and sending that to the union leaders first.
Captain Kimball said to me, “If you send them an email, they are not going to take you seriously. You have to go over there and talk to them.”
At approximately 13:00 on November 29 the “Leadership and Managerial Skills”
class reassembled in Captain Kimball’s classroom to resume instruction after lunch.
One of the students participating in the class was a full, “A-Book” Member of the IOMMP named “J.” As we sat waiting for the class to begin, "J" began trying to guess, through the process of elimination, the identity of the “Bad Leader” I had described during the morning session. Although I had not revealed to the class the name of the ship where the events occured, I did tell the class that the ship was operated by Maersk. "J" began naming IOMMP-contracted ships operated by Maersk, and then naming the Captains of the ships to see if the details lined up.
"J"’s banter was done in a semi-joking way, but it was clear that he wanted to know the identity of the Bad Leader, and other people in the class were also asking me to tell them his name. I began to feel very uncomfortable.
In front of Kimball and the entire class, "J" then offered to accompany me to the IOMMP headquarters, and suggested that I should not go talk to the President and Secretary/Treasurer of the IOMMP by myself, because they might not deal with me in a straightforward and honest way.
"J" said:
“I thought you wanted me to go down there with you? [Laughter]. Don’t you want some A-book support on this? I’m a book member right here. I can write, what is it you’re supposed to write at the bottom of your things? What do all those cheesy guys write?
“Fraternally? Yeah, Fraternally. ‘My Fraternal Brother.’ And my [union] dues are always paid a year ahead of time, so I can back you.
You need good cop, bad cop. You need bad cop muscle [when dealing with the union leadership].
The idea of going to the union headquarters and sitting down in front of the leaders of the IOMMP to tell my story was already a very intimidating proposition in my mind, but "J"’ comments reinforced my apprehension.
Then Captain Kimball interrupted "J" and said,
“Yeah, when I went over [to the table where the IOMMP union leaders were sitting] and told someone at lunch time to expect, yeah, they were there like ‘Oh my god, you gotta be kidding me? One of our members? Our member on member!?’”
“They were surprised?” I asked.
“Yeah. It’s extraordinarily serious,” Kimball replied.
“You put Bob on the hook, man,” said "J". “That’s just how it works. He is now completely on the hook.”
“Because it was mentioned in this class, it’s my responsibility to report it,” Kimball said.
“You know who would love this?” asked "J". “That Senator Gillibrand. She’d be all over this.”
“Yeah, she would,” said Kimball.
Later, Captain Kimball told the LMS class that the IOMMP had endured a recent scandal in which a woman named Erika Lawson told the Washington Post in a videotaped interview that she had been sexually assaulted by the Chief Mate of her ship while she was a USMMA Cadet on Sea Year. The story was written by Washington Post reporter Lisa Rein, published on July 18, 2016, and titled “Merchant Marine Midshipmen Endure Rough Waters as Sexual Misconduct Roils their Ranks.”
Kimball told the class that the Chief Mate who Erika Lawson had accused of sexually assaulting her aboard a ship was a member of the IOMMP. Kimball stated that the union had faced tough questioning over the Washington Post story, and that, in certain quarters of the maritime industry, the IOMMP had become known as “the rapist union” because of the behavior of the IOMMP Member who allegedly sexually assaulted 19 year old Erika Lawson aboard his ship.
In the video interview, Lawson told the Washington Post that the assault happened while her ship was docked in Saipan. Lawson told the Post that after leaving the ship and going ashore in Saipan, she found herself in a taxi, alone with the Chief Mate, for the ride back to the ship. According to Lawson:
“As soon as we were taking a taxi back to the ship, alone, the Chief Mate started saying all these things to me about how attracted he was to me. How we had such a good time and I should be his girlfriend and everything. And then he started forcing himself on me in the taxi and I kept yelling ‘No, stop, get away from me’ and he, like, pushed me up against the side of the taxi and put his hands down my clothes and grabbed my chin and made me kiss him and everything.
“I remember running back to the ship and locking my door. I ended up writing the Chief Mate a note saying that i was really hurt by what he did, that i felt very violated, that he had violated my trust. And I left the note on his desk. A couple days later he slipped a note under my door saying “Sorry, have a nice summer,” and he slipped a couple hundred dollars in an envelope and and put it under my door.
“And I remember coming back to school and feeling really weird about myself and feeling kinda depressed, and i really lost interest in my school work, my grades plummeted...
“...You feel humiliated, and the more you try to forget about it and push it to the back of your mind, the worse you feel about it.”
Erika Lawson told the Post that she had been afraid to report the assault while a crew member aboard the ship. It’s easy to understand why she would be afraid. According to the Washington Post article, “Lawson was 19 and...she was 7,810 miles from shore, in port in Saipan in the North Pacific.” Her Chief Mate also held her Shipboard Performance Evaluation form, and had the support of the Captain, his union, the shipping company, and the other members of the crew.
According to the Washington Post,
Few cases like this are ever reported. But the Merchant Marine Academy has the highest rate of sexual assault and harassment of any U.S. military school. While the school received just one report of sexual assault in the 2014-2015 academic year, student surveys taken by the government reveal that 63 percent of women and 11 percent of men experienced unwanted advances or other sexual harassment. And 17 percent of women and 2 percent of men endured some kind of sexual assault, defined as unwanted contact, from groping to rape.
Lawson told the Post that she eventually sought counseling through the USMMA to help her cope with the trauma. “I’m tired of people saying this doesn’t happen, or that I have to suck it up and act like a man,” Lawson said.
Captain Kimball told me and the other members of the LMS class that the IOMMP member who had sexually assaulted Erika Lawson was never punished for his behavior, that he was still actively sailing aboard ships as a member of IOMMP, and was presumably still supervising USMMA cadets.
Kimball’s story gave me great pause. I had previously read the article about Lawson, had seen her video interview, and I was familiar with the details. The fact that the Chief Mate accused of sexually assaulting Erika Lawson was a Member of the IOMMP does not appear anywhere in the Washington Post article or in Erika Lawson’s video interview, which made me question how Kimball and the IOMMP leadership could have known that fact without also knowing the name of the Chief Mate who assaulted Lawson.
And if the IOMMP leadership knew the name of the Chief Mate and yet he was still actively sailing on IOMMP-contracted ships, that meant that they had protected him, or at the very least, failed to pursue him.
Kimball was using the story as an example of why I needed to speak to the IOMMP leadership about what I had seen and experienced, but the story made me even more afraid of what would happen to me if I went to the union leaders and accused a senior union member and Maersk Captain of sexual misconduct.
At MITAGS I Was Warned By multiple IOMMP Members That I Would Likely Face Retaliation From the Union Leadership and Union Members if I Attempted to Circumvent the Union and Report Stinziano’s Conduct to the USMMA or Some Other Outside Organization
On the evening of Thursday November 29, 2018 I went to the “pub” at MITAGS and enjoyed a couple cold beers with "J" and other members of the LMS class. "J" repeatedly asked me to tell him the name of the Bad Leader, and eventually I relented and told him that his name was Mark Stinziano.
Upon hearing Stinziano’s name, "J"’ demeanor and attitude completely changed. Whereas before he had been eager to expose the individual and to see him punished and fired, now he became very somber and serious. "J" told me that he had never met Stinziano, but that they had both attended Fort Schuyler (the State University of New York Maritime Academy), and that they had many mutual friends and acquaintances.
"J" told me that Stinziano had recently been made a Captain with Maersk, and, "J" expressed sadness and alarm that Stinziano’s career was now threatened.
"J" also told me that Stinziano’s nickname at Fort Schuyler had been “Stinky,” that this nickname had followed him throughout his career, and that "J" had heard from other IOMMP members that Stinziano had been known to host a regular shipboard event known as “Porn N’ Corn.” "J" told me that on “Porn N’ Corn” nights, Stinziano invited crewmembers and cadets to come to his room to watch pornography while eating popcorn that Stinziano prepared for attendees.
I am in possession of time-stamped electronic notes from November 30, 2018 in which I recorded the details of the conversation regarding “Porn N’ Corn,” the name and biographical details of the person who told me the story, and text messages in which I explained the Porn N’ Corn story to another professional mariner who reacted in disgust upon learning the details.
Later that evening, I told "J" that I was not sure if I trusted the IOMMP leadership to properly investigate the matter or to properly punish Stinziano, and that I was considering contacting the leadership of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy about Stinziano in order to protect USMMA Cadets.
"J" became angry at this suggestion, and he repeatedly warned me that I must keep the Stinziano matter “within the union.” "J" explicitly told me that if I attempted to pursue justice against Stinziano outside of the union that I would face “retaliation” from the union leadership and from other union members in the fleet, and that my career would be greatly harmed.
For the first four days of the LMS class, "J" and I had been very friendly, but our relationship became tense after I told him that Stinziano was the Bad Leader, and we ended the evening of the 29th on very tense terms.
Friday November 30, 2018 was the final day of the LMS class. I felt very uneasy about the comments that "J" had made to me the previous evening regarding the harm to my career and the retaliation I would face within the union if I told anyone outside of the union about Stinziano’s behavior.
Towards the end of the class, during a class review before we took the final exam, Captain Kimball once again stated the importance of reporting illegal behavior. I took that opportunity to state out loud to the entire class that, on the previous evening, "J" had said things to me that had made me afraid to report Stinziano. "J" then defended himself in front of the class, and said that he had only told me that I should not take the matter “outside of the union.”
I then told Captain Kimball and the class that it seemed likely that the union would do everything possible to protect Stinziano, and then I would be left in a position where I had to choose between allowing Stinziano to go unpunished, which would mean other people would be harassed and assaulted by him, or pursuing justice via some other process.
I told the class that it seemed like if I chose to take the matter outside of the union, I would then face retaliation and severe harm to my career, or even the possibility of physical violence on ships. I also told the class that it seemed like I had no guarantee that my career would not be further harmed even if I pursued justice exclusively via the union leadership.
"J" said that he did not believe this was the way the union should work, but based on his many years of experience as a IOMMP union member, if I chose to pursue justice against Stinziano outside of the union, then I would face retaliation and severe harm to my career.
I asked Bob Kimball if he agreed with "J". In front of the LMS class, Kimball nodded his head and said “unfortunately.”
After Completing the LMS Class, I Remained at MITAGS for 18 More Days, Living in a Hotel Room Above the School, and Seeing Captain Bob Kimball and the IOMMP Union Leaders on a Daily Basis
Captain Bob Kimball seemed to live at MITAGS, and over the weekend of December 1-2 he approached me in the dining hall at MITAGS and again urged me to go to the union leadership with my story. I told him that I was struggling with what to do and that I had not yet made a decision as to how I would move forward.
On Monday December 3, 2018 at 08:00 I reported to a MITAGS classroom to begin another 5 day course titled “Advanced Meteorology & Ocean Science (MITPMI-18).” Marine Meteorologist Lee Chesneau was scheduled to be the instructor, but to my surprise, Bob Kimball had replaced Chesneau as the instructor for the week. As Kimball told us at the beginning of the course, this would be his first time teaching the Advanced Meteorology course.
During a coffee break on Monday December 3, Kimball approached me in the hallway at MITAGS. This was now at least the 4th time that Captain Kimball had approached me about going to the union leadership with my story. At this point Kimball’s persistence was making me feel extremely uncomfortable.
I again suggested that I might be more comfortable sending a detailed report to the union leadership via email, but Kimball again told me that the union leadership would not take my report seriously if I sent an email. Kimball also offered to accompany me to the IOMMP headquarters to tell my story. I asked Kimball if he had given my name to the IOMMP leadership, and he told me that he had not given them my name because he believed that was confidential information because the exchange had happened within a classroom at MITAGS. I told Kimball that I agreed that it should be kept confidential, and that I did not want him to give the union leadership my name.
In that conversation with Captain Kimball, I came to understand that Kimball believed that I was a “full-book” member of the IOMMP, like "J" and several other participants in the previous week’s LMS class. At one point in the conversation Kimball referred to me as a “Member,” and I corrected him, telling him that I was not a full-book member, and that I was merely an “Applicant” in the IOMMP who was attempting to gain membership.
I went on to explain to Kimball that I was standing at a pivotal place in my maritime career, on the cusp of obtaining my unlimited tonnage Chief Mate’s license and full book membership in the IOMMP, and that I was very worried about how this situation was going to affect my career, my future with the IOMMP, my ability to earn a living in the maritime industry, and my relationship with every IOMMP-contracted shipping company, including Maersk Line.
The difference between being an “Applicant” in the IOMMP and being a “Member” is enormous. Job opportunities as a licensed deck officer with IOMMP-contracted companies are based on a seniority system. Applicants are the least senior mariners within the IOMMP Offshore Membership Group, and it is difficult for Applicants to get any work at all. Generally, Applicants are only able to obtain employment through the lowest paying jobs, and jobs that are for short periods of time--sometimes less than one month in length. Applicants are only able to obtain the jobs that no IOMMP full-book Member wants to take.
The journey to becoming a full-book Member of the IOMMP is very difficult, and most Applicants who initially sign up with the IOMMP become frustrated and give up before ever becoming a Member.
The IOMMP Offshore Shipping Rules list the requirements for Membership:
1. To become Members in the Offshore Membership Group, Applicants must complete the following prerequisites prior to being considered for membership:
(a) Applicants for membership must have at least two (2) years of continuous good standing in the Offshore Membership Group of MM&P and accumulate at least three hundred sixty (360) days of Offshore Membership Group sea time
(b) Applicants for membership shall complete an Offshore Familiarization Course that shall provide information about the history of MM&P and maritime labor, the structure of MM&P, Collective Bargaining Agreements, and fringe benefit plans.
(c) Applicants for Membership shall submit four (4) Letters of Recommendation from Members they have sailed with, in a Licensed capacity, for at least thirty (30) days aboard an Offshore Membership Group vessel. The Letters must originate from service aboard two (2) or more vessels. Three (3) of the four (4) required Letters must be from supervisors and one (1) may be from a Group Classification A Member they have sailed with for at least thirty (30) days.
(d) Applicants for membership shall successfully complete a Navigational Assessment which shall include scenarios appropriate for Officers engaged in coastwise navigation, Officers acting as a Watch Officer under Pilotage, and any other condition deemed appropriate by the Offshore Advisory Committee.
I had been working very hard to obtain Membership in the IOMMP, and had nearly completed all of the requirements at the time of my conversation with Bob Kimball on December 3. However, I was not Member, and I knew that in order to obtain Membership, I would have to be voted-in by the IOMMP leaders--the same leaders Kimball wanted me to speak with about Stinziano (himself a senior full-book Member and a permanent Maersk Captain). The power differential within the IOMMP between an Applicant who is sailing as 2nd Mate and 3rd Mate, and a senior full book Member who is a permanent Captain is enormous--and I knew that.
I had no reason to trust Kimball, and no reason to trust the union leaders. I was trying to attend classes to earn my Chief Mate’s license (at a cost in excess of $25,000), and instead I was now being hounded by Kimball, who wanted me to tell my story to the union leadership. It seemed bizarre and malicious given that Kimball had already told me on November 30th that it was likely that I was going to face damage to my career and retaliation from the union, no matter what I did. I questioned Captain Kimball’s true motive and whether or not the IOMMP leadership had asked him to pursue me. I also wondered whether or not Kimball had already given my name to the IOMMP leadership.
During my unwelcome conversation with Captain Kimball on December 3rd, I told Kimball that I had been struggling about what to do with this information for a long time, that I was very worried about the safety of Cadets and Junior Officers aboard Stinziano’s ship, and that I did not have any reason to trust the leadership of the IOMMP to do the right thing towards me.
I told Kimball that I was well aware of the gravity of the allegations I made against Stinziano in my initial report, and that I understood the gravity of the coverup and law-breaking that Maersk had subsequently engaged in. I told Kimball that I was trying to figure out what to do, and that I wanted him to back off of me.
The following morning, Tuesday December 4, 2018 at around 08:00, I was hurrying to the start of Kimball’s Meteorology class holding a cup of coffee. I had been awake for less than 30 minutes. As I turned a corner, Kimball popped out at me from behind the wall and almost caused me to drop my coffee.
Kimball stopped me and came very close to me. He was jittery and talking fast. He told me that Steve Werse, the Secretary/Treasurer of the IOMMP and the #2 man in the IOMMP leadership was waiting outside the classroom and that he wanted to talk to me. I was furious. I reminded Kimball that he had told me he was keeping my name confidential, and I accused Kimball of giving Werse my name.
Kimball said that he had not given Werse my name, but that he had told Werse that I was in the class and that he should wait outside the door to the class for me at 8 am. I expressed my strong disapproval of Kimball’s and IOMMP’s methods, and I told Kimball that I had just woken up, that I was still trying to figure out what I wanted to do about the situation, and that I was absolutely not going to talk to Steve Werse at that time. I then turned around and went back to my hotel room. Around 8:30 I returned to the Meteorology classroom, which was in session, and took my seat.
After this incident, I decided that I was not going to talk to anyone else about the Stinziano situation until I left MITAGS and returned home. I realized that it was crucial for me to get some separation from Captain Kimball, the union, and the intense and unrelenting academic environment. I needed space and time to gather my thoughts.
The next two weeks at MITAGS were extremely unpleasant. I had to participate in Kimball’s Meteorology class, I had to see Kimball at almost every meal I ate (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) in the IOMMP/MITAGS dining hall, and I had to see the IOMMP leaders in the dining hall and in the hallways. I began to develop a mild paranoia about the situation.
On Monday December 10th, 2018 at 08:00 I reported to my next class, a very difficult 5 day course titled “Advanced Stability (ADVSTB-CMM).” Captain Bob Kimball was standing in front of the class at the podium ready to teach that course as well.
My final course at MITAGS was a 2 day course that took place on December 17 and 18. The course was titled “Navigation Skills Assessment Program (NSAP). This ship simulator course had a reputation as being a difficult course with a high failure rate, but passage was required in order to obtain Membership in the IOMMP.
Another student at MITAGS who had been in the LMS class had suggested to me that, because of the information I had shared with the class, the union might give me an unrealistically difficult scenario in the simulator in order to cause me to fail and to create a basis upon which to deny me union membership. I was worried about this possibility and considered it plausible. The passage of this two day navigation skills assessment was the last major requirement that I had to complete in order to obtain union Membership.
However, I passed the assessment on December 18, 2018 and happily departed MITAGS for my home in Florida.
I Spent the Holidays with My Family. After the New Year I Begin Studying for my Chief Mate / Master Examinations
I returned home on December 18 after two and a half intense months of intense academic study at MITAGS. For the first week I relaxed while spending Christmas and New Years with my family, and then on January 2, 2019 I began studying for the U.S. Coast Guard Unlimited Tonnage Chief Mate/Master license examinations.
The Chief Mate/Master license examination is a very difficult set of 9 tests that must be completed over a 5 day period at a U.S. Coast Guard Regional Examination Center. Months of intense study are required in order to pass the exams, some of which require scores of 90% or better for a passing grade.
As I settled into the rhythm of long days of studying, I continued to struggle deeply with what to do about the Stinziano matter. I had organized my life around making professional progress in 2018 and 2019, and was standing on the threshold of both being a IOMMP union member, and obtaining an unlimited tonnage Chief Mate’s license. I knew that if I did anything to try to further pursue the Stinziano matter, it could potentially derail not only my short terms plans and goals, but also my entire career.
But I could not stop thinking about how the other participants in Captain Kimball’s Leadership class had reacted to my story about what had happened to me and other crew members aboard Stinziano’s ship. Some of the other students had sincerely pleaded with me to continue pursuing the matter in order to protect other people from Stinziano.
On November 29, 2018, one of the class participants, a licensed marine engineer who attended the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and who now works on drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, said something to me that I could not stop hearing as I tried to focus on studying for my Coast Guard exams. The participant said:
“If you’ve got stuff like this and you don’t say something, you could be altering the course of a lot of people’s lives, depending on what this guy is willing or capable of doing. And if you don’t say something, part of me wonders what might happen in the future to you if you find out about something that happened to somebody because this guy wasn’t stopped. And what level of guilt that will place on you because you didn’t say something.”
But I still struggled to find the courage to take action. I was very afraid of the harm that would come to my career if I stepped forward to accuse the biggest shipping company in the world of engaging in a coverup of a very serious complaint of sexual offenses, and of accusing a senior member of the IOMMP of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting me. I lived in a constant state of guilt and turmoil. Some nights I was unable to sleep, but I pressed forward with my studies and told myself that after I passed my Chief Mate’s exam I would do something.
On February 8, 2019 I Received an Email from Patrice Wooten, Director of Human Resources for the IOMMP.
The event that finally prompted me to act was an email I received on February 8, 2019 from Patrice Wooten, Director of Human Resources for the IOMMP. In the email Patrice wrote:
Good Afternoon,
We are preparing for the Feb 20 -21st General Executive Board Meeting and upon quick review of your file and information in our database all 4 of your letters of recommendation on file are from the same ship. If you have another letter from a different ship per the requirements for C book membership below, you can forward to membership@bridgedeck.org by February 13, 2019...
Patrice L. Wooten
Director of HR & Membership Administration
International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots
Patrice’s email went on the list all of the requirements for Membership in the IOMMP, per Per Article XIV of the IOMMP “Offshore Shipping Rules.” The purpose of her email was to tell me that I had completed all of the requirements for Membership in the IOMMP, with the exception of one missing letter of recommendation, and that if I could provide her with one more letter of recommendation I would be admitted as a Member of the IOMMP at the General Executive Board Meeting on February 20-21.
Her email infuriated me. All of my letters of recommendation had come from the officers of the M/V Green Lake, a vessel that I had sailed on during two different tours. The M/V Green Lake had professional senior deck officers who had respected me and treated me well, and that is why I went back to the vessel after my first tour. Both Captains that I had worked for aboard the M/V Green Lake had helped me in my professional development towards becoming a Chief Mate, and both had encouraged me to come back and work as a Chief Mate when I obtained the license.
I also obtained letters of recommendation from both Chief Mates that I had worked with aboard the Green Lake, but that was not enough to obtain Membership. According to Patrice Wooten and the IOMMP, in order to become a Member of the IOMMP, I would have to obtain a letter of recommendation from Mark Stinziano, the man who had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted me.
The situation seemed absurd and unjust, but the easiest path to obtaining Membership in the IOMMP was clear: I only needed to keep my mouth shut, go out and work on one more ship, put up with any harassment (or worse) that might come my way, obtain one more letter of recommendation from my Captain or Chief Mate, submit the letter, and gain union Membership. Within a matter of months I could be a union member and I could avoid any conflict with the union leadership.
But I couldn’t do that. With her email, the anger and the guilt that had been building up inside of me for years finally crested, and I could no longer hold it back. After 3 days of turmoil, I replied to Patrice Wooten on February 11, 2019. In my reply to her email I told her that I had been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by Chief Mate Mark Stinziano aboard the Maersk Idaho and that I had filed a very detailed report with the Captain of the ship in February 2015. I also told Mrs. Wooten that Stinziano had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted the USMMA Cadets aboard the ship, which I had detailed in my Report.
I also told her that Stinziano had pulled his pants down on the bridge of the Maersk Idaho in front of the Deck Cadet and made the Cadet watch him stick a ball point pen into his own ass, before placing the filthy ball point pen into the container on the bridge that held all of the common bridge pens used by the deck officers and Deck Cadet to make log entries. And I told her that Stinziano would not tell us which pen he had inserted into his rectum.
I told her that due to Stinziano’s behavior and the way that my Report was handled, it was not possible for me to seek a letter of recommendation from Stinziano or from anyone else aboard the Maersk Idaho. I then asked her “Is there anything in the IOMMP Offshore Shipping Rules that creates an exception to the "2 ship/4 Letters" Rule in situations like this?”
Patrice Wooten, the Director of Human Resources for the IOMMP, responded to my email with the following:
Good Morning,
You can submit an appeal to sec-treas@bridgedeck.org to the attention of the General Executive Board/Offshore Advisory Committee or you can mail it to the address below.
Regards,
Patrice L. Wooten
For me, it was a strange and spontaneous way to finally come forward to tell the union about what had happened. I felt relieved that I had at least started the conversation, but I also knew that Patrice Wooten had forwarded my emails to senior union officials, and that it was important for me to tell the union leaders the whole story as soon as possible.
At 13:01 on February 11, the same day I initially emailed Patrice Wooten, I emailed Don Marcus, President of the IOMMP. In an email to Don Marcus I wrote:
Don, I would like to speak with you and would appreciate that opportunity. My phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX if you would like to call me, or, if you provide me with your number I will call you.
Regards,
My Phone Call With Don Marcus on February 11, 2019
Several hours after I emailed Don Marcus and requested to speak with him, Marcus called me on my cell phone. He was joined on the call by Steve Werse, the Secretary-Treasurer of the IOMMP. Don quickly and belligerently confirmed all of my worst fears about what would happen to me if I went to the union with my story about Stinziano.
As I attempted to tell Don Marcus about what had happened on the M/V Maersk Idaho, the President of the IOMMP launched an aggressive attack that completely shocked me. Instead of allowing me to tell my story, he began rudely and sarcastically interrupting me. He had one talking point, which was “If this really happened, why did you wait 5 years to report it?”
He was, all at once, sarcastic, disrespectful, denigrating, and completely devoid of empathy or compassion. He repeatedly accused me of waiting 5 years to report the matter. At the time of our conversation, it had been almost exactly 4 years since I had delivered my report to Captain Willers. The beginning of our call then devolved into an argument over whether the events in question had happened four years earlier or five years earlier.
In the moment, I was so surprised and unprepared for the way I would be treated by my own union President that I did not understand what Marcus was trying to do by exaggerating the amount of time that had passed since I filed my Report. But later I realized that this was a calculated tactic designed to shift the conversation away from facts about what Stinziano had done to me and others, and towards nonsense, confusion, and doubt.
Marcus was determined to put me on the defensive, to place the blame for the situation entirely on me, and to make me defend myself. Over and over and over again, he blamed me for waiting four (or five) years to report Stinziano, a tactic that shifted the blame away from the sexual harasser and assaulter, and towards the victim(s). In response, I repeatedly told Marcus that I had filed a Report about Stinziano with Captain Willers, a Member of the IOMMP, while I was still a crewmember aboard the Maersk Idaho and that it would not have been possible for me to report it any sooner, but this had no impact on Marcus. Moments later Marcus would again accuse me of waiting years to make a report and questioning why I had waited so long.
It was practiced psychological manipulation. In hindsight, it was clear to me that Marcus’ overarching goal of the call was to intimidate and frighten me, to strongly discourage me from pursuing the matter any further, and to convince me that nobody was going to take me seriously or believe me. Don Marcus made it absolutely clear that he was going to defend Stinziano with everything he had, and that I was not a union member deserving of protection from my union leaders, but rather an enemy who was going to be defeated.
After the Phone Call with Don Marcus I Felt Dejected and Afraid, But Later Resolved to Fight Back
After the phone call with Don Marcus, I felt that I had made a tremendous mistake in coming forward. It seemed that my career in the union and in the maritime industry had been irreparably damaged, and that it might have all been for nothing. Worse, Stinziano was being protected by powerful people who were determined to make me go away.
I had no idea what to do next, and the situation felt hopeless. I was only weeks away from completing my preparation for the Chief Mate’s examination, but that now seemed irrelevant.
After a few hours of sleep, I awoke early the next morning with the realization that I had crossed a line, and that there was no turning back. I would have to fight for justice.
As I began reviewing the notes I had made during and after my chaotic call with Don Marcus, I realized that, in between Don’s insults, I had actually been able to learn important information during the call. And I realized that as I moved forward I would need to document every step of the process.
I decided to compose an email to Don Marcus and Steve Werse that summarized our previous days’ call. The subject of the email was “Summary of Our Phone Call Yesterday.” I sent the email on February 12, 2019 at 11:44. In the email I wrote:
Don,
We spoke on the phone yesterday for approximately 20 minutes. You were joined on the call by Steve Werse, the International Secretary-Treasurer of MMP. I took notes during the call, and this email reflects a summary of our conversation.
You told me that you were aware that a 2nd Mate, MMP Applicant aboard the Maersk Idaho filed a report of sexual misconduct against Mark Stinziano in February of 2015.
You told me that you were aware that the report was given to Captain Paul Willers, who is a MMP member.
You said that you did not know the name of the Applicant (me), and did not have any knowledge about the specific allegations made in my report against Stinziano until February 11, 2019, when I shared some details of my experience working for senior ship's officer Mark Stinziano with Patrice Wooten, the "Director of Human Resources & Membership Administration" for MMP, in response to an email I received from Mrs. Wooten in which she requested that I share with her information regarding my work experience aboard the various MMP vessels that I have sailed upon.
You said that you did not know Mark Stinziano, have never spoken to Stinziano about this matter, and that you had never even met Stinziano.
You said that Maersk Line...had done a "thorough investigation" of my allegations, that Maersk Line had "put Captain Willers through the paces," and that the result of the investigation was that all of my many specific allegations against Stinziano were all determined to be lies, and that Stinziano was completely cleared of any wrongdoing and misconduct by Maersk's investigation.
You said that you have never spoken to Captain Paul Willers about the investigation.
You asked me if Maersk Line had ever contacted me or attempted to contact me regarding my report, or in the course of their investigation, and I told you that Maersk has never attempted to contact me and never attempted to contact me in the course of their investigation...
...you told me that you had read the emails that I exchanged with Mrs. Wooten, and that you were aware that I told Mrs. Wooten that, among many other very serious allegations, that Stinziano pulled his pants down on the bridge of the Maersk Idaho in front of the deck cadet and made the cadet watch him stick a ball point pen into his own rectum.
You told me that you were aware that I had alleged that Stinziano then placed the filthy ball point pen into the container on the bridge that held all of common bridge pens used by the deck officers and deck cadet to make log entries, and that Stinziano would not tell us which pen he had inserted into his rectum.
You said that you did not consider this behavior to be sexual harassment, or serious enough to warrant an investigation.
I told you that my report contained many other shocking and and even more serious claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault against myself, the deck cadet, and the engine cadet.
I told you that I want the union to conduct a thorough investigation of all of my allegations against Stinziano.
You told me that you had no interest in conducting an investigation and had no concerns about Stinziano serving as the Captain of a ship.
You repeatedly blamed me for waiting 4 years to report Stinziano's conduct. This seemed to be the talking point that you settled on coming into our conversation, and you repeated it over and over again, dozens of times in our 20 minute conversation...
You also blamed me for failing to contact the "Designated Person Ashore" at Maersk.
You repeatedly said that four years was an excessively long period of time to report sexual harassment and sexual assault.
You said that as far as you were concerned this matter had been thoroughly investigated by Maersk Line, I had been found to be a liar, Stinziano had been completely exonerated, and that the matter was done and settled as far as you were concerned.
I asked Steve Werse if he agreed with you on all of that, and Steve said that he very strongly agreed.
In response to your constant blaming, I repeatedly stated that I had filed a report with Captain Willers while I was still a crew member aboard the Maersk Idaho, and that it would not have been possible for me to report Stinziano's conduct any sooner.
At the end of our call you said that given everything you know about this matter, you are not inclined to do any investigation, but that if I send you more information contained in my initial report to Captain Willers, and more information and evidence of misconduct by Stinziano against other USMMA cadets that I have obtained, that you would review it and might possibly reconsider, although that it was unlikely that your mind would be changed because of the exceedingly long period of time that I had waited to report this.
I told you that I believed Captain Stinziano was a danger to cadets and junior officers serving aboard his ship.
You did not say anything in response.
I told you that my goal is to ensure that no one else is subjected to the kind of abusive treatment that I have been subject to on multiple MMP vessels at the hands of MMP Members.
I told you that my goal is to prove that I am not a liar.
MMP is my livelihood, and it is through the union that I have been making my living for the past 4 years. I have been told my MMP Members that by pursuing the truth in this matter...that I will be denied membership in the union despite the fact that I have fulfilled all of the requirements for membership. I have been told by MMP Members that I will face retaliation from other MMP Members, and that I could be "blackballed" from the industry.
As I told you, it is my strong preference to work through the union to get to the truth and to remain in good standing with my union brothers, but that I am willing to pursue any and all avenues to bring attention to this matter...even if it ruins my career...
...I was extremely disappointed in you yesterday, Don. Your callous disregard for the wellbeing of the cadets and junior officers aboard MMP Contract ships was shocking to me, and it will be shocking to any reasonable person who hears about it.
I am willing to work with you on this, but only if you change your attitude and treat this as the very serious matter that it is and come to an understanding that this is not going to go away and you are not going to bully or threaten me into silence...
Please let me know how you want to move forward, Don.
Regards,
J. Ryan Melogy
Don Marcus Responds to My Email, Attaches Union “Grievance Form,” and Invites Me to File a Grievance Against Maersk
Later in the day on February 12, 2019 Don Marcus replied to my email. In his response he wrote:
Mr. Melogy:
I will make no comment on your absurd and insulting version of our telephone conversation, except to reiterate what I told you yesterday. If you are making a complaint to MM&P about your employment four years ago aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, or any other MM&P-contracted vessel, give us a full written chronological description of the events in question. Include times, dates, people involved, witnesses and whatever contact information you have. Coherent, factual detail is required. Complete the grievance form that is found on our website (also attached) to accompany your information including providing MM&P with the remedy that you are requesting.
Don Marcus
During our telephone conversation, in response to me asking him directly how I could initiate an investigation of what happened to me on the Maersk Idaho, Don Marcus did tell me that if I wanted to initiate an investigation I would have to use the union “Grievance Form” that was located on the union’s website.
I had never filed a grievance, but I was vaguely aware that there was a Grievance Process within the union because I have heard other members talking about grievances. But when I heard other union members talking about “filing a grievance,” it was always in the context of a dispute over pay (usually overtime pay).
What Marcus made clear in his email was that if I wanted to pursue justice against Stinziano, the union’s Grievance Process would be my only path. That meant I would have to educate myself on how to navigate that path.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Between the IOMMP and Maersk
The IOMMP is a labor union. Labor unions developed out of a need to protect the common interest of workers, and to address the “inequality of bargaining power” inherent in the relationship between workers and employers. Through the labor union, workers unite in order to negotiate with their employer as one powerful body, instead of as many isolated and vulnerable individuals. The soul of a labor union is the solidarity of workers, and a famous union slogan neatly summarizes the ethos: “An injury to one is an injury to all.”
The leadership of a labor union negotiates with an employer on behalf of all union members over wages, hours, overtime payments, holidays, vacations, benefits, and other working conditions. This process is called “collective bargaining.”
Through the collective bargaining process, a legally enforceable contract is reached between the management of a shipping company and its employees. This contract is called the “Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).”
Onboard approximately 15 Maersk ships, including the M/V Maersk Idaho, the Licensed Deck Officers (LDOs) are collectively represented by the IOMMP, and the CBA governs their (and my) relationship to Maersk (the employer). If a dispute arises as to whether or not Maersk has violated a provision of the CBA, the CBA sets out a dispute resolution process that must be followed by the LDO. This dispute resolution process is known as the “Grievance Process.”
The Grievance Process begins with obtaining the Grievance Form, which is available on the IOMMP website (although this is information is not contained in the CBA). The top of the form says “Grievance Form.” The first section contains lines for the Grievant to enter his or her Name, Date, Telephone Number, Email, Street, City/State/Zip, Ship, and Rating.
The next section is titled “Grievance.” This is where the Grievant states his Grievance. The instructions simply say “Include dates, details, witnesses, and section of contract violated -- use additional sheets if necessary.” Below a large blank space for writing the grievance, there is a third section that says “Adjustment Desired,” and below that a place for the grievant to sign his or her name.
In order to complete a grievance, I would need a copy of the CBA. I requested a copy of the CBA from the IOMMP and they promptly mailed a copy to my home, as required by federal law.
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault as a Violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
The Maersk-IOMMP CBA that I received from the IOMMP is hundreds of pages long. The document is actually a series of agreements between the IOMMP, Maersk, and the corporate predecessors of Maersk that date back to as early as 1981, and contain references to other agreements from as far back as the 1950’s. There is the “Master Collective Bargaining Agreement (1981-1984),” and a series of “Memoranda of Understanding” and “Side Letter Agreements” that amend and supplement the Master CBA.
My challenge was to understand these documents, and then to find a contractual basis for my Grievance. For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth refer to the collective documents as the “CBA.”
In preparing my Grievance, I had to find some provision of the CBA and related documents that Stinziano violated when he harassed and assaulted me and others onboard the M/V Maersk Idaho.
As I began researching the issue, I found that it is becoming very common for labor unions to bargain for such protections in collective bargaining agreements. Unfortunately, the CBA negotiated by the IOMMP does not contain any explicit contractual guarantee against sexual harassment, sexual assault, harassment, assault, bullying, retaliation, or other common and illegal workplace behaviors.
If the IOMMP had bargained to include such provisions in the CBA, it would have sent a clear message to Maersk and to the union’s membership that the IOMMP was committed to fighting sexual harassment and sexual assault as a fundamental matter of union policy. But the IOMMP has never done that.
According an article titled “Why Having a Union is Such a Powerful Tool for Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment,” published by the AFL-CIO, “collective bargaining agreements negotiated by workers and their unions with employers typically contain anti-discrimination language and language calling for dignity and respect at work.”
Although the IOMMP is an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union, I was unable to find any language in the CBA that required IOMMP members to be treated with dignity and respect (or any similar concepts) in the workplace.
I also learned that “Health & Safety Clauses” been historically common in collective bargaining agreements that cover workers who engage in physically dangerous lines of work, and today many collective bargaining agreements contracts contain broad provisions related to employee health and safety. Unfortunately, despite the fact that working on ships is a very dangerous occupation, I was unable to find any “Health & Safety” clause within the CBA.
Fortunately, the CBA does contain a standard anti-discrimination provision that attempts to mirror existing anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But it is interesting to note that the CBA’s Non-Discrimination clause does not provide protection against several common forms of discrimination, such as discrimination based on “marital status,” “political affiliation,” or “sexual orientation.”
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is an issue that has received much attention in recent years, and is becoming a standard protection that unions fight for in negotiating collective bargaining agreements. In 2011 it was reported that the NFLPA, the labor union representing players of the National Football League, had fought to include language in their collective bargaining agreement designed to prevent discrimination of NFLPA union members based on sexual orientation.
In a Huffington Post article, titled “NFL Gets Better: Sexual Orientation Protections Added to New Contract,” George Atallah, spokesman for the NFLPA, was quoted as saying:
“We certainly believe, speaking for the Players Association, that we have a tremendous social and cultural impact. We definitely understand the effect that we have on society and culture, and we feel we have a responsibility to have very high standards. With something like discrimination of any kind, we just want to make sure we are a symbol for good.”
Anti-Discrimination Provision in the CBA Was Violated by Stinziano
The CBA’s Anti-Discrimination provision reads:
21. Non-Discrimination
The Company [Maersk] and the Organization [IOMMP] shall in no way discriminate against any person covered by the Agreement because of race, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, disability or veteran status, or because of membership or non-membership in the Naval Reserve or the United States Maritime Service. The Company shall not discriminate against any person covered by this Agreement because of membership in the Organization. However, each Officer shall be subject to the Organization's Constitution, Work Rules and Shipping Rules.
Fortunately, sexual harassment is a form of “sex” discrimination. It is clear that a Maersk employee (Stinziano) who sexually harassed and sexually assaulted another Maersk employee (Me) covered by the CBA has violated the Non-Discrimination clause of the CBA.
According to the CBA, Each Officer Shall be Subject to the IOMMP’s Constitution, Work Rules, and Shipping Rules
The CBA’s “Non-Discrimination provision also includes language stating that each Licensed Deck Officer aboard a Maersk ship shall be subject to the IOMMP’s Constitution, Work Rules and Shipping Rules:
21. Non-Discrimination
The Company [Maersk] and the Organization [IOMMP] shall in no way discriminate against any person covered by the Agreement because of race, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, disability or veteran status, or because of membership or non-membership in the Naval Reserve or the United States Maritime Service. The Company shall not discriminate against any person covered by this Agreement because of membership in the Organization. However, each Officer shall be subject to the Organization's Constitution, Work Rules and Shipping Rules.
Through the CBA’s Non-Discrimination clause, these foundational union documents are incorporated into the CBA. Unfortunately, the IOMMP’s Constitution, Work Rules, and Shipping Rules do not contain any provisions that explicitly forbid members from engaging in sexual harassment, bullying, harassment, or violence in the workplace. Sadly, these foundational union documents also do not contain any provisions that explicitly forbid IOMMP members from engaging in discrimination against other union members, or from discriminating against their shipmates.
However, Article III, Section 2(e) of the International Constitution of the IOMMP contains the following provision:
2 e) It shall be the duty of each Member to be true and loyal to the Organization and to treat other members with due respect and consideration.
The “Work Rules” of the IOMMP contain a “Code of Conduct,” which reads:
CODE OF CONDUCT
In order to promote the Organization and maintain the preeminent status of the Organization as an organization of professional Merchant Marine Officers, the membership of the Offshore Membership Group agrees to the following “Code of Conduct”:
1. Treat all brother and sister MM&P Members with due respect and consideration as required in the International Constitution, Article III, Section 2e).
2. Comply with and enforce MM&P contracts, the Offshore Membership Group Shipping Rules, and the Offshore Membership Group Work Rules.
3. Comply with all U.S. and International laws and regulations.
4. Keep professional documents and training current.
5. Present oneself to others as a skilled professional and act accordingly...
In his conduct towards me, Stinziano failed to show me “due respect and consideration” as required by the Constitution and the Work Rules (documents which are incorporated into the CBA through the Non-Discrimination clause).
In his conduct towards me, Stinziano failed to “Comply with all U.S. and International laws and regulations” in his illegal conduct towards me, his union brother and fellow Maersk employee, as required by the Code of Conduct.
During my time aboard the Maersk Idaho, Stinziano also did not present himself to others as a “skilled professional” or act the way that a “skilled professional” should act aboard a ship in the capacity of a senior Licensed Deck Officer, as required by the Code of Conduct.
Additionally, Captain Paul Willers failed to show me the required “due respect and consideration,” as required by the IOMMP Constitution and the Work Rules, in his handling of the investigation into my Report of Sexual Offenses and in his humiliating treatment of me following the submission of my Report to him.
Willers failed to “Comply with all U.S. and International laws and regulations” in his handling of my Report because he did not notify the U.S. Coast Guard as required by law. And I believe that Captain Willers did not act professionally in his handling of my Report as required by the IOMMP Work Rules, which are incorporated in the CBA between Maersk and the IOMMP.
Timeliness of My Grievance Under the CBA
The CBA contains various time limits for filing specific types of Grievances. In Section III(1) “Discharge for Cause,” the CBA states:
...If the Licensed Deck Officer does not agree with the discharge, he must notify the Organization Office nearest the port of discharge within seventy-two (72) hours after such discharge. Such notification must be in writing.
Any dispute arising from such discharge shall be settled in accordance with the grievance procedures
According to the CBA, if a IOMMP member is subject to “discharge for cause” by Maersk, the member must file a grievance within 72 hours after the discharge was finalized in order to challenge his termination via the Grievance Process.
Section IX of the CBA outlines the terms of “a standard sign-on and payoff procedure,” and contains a time limit of “fifteen (15) days after payoff” for filing a Grievance related to “any claim for wages, overtime, or other payment required under the Agreement.”
Section IX(3) “Statement of Account” states:
Prior to payoff, the Company shall give the Officer a statement specifying the number of days (including bonus day, if any) allotments paid, and slop chest and cash advances covered by the payoff; and the number of overtime, premium and penalty hours to be paid immediately. At the time of payoff, if the Company disputes any claim for wages, overtime, or other payment required under the Agreement, it shall furnish a statement showing the payments disallowed and the reason for the disallowance. A copy of this statement shall be given to the Licensed Deck Officer and a copy shall be provided to the Organization’s office which has jurisdiction over the port. Failure to furnish such a written statement or the furnishing of a statement which fails to set forth the facts shall presumptively establish that the claim in valid.
Section IX(7) “Claims Subsequent to Payoff” states:
Except when prevented by a cause beyond his control, all claims presented subsequent to the payoff must be made by the Officer or his authorized representative within fifteen (15) days after the payoff, and are to presented in writing with a copy to the Organization. In the event the Company does not respond to such claim in writing within fifteen (15) days after receipt the claim will be presumed to be on the Licensed Personnel Board agenda, unless withdrawn by the Licensed Deck Officer or the Organization.
What Section IX of the CBA outlines is a process where the LDO is presented with a “Statement of Account” by the ship’s Master prior to his payoff. If the LDO had submitted, for example, an overtime statement and the overtime payment claimed by the LDO were denied and not paid by the Company, the Company is required to furnish a written statement prior to payoff that states the reason the payment was disallowed.
Once the payoff is completed, the LDO has 15 days, per Section IX(7), to file a grievance challenging the Company’s denial of his “claim for wages, overtime, or other payment required under the Agreement.”
Section IX’s time limits for filing a Grievance (15 days after the payoff) only apply to a “claim for wages, overtime, or other payment required under the Agreement.”
As I have shown, the CBA includes varying time limits for filing a Grievance for different types of alleged harm. But, crucially, the CBA does NOT contain a general “catch-all” provision that creates a time limit for the filing of every possible type of Grievance.
Section XXXVI “Grievance Procedure and Arbitration” simply states:
All disputes relating to the interpretation or performance of this Agreement which may arise between the Parties to this Agreement shall be determined by a Licensed Personnel Board consisting of two persons appointed by the Organization and two persons appointed by the Company. The Parties shall submit and such dispute for decision by the Board and they agree to be bound by the decision of a majority thereof. The Board shall agree to such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary. In the event no settlement is reached by the Board, the issue may be referred to the Arbitrator by either party for arbitration. The cost of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the Organization and the Company involved.
Because my Grievance does not deal with a claim related to a “Discharge for Cause” or to a “claim for wages, overtime, or other payment required under the Agreement,” this Grievance is timely.
Maersk is Currently Engaging is a Continuing Violation of My Rights Under the CBA
I have suffered tremendous psychological damage and turmoil as a result of what happened to me aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho and what has happened to me in the aftermath. It has been hell. And the harm that resulted from Stinziano’s and Willers’ actions continue to have a tremendous negative effect on my life and career.
My career in the U.S. maritime industry has been irreparably damaged. My reputation within Maersk has been destroyed, and my career prospects with Maersk destroyed. Maersk is the largest employer of IOMMP officers, and the largest U.S. Flag shipping company.
Unfortunately, the company has adopted as its official position that I am someone who filed a completely false and fabricated Report of sexual misconduct against a (now) senior Maersk Captain.
Maersk continues to employ Stinziano, and recently has begun to move him around to ships other than the Maersk Idaho. According to IOMMP records, on December 13, 2018 Captain Mark Stinziano became Master of the M/V Maersk Ohio and served as Master of the Maersk Ohio until January 24, 2019. Maersk has a well-known practice of assigning newly minted Captains to a variety of ships early in their careers, and Stinziano will likely be placed aboard many other Maersk ships in the coming months and years.
It is not possible for me to ever know what ship Stinziano will be placed upon, and as a result, I cannot take any job with Maersk because of the risk that I will be on a ship where Stinziano is placed in a position of power over me, and where he will have the authority and the power to mercilessly retaliate against me.
Maersk is also the largest employer within the IOMMP, and my career prospects as a union member are greatly and negatively impacted by my inability to take jobs on Maersk ships, or to rise within the Maersk organization.
Additionally, I have been told that I will face retaliation as a result of pursuing this matter, and there is a strong possibility that I have already faced retaliation.
This process has taken a horrible toll on my life, and the harm that has been caused is an ongoing and even accelerating problem for me in terms of both its emotional and psychological toll and the economic and career damage it has caused me.
As long as Maersk continues to employ Stinziano, and as long as Maersk continues to maintain that I filed a false Report against Stinziano, and as long as Maersk continues to deny me employment and career advancement opportunities based on the fact that I reported the illegal and sexually abusive conduct of their employee, Maersk is engaging in a continuing violation of my rights under the CBA.
Because Maersk is engaging in a continuing violation of my rights under the CBA, this Grievance is timely.
On February 15, 2019 I Filed An Appeal Regarding the IOMMP’s Requirement that I Obtain a Letter of Recommendation from Mark Stinziano in Order to Obtain Membership in the IOMMP
As I began work on my Grievance, I decided to file an appeal of the union’s requirement that I obtain a Letter of Recommendation from Mark Stinziano as the final step in my long journey towards obtaining my rightful full-book Membership in the IOMMP--a Membership I have EARNED.
The requirement that I obtain a Letter of Recommendation from Mark Stinziano, and the option to appeal that requirement, were outlined to me in an email I received from Patrice Wooten, Director of Human Resources for the IOMMP, on February 8, 2019.
On February 15, 2019 I delivered my appeal to the General Executive Board/Offshore Advisory Committee of the IOMMP. The Offshore Advisory Committee of the IOMMP consists of Don Marcus (President), Steve Werse (Secretary-Treasurer), Don Josberger (Vice President), Klaus Luhta (Vice President), and Lars Turner (Vice President).
In my Appeal I wrote:
My Union Brothers and Sisters,
This message shall serve as a formal appeal that a small exception be made to the requirements of Article XIV of the Offshore Shipping Rules in order to allow me to obtain Membership in the IOMMP at the union's next General Executive Board Meeting on Feb 20 -21.
I was informed by Patrice Wooten, "Director of HR & Membership Administration," that I could submit an appeal to this email address.
Over the course of the past 4+ years I have successfully completed nearly all of the requirements for Membership as outlined in Article XIV of the Offshore Shipping Rules.
-I have at least two (2) years of continuous good standing in the Offshore Membership Group of MM&P
-I have paid my initiation fee in full
-I have accumulated at least three hundred sixty (360) days of Offshore Membership Group sea time
-I have completed the Offshore Familiarization Course
-I successfully completed the Navigational Skills Assessment Program at MITAGS
-I submitted four Letters of Recommendation from Members I have sailed with, in a Licensed capacity, for at least thirty days aboard an Offshore Membership Group vessel. All of my letters are from members who were my supervisors.
Article XIV requires that the Letters of Recommendation originate from service aboard two or more vessels, but unfortunately, all four of my Letters originate from the same vessel (M/V Green Lake).
I have twice sailed on the M/V Green Lake, and my Letters originate from Members I sailed with on the first tour, and during my second tour aboard the vessel.
I am appealing to you that an exception be made...
On the Idaho Chief Mate Mark Stinziano sexually harassed me and sexually assaulted me. He also sexually harassed and sexually assaulted two USMMA cadets who were working aboard the ship. I filed a very detailed report with Captain Willers, the ship's master (a MMP Member) in February 2015. Captain Willers was very upset at me for filing the harassment report against Stinziano, and it is not possible for me to request a Letter of Recommendation from Stinziano, Willers, or anyone else who served aboard that ship.
Captain William Boyce is one of my union brothers who has submitted a Letter of Recommendation to you on my behalf. In his Letter of Recommendation Captain Boyce wrote:
"Mr. Melogy has now been 2nd Mate on Green Lake for 2 tours. He is an excellent 2nd Mate & good shipmate. I know him to be punctual, intelligent, thinks quickly on his feet, and a good union brother. Would highly recommend him for full book status & hope that he continues to upgrade as union needs new, young people like Ryan."
Captain Boyce was recently involved in a heroic rescue at sea in which he saved seven crew members of the Sincerity Ace, a car carrier which caught fire in extreme weather conditions in the Pacific Ocean.
This morning I spoke to Captain Bill Boyce at his home is Louisiana for nearly an hour. I told Captain Boyce about the harassment and assaults I have endured as I have tried to advance my career in the union. Captain Boyce was outraged, and he believed very strongly that an exception to the 4 Letters/2 Ship rule should be made in my case, and he believes very strongly that I should pursue justice via the union's Grievance process. Captain Boyce assured me that in the end, the union will do the right thing, and I believe him.
Captain Boyce said that he would be happy to serve as a reference to support my good character and professionalism. If you would like to speak to him please call him at [Redacted].
I recently completed all of the required Chief Mate/Master courses at MITAGS and I am currently studying for the USCG Chief Mate/Master Exam. Soon I will hold a license as an unlimited tonnage chief mate, and I look forward to continuing to advance my career as a union member.
I have worked extremely hard to earn my place in this union, and I have endured and persevered through things that nobody should ever have to experience onboard a ship, in the workplace, or anywhere else. Despite this, I still believe in this union and its leadership and I strongly desire union membership.
Thank you for considering this appeal.
Fraternally,
J. Ryan Melogy
I also reached out to Captain Brandon Lynch, the 2nd Captain of the M/V Green Lake, regarding my appeal. Captain Lynch had already submitted a positive Letter of Recommendation to the Offshore Advisory Committee on my behalf, but I asked him if he would be willing to submit an additional recommendation on my behalf for the purposes of my appeal.
Captain Lynch was happy to help. He emailed his recommendation directly to the committee and cc’d me. His message to Steve Werse and the other members of the committee read:
Good day Captain Werse,
I understand that Mr. Melogy may be up for "book " status as a member in
MM&P.
He has sailed for me under the capacity of second mate on board the Green
Lake a few times over that past couple of years. He is of sound judgement,
character, and carries himself in a professional manner. He stands a
professional watch and is very organized... He has also recently invested a substantial part of his vacation at MITAGS taking CM courses and is planning to take the CM test soon.
I recommend him for full "book" membership, as he will make an excellent
member with MM&P meeting and exceeding our high standards.
Regards,
Brandon Lynch
Master
MV GREEN LAKE
On February 27, 2019 the General Executive Board of the IOMMP Denied My Appeal
On March 4, 2019 I received a letter from the IOMMP informing me that my appeal had been denied. The letter, dated February 27, 2019, read:
Greetings Brother Melogy,
During its meeting of February 21, 2019 the General Executive Board (GEB) reviewed your appeal, including the arguments you made in writing, and all the documents your submitted in support of it. Unfortunately the GEB decided to deny your appeal.
The current Offshore Shipping/Work Rules that establish the requirement of four (4) letters of recommendation or support from at least two (2) ships in order to be admitted into Offshore Group membership were sent out for referendum ballot and approved by the Membership on December 19, 2013. The GEB found no compelling reason to make an exception in your case. The events over which you based your appeal happened some four years ago, they were investigated by your Employer, and you did not file a timely grievance at that time. Under the circumstances, the GEB has decided to apply the Shipping/Work Rules as written.
It is my hope that you understand the board’s position in this matter.
Fraternally,
Captain Steven E. Werse
Intl. Secretary Treasurer
ON FEBRUARY 19, 2019 I CONTACTED DON MARCUS ASKING HIM TO ENSURE THAT USMMA CADETS ARE NOT PLACED ABOARD STINZIANO’S SHIP WHILE THE RE-INVESTIGATION OF THESE MATTERS IS ONGOING
After my disappointing and shocking phone call with IOMMP President Don Marcus on February 11, 2019, I realized that Don Marcus and the IOMMP had no interest in investigating these matters, in punishing Stinziano, or in protecting anyone else from his behavior, including USMMA Cadets aboard Captain Stinziano’s Maersk container ship.
I also realized that even if I pursued justice via the Grievance Process, in the unlikely event that I was successful, the process was likely to take a very long time. During that time Captain Stinziano would still be onboard ships with USMMA Cadets. Therefore, I decided to ask Don Marcus for help in at least ensuring that USMMA Cadets (or Cadets from other maritime academies) were not placed aboard Stinziano’s ship while the re-investigation of these matters was pending.
On February 19, 2019 I asked Don Marcus in an email “Can you tell me if Stinziano is still working aboard a ship with cadets at this time?”
In his response, Don Marcus ignored my question and did not answer it.
Because Don Marcus had no interest in protecting the Cadets aboard Stinziano’s ship while these matters were re-investigated, I decided to ask Don Marcus if I could contact Maersk’s top lawyer directly. I wrote an email to Don Marcus on February 19, 2019 I wrote:
Brother Marcus,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing you to request that you send me Patrick McCaffery's email address. It is extremely important that I contact Mr. McCaffery regarding Mark Stinziano. As I told you, Stinziano sexually assaulted me. He is a sexual predator and is an immediate danger to USMMA cadets aboard his ship, and a danger to the licensed officers and crew who serve aboard his ship. It is critical that we not allow Stinziano to sail onboard a ship with cadets until this investigation is completed.
Patrick McCaffery is currently the General Counsel of Maersk Line, Limited. He was also the General Counsel of Maersk Line, Limited in 2015 when I submitted a very detailed report regarding Stinziano's criminal sexual conduct aboard the Maersk Idaho. I am certain that Mr. McCaffery read that report and that it remains in the vault at Maersk headquarters in Norfolk.
In the report I made to Captain Willers aboard the Maersk Idaho I wrote, “I believe that the company [Maersk Line] needs to interview past cadets who have worked aboard this ship under this Chief Mate [Stinziano] to find out if he has raped or sexually assaulted a cadet in the past. I think he is a dangerous person, and it truly scares me to think about this man being in charge of cadets, or being the master of a vessel with no one at all to check his behavior.”
Recently I learned that instead of firing Stinziano in 2015, they have actually promoted him to Master.
I believe this was a very irresponsible decision, and I want to speak to Mr. McCaffery about the matter.
If you cannot provide me with the email address, I will write to Mr. McCaffery at:
Patrick McCaffery
General Counsel
Maersk Line, Limited
2510 Walmer Ave.
Suite C
Norfolk, VA 23513-2601
Please let me know if you have a better address at which he can be reached.
Fraternally,
J. Ryan Melogy
On February 19, 2019 Don Marcus responded to my email requesting contact information for Maersk’s top lawyer by stating that if I contacted Maersk directly about Stinziano, I would be “doing so outside of the grievance and arbitration procedures of our collective bargaining agreement.”
It was a very difficult position that I found myself in. Don Marcus refused to take any action to protect USMMA Cadets from Stinziano while the re-investigation of these matters was pending, and Don also was preventing me from speaking to Maersk about the matter.
Had I contacted Maersk, I would have violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and made myself vulnerable to union disciplinary action by Don Marcus. Don might have even used the violation of the CBA as a pretext for expelling me from the union.
Because of Don Marcus’ behavior and his callous disregard for the safety of Cadets and junior officers aboard Stinziano’s ship, at that point I felt that my only option was to contact the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy regarding Stinziano. I was confident that the USMMA would be eager to hear my story, eager to investigate, and eager to protect USMMA Cadets from a possible sexual predator at sea.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
My Experience Reporting Captain Mark Stinziano’s Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault of USMMA Cadets to the Administration of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
On February 19, 2019, after Don Marcus refused to do anything to protect Cadets aboard Stinziano’s ship, I went to the website of the USMMA (usmma.edu) and searched for a way to report what I had seen and experienced aboard M/V Maersk Idaho. I found the page of the "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program" and read the information provided.
The page contained contact information for "Michelle Underwood” and listed her title as “Academy Sexual Assault Response Coordinator.” Her phone number was listed as 516-726-6153. I called her at 13:47 on Tuesday, February 19, 2019. She did not answer, but the call went to a voice mailbox. I left a voicemail stating my name, my phone number, and told her that I wanted to speak with her about an urgent matter concerning the sexual harassment and sexual assault of USMMA cadets aboard a ship.
Immediately after telephoning Michelle Underwood, I sent her an email. Michelle’s email address (underwoodm@usmma.edu) was also listed on the USMMA’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program webpage. I emailed Michelle on February 19 at 1:50pm. I wrote in the email that I wanted to speak with her about the sexual harassment and sexual assault of USMMA cadets aboard a ship.
Several hours passed (on a weekday, during normal work hours), and I did not receive a response from Michelle to either my voice mail or my email. At 16:12 I decided to try to the “Alternative” phone number listed on the "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program" web page. This was an area-code 516 number (Nassau County, NY).
In an email I would later write to Jack Buono (Superintendent of the USMMA) and other USMMA officials on Saturday, February 23, 2019 (with the Subject Line: “My Experience Reporting Sexual Assault of Cadets to USMMA”) I described what happened when I called the USMMA’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program “Alternative” phone number. In the email I wrote:
After 4 or 5 rings someone who had obviously been sleeping answered the phone and said, in a very groggy and slurred voice, "Helllllo?"
I replied, "Hello."
A long pause followed.
The person then said, "Who is this?"
"Who is this?" I replied.
"This is, um, Nassau County."
"Nassau County, what," I asked.
"Huh?"
"Is this Merchant Marine Academy," I asked.
"No," the person replied.
At this point I ended the call.
According to my phone records, the call lasted approximately 1 minute.
When I wrote the email to Jack Buono and other USMMA officials on Saturday, February 23, 2019 (four days after initially contacting Michelle Underwood), I had still not received a response from Michelle to either my email or my voice message.
In a phone conversation with Jack Buono on Monday February 25, 2019, Buono told me that, although her name and contact information were posted on the USMMA website on February 19, 2019, Michelle Underwood had not actually been an employee of the USMMA on that day, and had not been an employee for a significant period of time (weeks or possibly months).
In that phone call, Jack Buono also told me that the USMMA was attempting to obtain access to Michelle Underwood’s email inbox and voicemail inbox in order to locate my email and my voicemail, and also to ascertain if any other people had attempted to contact Michelle Underwood during the period of time that she was listed on the website, but no longer an employee. Buono did know how long this situation persisted.
During our call, Jack Buono described the misinformation provided on the USMMA website, and the lost emails and voicemails, as a “mistake,” and he thanked me for bringing the matter to his attention. On Tuesday February 26, 2019 Dr. Marvin Williams, who Jack Buono introduced to me as “our EEO Officer and Interim Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Coordinator,” called to tell me that he had gained access to former USMMA employee Michelle Underwood’s voicemail inbox and that he had located the voicemail that I left for Michelle Underwood on February 19, 2019. I do not know if they were ever able to locate the urgent email I sent to Underwood.
After Not Receiving a Response from Michelle Underwood, I Contacted Captain Eugene Albert, USMS, Department Head of the USMMA’s Department of Shipboard Training
On the evening of February 19, 2019 at 19:17, after not receiving any response from Michelle Underwood (because she no longer worked at the Academy), I decided to contact the USMMA official who is directly responsible for administering the USMMA Sea Year program. That person is Captain Eugene Albert, Department Head of the USMMA’s “Department of Shipboard Training.”
In an email I sent to Jack Buono, Captain Eugene Albert, and other USMMA officials on Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 9:52 AM, I described my experience with Captain Albert. In the email I wrote:
At 19:17 I decided to email Captain Eugene Albert, USMS. The subject of the email was: "Urgent Report of Sexual Assault Against USMMA Cadets."
In the email, I wrote:
Captain Albert,
I would like to speak with you about the sexual abuse of USMMA Cadets by an officer aboard a Maersk Ship. In reporting this matter, I seek all available whistleblower protections. The threat is ongoing.
My number is [REDACTED]
At 20:53 on February 19th, I received a call from Captain Albert. The call lasted 24 minutes.
As I attempted to tell Captain Albert my story, he repeatedly attempted to interrupt me. Much of the conversation consisted of the two of us talking at the same time because Albert did not want to hear what I had to say. He repeatedly insisted that I call the shipping company in question and talk to them about what I had seen. In response to specific shocking allegations of abuse, he attempted to convince me that what I was telling him was not as serious or severe as I imagined it to be.
It appeared to be a very calculated performance designed to make me go away. I am sure that Captain Albert is very practiced in handling calls like mine and that he has honed his approach over the many years he has been sitting in the same job, doing the same things the same way, ultimately doing whatever is necessary to make his own life and job easier and less stressful...even at the cost of sexual abuse going unreported, and putting USMMA Cadets in danger of future attacks.
It was sickening. I eventually hung up the phone on Albert because it became clear to me that he was unwilling to take any action.
My phone call with Captain Eugene Albert was, to that point, the most upsetting, disappointing, and enraging interaction that I have had with anyone during my journey to bring the proper attention to this matter. It seemed absolutely unconscionable that the man who is responsible for assigning USMMA cadets to specific U.S. Flag merchant ships would not be interested in learning that the Captain of a ship, where he is sending as many as 5 or 10 Cadets per year, every year, is a sexual predator with a history of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting USMMA Cadets.
Why would Captain Eugene Albert, Administrator of the United States Merchant Marine Academy’s Sea Year program, NOT be interested in learning this information?
On February 20th, the following day, I received an email from Captain Albert. I believe this email was an attempt at “CYA,” an attempt to protect himself from possible future criticism and inquiry by creating a written record that he had taken some action in response to my phone call and email. In an email I received from Captain Albert on February 20th at 16:26, the day after our telephone conversation, Captain Albert wrote:
Ryan
Thank you for talking last night. I believe that it is very important that you tell your story to Maersk. Please call or write to Dennis Houghton, dhoughton@mllnet.com, (Office) 757-852-3240, Cell 757-852-3267. I have known Dennis for many years, he is the General Manager and can relate.
Best Regards,
Gene Albert
Incredibly, when I attempted to report to the USMMA what I had seen Stinziano do to USMMA Cadets, I was directed back to Maersk by the USMMA’s Head of Shipboard Training, who claimed there was nothing he could do. Of course, I had already been told by Don Marcus, President of IOMMP, that I could not contact Maersk without violating the terms of the CBA and possibly subjecting myself to discipline by the union or possibly even expulsion from the union.
Another thing I wondered when I read Captain Albert’s email was, “what exactly would Dennis Houghton at Maersk would be able to relate to?” To being sexually assaulted onboard a Maersk vessel?
To be clear, in my telephone call with Captain Eugene Albert I told him that I had submitted a Report to the Captain of the Maersk Idaho, and that I believed the Captain and Maersk had done a “coverup.” Despite this information, he repeatedly told me that there was absolutely nothing he could do about the situation, and that my only recourse was to contact Maersk directly. In the email I wrote to Jack Buono, Captain Eugene Albert, and other USMMA officials on Saturday, February 23, 2019, I wrote:
To clarify, I reported to Captain Albert the sexual abuse of USMMA cadets at sea aboard a ship and an "ONGOING THREAT" to cadets. In his practiced style, he attempted to make me go away. The next day, in an effort to make me think that he took my report seriously, he directed me outside of the USMMA/MARAD reporting system and told me to tell the shipping company about the problem.
This man is running the Department of Shipboard Training.
How many times has he done this? How many times has he done this to USMMA Cadets?
Additionally, in our conversation, I told Captain Albert that I had already made a very detailed report to the shipping company, that the shipping company had taken no action against the officer in question, and had in fact recently promoted him to Master.
I want to know if Captain Albert has spoken to anyone at the shipping company about information I have shared with him. I believe that the shipping company has already engaged in a coverup of this matter, and I want to know if Captain Albert tipped them off that a follow up investigation may be coming.
I am calling for an official investigation into the actions of Captain Albert in this matter. I do not believe that a person like Albert should be running the Department of Shipboard Training. Perhaps he would be more suitable for something like Facilities Management where it is only machinery at stake, and not young people's lives.
ACTA NON VERBA,
J. Ryan Melogy
How many times has someone called Captain Eugene Albert with information about the sexual harassment or sexual assault of USMMA cadets at sea, only to have Captain Albert attempt to do the same thing he attempted to do to me, i.e. make me shut up and go away?
How many times have USMMA Cadets themselves reported something that happened to them aboard a ship at sea, only to have Captain Albert or one of his Academy Training Representatives (ATRs) convince the Cadet that what had happened was not actually as serious as they imagined, that the cost and stress and toll of going through the official reporting process was not worth the outcome?
In his dealings with me it was clear that Captain Albert was attempting to protect his relationship with Maersk, a company that he depends on to carry his Cadets aboard their ships. He is a man with deep industry ties, and a man who does not want to create any problems for Maersk or any other U.S. Flag shipping companies that he relies on to do his job.
Captain Albert deserves to be thoroughly investigated, and his relationship with Dennis Houghton and others at Maersk deserves to be thoroughly investigated. Captain Albert has been the head of the Department of Shipboard Training at the USMMA since 2004, and was in the same position in 2015 when I made my Report to Captain Paul Willers.
It is crucial to the safety of USMMA Cadets at sea that we learn if Captain Albert was ever told about the Report that I filed, either by Maersk or by the Cadets involved, and if so, what actions he took subsequent to learning of my Report.
It is crucial to the safety of USMMA Cadets at sea that we learn if Captain Albert continued to place USMMA Cadets aboard Maersk ships with Mark Stinziano after learning about my Report or any of the allegations contained in my Report.
Jack Buono (Superintendent of the USMMA) Contacted Me and Requested a Telephone Conversation. I Spoke to Jack Buono on Monday, February 25, 2019
Initially, I was unable to locate the email address or phone number of USMMA Superintendent Jack Buono because this information is not listed on the Academy’s website. I also requested this information from Captain Eugene Albert, but Captain Albert refused to give me the contact information of Jack Buono.
Eventually, Buono contacted me and requested a telephone call. On the afternoon of Monday, February 25, 2019 I spoke with Jack Buono for nearly 90 minutes. Jack was joined on the call by Dr. Marvin Williams. On February 27, 2019 I sent an email to Jack Buono and Dr. Marvin Williams in which I summarized our conversation. In that email I wrote:
Jack,
Thank you very much for speaking with me on Monday afternoon.
I know that you are a busy man with a wide range of responsibilities. The fact that you spent nearly an hour and a half speaking with me about this matter shows that you are taking this matter very seriously.
During our call I read you most of the report of sexual offenses that I submitted to Captain Paul Willers on the Maersk Idaho on February 3, 2015. The report concerned the illegal behavior of Chief Mate Mark Stinzano (now Maersk Captain Mark Stinziano) that was directed towards myself, the usmma deck cadet, and the usmma engine cadet. The report contained at least 10 separate and distinct allegations of illegal conduct directed towards the USMMA cadets aboard the ship.
You agreed that some of the allegations I made in that report rose to the level of sexual assault.
I also told you about the "ball point pen incident" that took place on the bridge of the ship, which you agreed would constitute "sexual harassment" if true. I told you that the "ball point pen incident" was not included in my report to Captain Willers, but I told you that I had several pieces of corroborating evidence to support that allegation, including electronic conversations in which Stinziano admits that he committed the act.
I told you that I am in possession of a USMMA Cadet’s “Shipboard Performance Evaluation Form,” signed and dated by Mark Stinziano, the Chief Mate of the cadet’s vessel and the cadet’s direct supervisor. I told you that the Performance Evaluation Form is signed and dated in red ink by Mark Stinziano.
I told you that in “Section 29, Comments on Performance,” Stinziano wrote that Kings Point was a waste taxpayer money, that the ship's crew frequently raped the cadet, that the cadet was a possible homosexual, and that the cadet was often heard crying himself to sleep at night.
I also told you that in addition to the Evaluation being in Stinziano's own handwriting and signed by him, I have other strongly corroborating evidence that Stinziano wrote this Evaluation, including electronic conversations in which Stinziano admits that he wrote it.
As I told you, I only saw Stinziano with the cadets during a small fraction of the total time they spent together, and it is likely that I was unaware of a great many additional incidents.
To your great credit, you took all of this extremely seriously, you expressed outrage and disgust, and you expressed empathy.
As I told you, my primary goal in bringing this information to the USMMA (at great personal cost to myself and my career), is to ensure that a USMMA cadet NEVER has to work aboard a ship with (now) Captain Mark Stinziano.
As I wrote in my report to Captain Willers: "I believe that the company [Maersk Line] needs to interview past cadets who have worked aboard this ship under this Chief Mate [Stinziano] to find out if he has raped or sexually assaulted a cadet in the past. I think he is a dangerous person, and it truly scares me to think about this man being in charge of cadets, or being the master of a vessel with no one at all to check his behavior.”
During our call you assured me that you would never put USMMA cadets "in harm's way," but for what you said were legal reasons, you could not tell me the steps you were taking to protect cadets from Stinziano.
I believe that it will be very difficult for the USMMA to keep track of Stinziano. Maersk may move him around to different ships without alerting you, and even if Maersk fires Stinziano, he could end up on a ship operated by a different IOMMP-contract shipping company.
Because MARAD's "Stringent New Requirements for Companies providing Sea Year training opportunities for Midshipmen" allow the ship's senior officers to self-certify that they do not have a history of sexual harassing or sexually assaulting cadets and other crew members, Stinziano could easily end up on a ship in a position of power without the USMMA ever knowing about it.
I believe the self-certification loophole is perhaps the biggest weakness of MARAD's new Sea Year Requirements.
Jack, I believe that you are taking this matter extremely seriously and that you do not want to put USMMA cadets in harm's way. I hope that you will think about what I told you on the phone and what I have written here as you go about protecting our cadets.
Thank you again for you time and for you attention to this matter.
ACTA NON VERBA,
J. Ryan Melogy
In a 2nd email I sent to Jack Buono on February 27, 2019, I summarized additional information I had shared with Jack during our phone call, but that I had failed to add into the first email. In the follow up email I wrote:
Jack,
An additional issue I raised in my report to Captain Willers, which we spoke about on the phone, were the outrageous and illegal work hours that Stinziano required of the Deck Cadet.
In my report to Maersk I attached the Deck Cadet's "STCW Records of Hours of Rest” and stated that the record was full of inaccurate and fraudulent entries which overall dramatically understated the hours that the Deck Cadet had been required to work, and dramatically overstated the hours of rest that he had been allowed.
I wrote that the Deck Cadet had been made to work in excess of 16 hours in a 24 hour period on numerous occasions, and on several occasions had worked more than 20 hours in 24 hour periods.
I wrote that I had seen him dizzy with exhaustion on several occasions when he was required by the Chief Mate to work many more hours than even I, as the 2nd Mate, was working.
Stinziano did not allow the Deck Cadet to enter his own hours of work into the STCW log. Stinziano entered the Cadet's hours.
In my report I wrote:
I believe that [the Deck Cadet] was frequently required to work more hours than any other crew member on the ship, with the possible exception of the Chief Mate himself. He has not been given enough time to complete his sea projects, he has not been given set working hours, his time has not been respected, and he has been treated as the personal property of the Chief Mate, on call to do anything the Chief Mate wants him to do at any time. On top of this abusive work load, [Deck Cadet] has been sexually harassed, intimidated, and in cases suffered from conduct that could be considered sexual abuse at the hands of the Chief Mate. I found the Chief Mate’s treatment of [Deck Cadet] and at times the Engine Cadet...to be nauseating — sickening.”
I did not receive any response from Jack Buono regarding the emails that I sent to him summarizing our telephone conversation. However, when Dr. Marvin Williams called me to tell me that he gained access to Michelle Underwood’s voicemail inbox and had located the voicemail that I had left for her, Dr. Marvin Williams thanked me for sharing my story with him and the Superintendent, and told me that my story was “very powerful.”
On Friday March 1, 2019 I was Contacted by an Attorney for the USMMA
On Friday, March 1, 2019 (4 days after my conversation with Jack Buono) I was contacted via email by Samantha Goodwin, an attorney for the USMMA.
Dear Mr. Melogy,
I am the Assistant Counsel to the Academy/Special Victim Advisor (SVA) at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. As the SVA, I serve as a resource for those who have questions about the processes involved in reporting and handling cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment. I have been confidentially informed that you have raised concerns about the safety of the Academy’s cadets sailing on Maersk ships. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you to get further information. Please let me know if you have time next week to speak.
Sincerely,
Samantha Goodwin
Assistant Counsel to the Academy/Special Victim Advisor
United States Merchant Marine Academy
I thanked Ms. Goodwin for reaching out to me, and told her that I was happy and eager to speak to her about the matter. On Tuesday March 5, 2019 I spoke with Samantha Goodwin. It was a strange conversation. Goodwin told me that she had not been briefed on any of the details that I had already shared with Jack Buono, Captain Eugene Albert, Dr. Marvin Williams, Ilene Kreitzer (Counsel to the USMMA), and other USMMA officials. She had simply been given my name and email address and been instructed to reach out to me about...something.
I shared my story with her, but also told her that she should speak with Jack Buono and Marvin Williams about the matter, because I had very recently given them a very detailed account of the matter, and had followed up with Buono and Williams via email with a summary of our conversation.
I told Goodwin that I was absolutely willing to participate in any investigation that was undertaken by the USMMA, that I was willing to provide the Report that I had given to Maersk, and willing to provide other evidence and information that I had regarding Stinziano’s behavior towards USMMA Cadets.
At the end of the call Goodwin told me that she would follow up with me within the next few weeks.
Later, I forwarded Goodwin the same two emails that I sent to Jack Buono and Dr. Marvin Williams in which I summarized what had been discussed on the telephone call between myself, Jack Buono, and Dr. Marvin Williams on February 27, 2019. I cc’d Jack Buono and Dr. Marvin Williams on those emails to Samantha Goodwin.
On March 18, 2019 I received an email from Samantha Goodwin with the subject line “Update.” In the email Ms. Goodwin wrote:
Dear Mr. Melogy,
Again, thank you for reaching out to us with your concerns. The Academy is investigating the information you provided regarding concerns for the safety of Midshipmen at sea. Because this is an internal investigation, we likely will not be able to share with you the findings of the investigation and any next steps the Academy may make based on those findings. However, we wanted to let you know that we are taking action in response to the information you provided us and will take additional steps, as necessary, to ensure the safety of Midshipmen at sea.
Please let me know if you have any questions or any additional information you would like to share with us as we look into these matters further.
Sincerely,
Samantha Goodwin
Assistant Counsel to the Academy/Special Victim Advisor
United States Merchant Marine Academy
I responded to Ms. Goodwin (cc’ing Jack Buono and Marvin Williams) and told her that I was still willing to participate in any investigation of Stinziano, and that i was willing to share information and evidence that I possessed regarding Stinziano. I did not receive a response from Ms. Goodwin or from anyone at the USMMA, and I have not been asked for a copy of my Report or asked to participate in, or cooperate with, their investigation.
Unfortunately, this “internal investigation” that is being conducted by the USMMA appears to simply be more “CYA,” more paperwork designed to make it appear that the USMMA took my allegations and warnings seriously.
My warnings to the USMMA are what initiated the “internal investigation.” It is difficult to imagine how a proper investigation of Stinziano, initiated by me, could be conducted without involvement from me and without obtaining my testimony or sworn statement. It is difficult to imagine how a proper investigation of Stinziano could be conducted without a copy of my Report, or without the disgusting Shipboard Performance Evaluation that Stinziano completed for a USMMA Cadet.
After all that I have gone through to bring attention to this matter, what Stinziano did to me and others aboard the Maersk Idaho has still not been properly investigated, and I still do not have any assurance that USMMA Cadets and other crew members aboard his ship will be protected.
Adjustments Desired
1) I want crew members, especially Cadets and junior officers, to be protected from the kinds of disgusting and illegal behavior that I and others were subjected to aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho.
2) I want a proper and truth-seeking re-investigation of the claims and allegations I made in my Report and in this Grievance to be conducted, and I want Stinziano to be properly punished for his behavior.
3) I want Maersk and the IOMMP to repair the damage that has been done to my life and my career as a result of the harassment and assaults that I endured aboard the M/V Maersk Idaho, and as a result of my efforts to bring proper attention to these matters. I want the IOMMP to acknowledge that I have earned my membership in the union, and that I should not have to ask Mark Stinziano for a Letter of Recommendation in order to become a Member of the IOMMP.
I also want to be guaranteed by the IOMMP and Maersk that I will not face future retaliation from IOMMP members or Maersk employees, and that I will be able to safely and securely pursue a career as a licensed deck officer in the U.S. Merchant Marine as a Member of the IOMMP and as an employee of Maersk (if I so choose). In short, I want to be made whole.