Local Sailing Club - Trial requested by the RIBnet Court

[Jono Garton]

Can I please put the following facts in front of the the RIBnet Jury and ask for advice and an outcome.

1. I receive a request from a friend who works at the local Sailing Club asking for RIBs to hire for a week @ £150 and drivers + crew for the week @ £100 each.

2. I recommended a friend with his RIB and children to crew

3. My friend and 2 of his children work for the week safety boating

4. Payday comes at end of week, sailing club say "sorry we don't pay under 16's"

5. Jono feels very awkward

6. Club still refuses to pay up

[Knot Yet]

Not sure that I yet feel qualified to be part of the Ribnet Jury but for my two pennies ....

They might not be able to pay under 16's but no reason why they could'nt have "gifted" an equal sum as a thank you surely.

It seems very mean to take advantage of the children and only mention afterwards the policy of not paying - surely if they are "qualified" for the job they are doing the age should'nt matter???

[Poly]

Jono,

Presumably the club are quite satisfied that they won't have a problem sourcing ribs/crews next year? Having obviously blown any hope of (1) this years crew helping (2) you helping them find someone.

[Steve_B]

Hi Jono

Sorry you have found yourself in this situation.
Having children as crew (under 16) for hire & reward is a sticky one. I would not use or hire myself, as probably not insured to do so.
However, as they seemed happy to use them during the hire period AND did not raise any objection on the day, I think they are morally wrong, if not legally.
As Polwart said, if they cannot find away to pay, without showing children on the invoice, then they are being bloody minded. I would not want any future association

Steve

[m chappelow]

if the club was that fussy why dident the club say in the first instance that the children wouldent get paid as they are under 16 if thats their policy ,,,instead of leaving it until the end of week and all the work was done ,,,,

[markg]

sounds like they are being a bit mean spirited to me, we pay kids as beaters if they are with thier parents and old enough to do a paper round ie. 12-13, they get the same as adults about £25, younger than that i usually just give them a fiver out of my own pocket as a bit of encouragement , the labourshite have been sending the tax bods out a lot more recently though and employing casual labour for a couple of hours is now a right pain in the proverbials
we also stopped offering work experience places for local schools because the hassle and insurance became too much

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by Jono Garton

Can I please put the following facts in front of the the RIBnet Jury and ask for advice and an outcome.

1. I receive a request from a friend who works at the local Sailing Club asking for RIBs to hire for a week @ £150 and drivers + crew for the week @ £100 each.

2. I recommended a friend with his RIB and children to crew

3. My friend and 2 of his children work for the week safety boating

4. Payday comes at end of week, sailing club say "sorry we don't pay under 16's"

5. Jono feels very awkward

6. Club still refuses to pay up

How much out of pocket are you, on your loss of commission?

[chewy]

Was it a "proper" safety boat and insured for the job, they may think they can get away with not paying if it wasn't.

Looking at it your mate provided what was asked and is due his money, its upto him whether he pays the kids.
From the clubs point of view I wouldn't be happy if the safety boat consisted of a Dad and his kids.

[J S]

Originally Posted by Downhilldai

How much out of pocket are you, on your loss of commission?

Jono simply put the club in contact with his friend no commission involved.

Originally Posted by Chewy

Was it a "proper" safety boat and insured for the job, they may think they an get away with not paying if it wasn't.

Looking at it your mate provided what was asked and is due his money, its upto him whether he pays the kids.
From the clubs point of view I wouldn't be happy if the safety boat consisted of a Dad and his kids.

Just to clarify a couple of points as I was involved in safety cover for that week. It wasn't a commercial job that involved coded boats just a large sailing event with Rya Safety Boat qualified crew. There was a total of 14 boats all with qualified crew the boats the kids were on was in addition this. The kids helped out and provided a useful service.

James

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by J S

Jono simply put the club in contact with his friend no commission involved.

[chewy]

Originally Posted by J S

. It wasn't a commercial job that involved coded boats just a large sailing event with Rya Safety Boat qualified crew.

Surely if money changed hands it was a commercial job which did need coded boats?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by J S

...a large sailing event with Rya Safety Boat qualified crew. There was a total of 14 boats all with qualified crew the boats the kids were on was in addition this. The kids helped out and provided a useful service.

OK, as they say there are 3 sides to every story!

If the safety boats required to have safety boat qualified crew that would rule out <16s. Perhaps this was the criteria? Perhaps the "certification requirement" was not strictly enforced for >16s?

It sounds like they were doing a different role from the "all adult" boats. Is it reasonable that they were paid the same? Perhaps the club actually ended up with more boats than it expected / had budgetted for?

Chinese whispers:

Boat owner <-> Jono <-> Friend <-> Club (and that assumes the club structure is simple!).

There could of course be a thread on a differnet forum from the Club Commodore saying:

1. One of our members suggested that a friend-of-a-friend would be happy to bring his RIB to help out at the regatta.

2. We don't know the owner but he has come highly recommended by a local commercial PBI

3. We normally reimburse people for providing boats at £150, and then £100 for each crew member.

4. Word must have got out about our generous rates - because this year we ended up with 15 boats, and 30 crew!

5. One of them was this friend-of-a-friend recommended by the local PBI, but rather unprofessionally he turned up with his kids in tow - which meant we couldn't really use him for safety boat work.

6. At the end of the week he starts demanding payment for him AND his kids!!! Even though we didn't really need him, couldn't really use him properly because his kids were in the way we gave him £250 for his trouble.

7. I'm really embarrassed because he has gone back to the local PBI complained we didn't do what we promised. I don't want to make a big deal out of it - but we only let this guy come on his recommendation and then he turned up with his kids.

obviously like everyone else here I have no idea what the other side of the story is...

[Rogue Wave]

Yes why don't we invite the Commodore of the sailing club to answer this thread? J.S ?Jomo Can you tell us who he/she is?

Do you know an expert witness who could give us an opinion?

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

Yes why don't we invite the Commodore of the sailing club to answer this thread? J.S ?Jomo Can you tell us who he/she is?

Do you know an expert witness who could give us an opinion?

Not a bad idea, at least we'd get to here the other side of the story.

Jono, what age was the "crew" on the boat, my brother has a small SIB, can you put any work his way?

[Jono Garton]

Dear Jono, thanks for your email. As far as the payment of wages to the children, I covered this with him at the time when we paid him for rib hire and his wages. He fully understood the situation then and said to me that the kids had enjoyed their time and that was enough. So obviously you can imagine our surprise two or three months later to hear this still rumbling on. I am really sorry that you are caught up in it, i didn’t know you had introduced the chap to us, and I am sorry therefore that you feel embarrassed in anyway. As I said though I feel that the matter was dealt with to MR X's satisfaction way back in July. In the future and to avoid any confusion please note that no one under the age of 16 is allowed to be on the ribs either as paid or unpaid helpers as this contravenes RYA safety policy and also SCYC is not responsible for the launching or recovery of any hired ribs.

Mrs XYZ (Club Secretary)

[Jono Garton]

MRS XYZ

I immediately got involved as I don't want this to snow ball out of control. MR X spoke to me on the evening of the day they got paid, I immediately phoned MR S (My mate at the club) and told him this was not acceptable as the email he sent out requesting help for the week never mentioned about age for getting paid. I told him that the kids not getting paid for the week wasn't an option and he agreed. The fact of the matter is if they are good enough to do the job, they are good enough to get paid.

I've looked in to the Age Discrimination Act 2006 and the RYA policies on this and just need to clarify Is the daily pay a taxable wage that you issue a pay slip for or pay to cover expenses?

Jono

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by chewy

Surely if money changed hands it was a commercial job which did need coded boats?

Is there some get out clause for rescue boats? If people are getting paid then surely there has to be some certification and insurance involved?

[biffer]

i think i'm right in saying that if the rib is under 6m it's not liable for codeing, don't know if it was but it does ask some questions about support boats in general and can you insure them properly, for my two pence worth if the job was done properly by the kids then pay them, my son is 36 and thinking back he used to work for me and others when he was younger than that, it teach's them responsiblity and values. don't be mean, pay them, you never know when you might need them

[Observer]

The law is quite clear on this. The SI that defines the boundary between a "pleasure vessel" and others is SI 1998 #2771 The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998.

A "pleasure vessel" is defined as:

(a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is:

(i)

(aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or

(bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and

(ii) on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion; or

(b) any vessel wholly owned by or on behalf of a members' club formed for the purpose of sport or pleasure which, at the time it is being used, is used only for the sport or pleasure of members of that club or their immediate family, and for the use of which any charges levied are paid into club funds and applied for the general use of the club; and

(c) in the case of any vessel referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) above no other payments are made by or on behalf of users of the vessel, other than by the owner.

so it appears, from the reported facts, that the RIB in question was not being used as a pleasure vessel, in which case it is required to comply with the relevant Code of Practice (including as to manning).

I haven't researched whether or not children <16 are eligible to crew a coded vessel. However, it's quite likely that they're not.

It seems to me, in this case, that the Club and the owner were both acting outside the strict boundaries of the law. However, morally, the Club perhaps should have made it clear that the owner's children would not be compensated before they accepted the services provided.

p.s. If the Club wished to hire in a RIB with skipper + crew, the 'natural' (if not only practical) way of doing so was to contract with the owner/skipper at a rate that includes payment for the number of crew needed, leaving the owner/skipper to sub-contract the additional crew. So, as a matter of contract, there is only one contract here and that is between the owner/skipper and the Club. However, if the Club considers that the sub-contracted crew are unqualified or 'incompetent' (in the legal sense), it is not surprising that they choose to withhold part of the agreed price.

[Rogue Wave]

ishould the bill have been £350 per day?