Memorandum on behalf of the Caterers Offshore
Trade Association, International Association of Drilling Contractors,
International Marine Contractors Association, Offshore Contractors
Association, UK Offshore Operators Association and Well Services
Contractors Association
INTRODUCTION
This response to the Commission's communication
is made on behalf of the various Trade Associations within the
offshore oil and gas industry of the United Kingdom. It should
be noted that offshore working came under the Directive as a result
of amending Directive 2000/34/EC which came into effect on 1 August
2003.
We understand and support the terms of the Commission's
review:
— Protection of the health and safety
of workers;
— More flexibility for firms and Member
States in managing working time;
— Reconciling work and family life;
— Avoidance of unreasonable constraints
on firms, especially SMEs.
The industry has always believed that it is
compliant with the Directive in its overall hours of work, its
shift patterns, the provisions for rest breaks both during and
outside working time, in annual leave and in the provision of
health checks which is done for all who work offshore, whether
on day or night shift. A typical cycle involves two weeks of offshore
working, followed by two weeks of onshore leave/rest break, although
there are quite a number of variations to this.
REFERENCE PERIOD
Horizontal Amending Directive 2000/34/EC (HAD)
specifically allows for a 52 week Reference Period "for objective
or technical reasons or reasons concerning the organisation of
work". This is reflected in the UK's Regulations in recognition
of the particular requirements of this industry and the seasonal
nature of much of the work. There was extensive consultation and
discussion during the passage of the HAD through the legislative
machinery in Brussels during 1998-99-2000 leading to the inclusion
of this provision and again here in the UK before the publication
of the Regulations in 2003.
We sincerely hope that there will be no attempt
to amend this, especially given that the Regulations have only
been in effect since 1 August last.
OPT-OUT
In terms of working offshore, we believe that
the opt-out has very little relevance. Working hours are governed
not only by the Regulations under the HAD, but also by the Industry's
Offshore Installation Managers' guidance of working hours and
rest periods which was developed under Step Change in Safety,
a joint initiative between the Health & Safety Executive,
the unions and the industry. This OIMs' guidance has itself been
incorporated into our guidance for implementing the Regulations
offshore which was published in 2003—please refer to www.oilandgas.org.uk
under "About UKOOA" and then "Publications".
This was adapted from DTI's own guidance for the WTD when it was
implemented onshore in 1998 and tailored to the Regulations and
our industry's particular circumstances. It has been circulated
throughout the industry.
SIMAP
AND JAEGER
CASES
The rulings in these two cases are of considerable
interest and potentially deep concern to the offshore oil and
gas industry. Not that the industry has significant numbers of
people on-call at their place of work—it does not: a few,
yes; the vast majority, no.
1. The first concern would be if the rulings
were to be interpreted more widely than appears to be the case,
in that all people offshore are, by the industry's nature, very
close to their place of work, even when off shift and resting
(someone cannot go home or play a game of golf). There are parallels,
of course, in the merchant marine industry, on very long flights
where second crews are carried who take over part way through
the flight, in long distance lorry driving, or at remote construction
sites onshore where a camp is provided. However, although accommodated
near to their place of work, the vast majority of our people are
not on-call (except if there is an emergency) and so our understanding
would be that the SiMAP and Jaeger rulings only
apply offshore to the extent that someone is required to be "on-call".
Were this understanding to be mistaken and,
by virtue of being accommodated close to their place of work,
all personnel offshore were deemed as a result of these rulings
to be "on-call" even when off shift and resting offshore,
the overall limit of annual hours worked would be breached and
the consequences for our industry would be profound:
(a)
the 25,000 people who work offshore would have to
increase by nearly the same number again;
(b)
most of these people are skilled or highly skilled,
often with specialist training and abilities; given the shortage
of such people in the economy of the UK (and in the oil and gas
industry worldwide), it is unlikely that such numbers exist;
(c)
even if they did, the costs in remuneration alone,
before paying for increased logistics (eg helicopter travel) and
overheads, would be of the order of £1,000 million per annum;
(d)
such costs would have a severe effect on the industry
which, anyway, is in a mature phase of its life and would lead
to premature closure of all offshore oil and gas fields in the
UK;
(e)
the objectives of PILOT, the government-industry
initiative to sustain the health and longevity of oil and gas
production in the UK, would be damaged irreparably, with consequences
for the country's security of energy supplies (currently the UK
is self sufficient in both oil and gas, although this will change
slowly over the next five years).
It is, therefore, essential to this industry
that these rulings remain strictly applicable to those who are
on-call. Any different interpretation would have highly deleterious
effects for the production of oil and gas from the UK's continental
shelf and elsewhere in the EU. These effects could manifest themselves
even more widely, given the shortage of skilled personnel in industries
such as this one.
2. The second concern arising out of the
rulings is that compensatory rest should be taken "immediately".
Currently, offshore working is exempt from the detailed provisions
of daily and weekly rest periods, provided that compensatory rest
of an equal amount is given which is the case in this industry.
Daily compensatory rest is normally provided during off shift
time while offshore, but weekly compensatory time is provided
during onshore leave/rest breaks. In the example of two weeks
offshore and two weeks onshore, such weekly compensatory rest
does not occur until after two working weeks offshore. However,
the time spent onshore more than adequately provides for all compensatory
rest and does so by a considerable margin, a point which was made
by DTI Minister, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, in a Parliamentary Committee
debate on 22 October 2003.
Therefore, as with 1 above, there is grave concern
that this ruling which arose out of on-call time may be interpreted
more widely and applied to all forms of compensatory rest. Offshore
work cycles would be reduced to 12 days thereby increasing the
number of cycles and the number of helicopter flights. This industry
would again find itself in similar circumstances, needing many
more people and all that flows from points (a) to (e) in 1 above.
Additionally, given that the WTD is about the health and safety
of the workforce, a significant increase in helicopter flying
is not to be recommended. It would also mean that periods at home
would be reduced, making it more difficult for offshore workers
to take family holidays.
3. The third issue arises from the specialist
nature of some offshore oil and gas activities and the fact that
certain functions are, of necessity, fulfilled by only one individual
of that skill/category at any one time. Such people may be or
are on-call from time to time, but are infrequently required to
perform duties during such periods; examples of such functions
are emergency response teams exercising/training, marine surveyors,
medics, well servicing specialists, crane operators and some supervision.
There are again parallels here with the merchant marine, in remoteness
from land, limited number of bed spaces and so on. Also, medics
offshore are not in the same position as doctors at a hospital,
where the very nature of a hospital's existence involves a substantial
likelihood of an on-call doctor being required to work.
4. It therefore seems to us that the only
sensible resolution of all of the above points with respect to
the SiMAP and Jaeger rulings is for the offshore
oil and gas industry to have derogation from these rulings, under
a revision to the HAD, provided that the other requirements for
compensatory rest are adhered to (which is the case with this
industry). Such derogation under a revised HAD would dovetail
with the industry's existing derogation (ref 2 above) with respect
to compensatory rest.
We strongly urge the Commission to take full
cognisance of these issues in reaching any conclusions, as a result
of its current consultation. The potential effects on the offshore
oil and gas industry are very substantial. We naturally remain
available to discuss any of these matters, should the Commission
so wish.
D N Odling
18 March 2004
| 
