A year after the operation of the port of Tartous from a Russian company: the reality of performance and equipment at its worst!

A memorandum prepared by the Tartous governorate workers union based on workers’ complaints and submitted by the federation to trade unions.

It also obtained a copy of the book that the Executive Office of the General Union submitted to the Prime Minister and included the reality in all its aspects and its proposals for solution and treatment.

The letter stated that the most prominent difficulties that occurred as a result of the new situation after operating the port from the Russian company is summarized by the terms of the investment contract, the port work management of the investing company has been devolved, and despite what the contractual article stipulates regarding the responsibility of the investing company to rehabilitate the infrastructure of the current port, its mechanisms and equipment, by an amount 50 million US dollars within four years of receiving it, because the company has not yet taken any field steps to develop port work, modernize work and production methods and mechanisms, and raise technical readiness, which can be described today as in its worst state, about ten months after its receipt, and that it resorts to securing spare parts for the idle machines and equipment from other broken machines, which makes the matter worse, and this violates the form and content of the contract that obliges them to maintain the property in good technical condition and to carry out the necessary technical maintenance at his expense.

The memo indicated that navigation traffic is still within its usual limits under the circumstances during which a contract was signed to invest, expand and develop the port and increase its production capacity. 

The investing company has yet to take any step to attract investments and increase transportation and shipping lines.

The investing company has not announced its internal system and structure for its method of work until now, and work relations are still murky and subject to the moods of company officials and their advisors, and their minor understanding of Syrian laws and regulations in many aspects and mechanisms of work.

The contract stipulates that the investing company is responsible for insuring the port and all its requirements with one of the approved insurance companies in Syria, but the company did not do so despite the numerous correspondence from the General Company for Tartous Port in this regard, which may cause disasters and serious damage in the future.

The contract stipulates that the company is responsible for submitting the plans and documents of the port expansion project to the first party after 12 months of receiving the subject of the contract, that is, after less than three months, but instead of the investing company working to fulfill its contractual obligations, it was requested in the decision committee meeting reconsidering the terms of the contract and extending the period of modernization of the port from 4 to 10 years, as well as reconsidering the volume of investments due to the economic sanctions on Syria (Caesar Act), which caused difficulties in obtaining funds and led to a significant decrease in navigation and freight traffic according to What the company invoked. 

And since the contract is made based on the agreement between the contractors, and that the contract was signed in circumstances similar to what it is now in terms of war, siege, and sanctions, and the force majeure is not considered war and the embargo imposed on Syria or any prohibition or punishment that could be imposed on Syria or the Russian Federation, and the contract is It was signed in such circumstances, it is a null excuse and no justification for such a request.

In addition to the company’s failure to pay their contributions to social insurance, it will cause delay penalties, in addition to the workers’ health affected negatively after they sign individual work contracts with the investing company that has not yet contracted with the insurance company according to its obligations in the contract. 

And the investing company continued to refuse to transfer the sums disbursed from the General Company to the Port of Tartous in exchange for medical treatment, wages, compensation, meals, water, electricity, phone, and smart card subscription, whose value exceeded the amount of 256 million Syrian pounds. 

Its position also caused the workers’ pharmacy to refrain from dispensing prescriptions due to the continuous delay and delay in transferring the pharmacy’s dues for the dispensed medical prescriptions, which also calls for the continuous mediation of the union and the temporary resolution of the dispute. 

And the investing company continued to refuse to transfer the sums disbursed from the General Company to the Port of Tartous in exchange for medical treatment, wages, compensation, meals, water, electricity, phone, and smart card subscription, whose value exceeded the amount of 256 million Syrian pounds. 

Its position also caused the workers’ pharmacy to refrain from dispensing prescriptions due to the continuous delay and delay in transferring the pharmacy’s dues for the dispensed medical prescriptions, which also calls for the continuous mediation of the union and the temporary resolution of the dispute. 

The memo stated that the investing company has not yet named its representatives in the revenue matching committee despite the numerous books sent to it in this regard from the General Company for Tartous Port.

The individual work contract was to grant a meal to the workers on duty, and the investing company had set its value at 700 Syrian pounds, which is the same value of the meal given to the workers of Homs fertilizer from the same company, but the company withdrew from that and granted it to a portion of the alternate workers on the shift working regime for the value of 700 SYP, and for the other portion 100 SYP.

As for compensation for workers, the company continued to grant compensation previously granted to workers (nature of work – incentives – work addition…), but it has not yet dispensed the nature of risks stipulated in the individual work contract, noting that the union provided the investing company at its request with special decisions and laws, in this regard.

The individual work contract also stipulated the responsibility of the investing company for transporting workers to and from their workplaces, but the means of transport for transporting workers are insufficient and many workers are still not covered by this service, and this has resulted in significant financial burdens on them, especially during the ban period.

The Syrian Council of Ministers referred the General Union’s letter Memo to the Minister of Transport since the eighth of last September, requesting follow-up and action in coordination with the concerned authorities.

In turn, the new Minister of Transport, Zuhair Hazeem, referred the book to the Director General of Tartous Port from the Syrian side in mid-September.

The past asks for treatment, but the issue is still in the drawers of the port without any treatment for various reasons that cannot be detailed now.

Local press tried to communicate with the Russian company to find out its point of view in all that was mentioned, but to no avail, as it has done since the start of operation.