Изображения страниц


methods, and procedures (see Volume I, Part VII (B)).
An evaluation of self-policing does not require that
the neutral body make available every secret in its
files. Conversely, the neutral body should be able to
offer some of its files for review to illustrate points
of discussion.


The Commission's sole concern should be that standards for self-policing are being met (see Part X (D)) and, consequently, that the basic requirements for adequate self-policing are in place. If the Commission knows a professional organization has the authority, manpower, methods and procedures to police a conference, review of files becomes less of an issue. As the Commission gains confidence in the investigative capabilities of the neutral bodies, its oversight function should become one more of liaison with the neutral bodies, requiring only cursory review of, discussion about, the latter's files. Oversight for the most part should be a mutual assistance function through liaison. However, liaison, as discussed in "Intelligence Gathering" (Part XI (C)), implies free exchange of information. The encumbrance of confidentiality of files should not be present when there is need for free exchange. It should become obvious eventually to all the lines that Bureau personnel have more than enough matters to handle without having to interject themselves into the neutral bodies' operations.

5. Procedures for Disapproval of Agreements

Responsibility for initiating proceedings for disapproval of a self-policing agreement should be placed specifically with the Bureau of Enforcement. Henceforth, any agreement which is filed must be in substantial compliance with the model agreement. Those areas that are not in accord with the model should be explained and justified. Once it is ascertained that an agreement is effective, the other issues would be considered. The Bureau would have the responsibility of making an evaluation each year on the adequacy of self-policing in each conference. The policy of allowing self-policing reports to be filed with no further affirmative action by Commission personnel should be a thing of the past.

As noted in Recommendation 3, Part IX (A), the suggested Commission oversight should be capable of focussing readily on the inadequate chairman self-policing system. The Bureau's

- 123

next step would be to observe action taken by the neutral bodies to provide effective self-policing and what action they propose to meet the challenges of the major, sophisticated malpractices (see Part XI). The input of intelligence data, self-policing reports (see below), and the imposition of standards should give the Bureau sufficient bases for making its initial evaluation of adequacy of self-policing in each conference. On-site visits would complete the evaluation process.

Because of the Bureau's active interest in self-policing, it would seem most likely that conferences could no longer get by with negligible self-policing. Placing the respor sibility in the area where there is the most concern over self-policing will ensure an active and effective oversight program. If a conference were not doing its share in policing the industry, Bureau personnel would have the parochial interest to do something about it.

6. Imposition of Meaningful Reporting Requirements

The starting point for evaluation of meaningful reporting requirements is the premise that, at best, reports can only supplement on-the-scene appraisals. But a good reporting system could be a part of the evaluation process, and could facilitate the on-site review.

Secondly, the reporting system should not require an accumulation of statistics and data that are not essential or are of little value in accomplishing the purpose of the reports. In this case, the Commission's purpose for requiring self-policing reports is to ascertain the adequacy of the conferences' self-policing.

The Commission's approach on reports to date is to require summaries of pending and closed cases, among other data. Illustrative of the Commission's approach is what was to be the Part 528.6 reporting requirements, For the purpose of this discussion, the following is excerpted from a draft of the proposed reporting requirements:

..reports shall contain the following information using an identification number to be used by both the policing authority and the impartial adjudicator for each matter handled under the self-policing procedures :


.(1) the nature of each written or verbal

complaint or other indication of a
violation of the agreement received

during the reporting months,
(2) the basis and nature of each self-initiated

investigation started during the reporting

(3) the status or findings with respect to:
(a) each matter (complaint or investigation

or both) initiated during the reporting

period, and
(b) each matter not having been reported as

finalized in any previous semi-annual

(4) the following information with respect to

each matter involving a final determination
of a violation of the conference agreement,
or a negotiated settlement,
(a) a specific and detailed description of

the offense,
(b) the number of times that the particular

carrier involved has committed the same
or similar offenses in the preceding five

(c) the number and description of all other

violations committed (by the same carrier)
in the five years preceding the date of

the finding of the violation, and (d) the exact amount of the penalty (liquidated

damages) and/or sanction for each violation found."

A request for summaries of every aspect of all pending and closed cases results in a plethora of information and is a burdensome reporting requirement, in addition to being of little value in evaluating the adequacy of self-policing. But, judging from my past experience with some line officials, such a request will compound their confidentiality paranoia.

- 125

In the case of negative investigations reports, there would be a continuation of past farcical conditions.

In order to assess the adequacy of a conference's self-policing system, the Commission should know what self-policing services the conference utilizes, in what manner such services are being performed, how often they are performed, and by whom. Whether the standards as outlined in Part X are being met should be the initial basis for assessing adequacy of a conference's self-policing mechanism.

In the course of conducting the last part of this study, all neutral bodies were asked questions directed toward determining how, by whom, and how often the various self-policing services were being conducted. Portions of the pertinent questions asked are as follow:

4. (a) Whether your organization conducts cargo

inspection or contracts out the responsibility,
state what the schedule of cargo inspections is
for each line in each port you cover. Specifically,
how many inspectors are assigned to each line and
how many inspections does each one conduct? For
container ships, state how many containers per sailing
are inspected, what is the minimum, and what is the
ideal. Of the number of containers in a port, what
percentage do you have occasion to inspect? Describe
how the inspections are conducted, e.g., the method
used to confirm the description of the cargo, the
weight, the cube, etc. Approximate the percentage
of discrepancies uncovered in each of these categories.
If possible, estimate the annual billings to shippers
for each conference where there is cargo inspection.
What criteria are used in determining that a container
should be inspected?

(b) of the misratings developed from cargo inspection, how many and which kind have evolved into malpractice investigations?

5. (a) Describe your procedures for the ongoing ex

amination of shipping documents, including your manpower assignment. State what documents are examined in what ports, and whether they are inspected for each sailing and for each line, whether these inspections involve full review or spot check,

- 126


and time of the examination in relation to the
ship's sailing. Explain your theory on the
effectiveness of your document examination
procedures (distinguish between this examination
and that in question 6, below). Also, who has
the responsibility for billing the shippers for
discrepancies uncovered? In this regard, what
were each conference's collected annual billings
to shippers?
(b) Respond to question 4 (b) in the context of
document examination.
(a) Explain your procedures, including frequency,
for the ongoing examination of a line's office
records. State whether this examination includes
the home office records and/or the outport records.
Who (category of personnel) and what, is your
manpower allotment for this function? If not
included in the above, what is your procedure
for review of and frequency of the review of the
following records:

(1) office telexes
(2) claims files
(3) expense accounts of officers and agents
(4) demurrage billings
(5) rate claims
(6) trucking fees
(7) salesmen's records
(8) credit department records,

including accounts payable
(9) internal reading files
(10) fiscal records, including bank account transfers,

looking toward special and/or dummy accounts
(11) agents' fees
(12) conference minutes
(13) other

(b) Respond to question 4 (b) in the context of
office record examination.

8. If the reply does not appear in question 4 (b), 5(b),

or 6 (b), how many malpractice investigations were initiated in calendar year 1976 (a) as a result of carrier complaints; and (b) by your organization as a result of (1) intelligence information; (2) document

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »