Daniel Casal and Vicente Quintana
"Sestiba will cover its deficit by applying a fee on the merchandise, 0.70% will be applied to each ton that arrives or leaves the Ports of Las Palmas. It is estimated that this fee will produce an annual income of around 2.4 million euros and will be in effect for a period of four years" (published in Transporte XXI ).
The State Stevedoring and Unloading Company of the Port of La Luz and Las Palmas (Sestiba) is the one that provides its services to port operations for loading and unloading merchandise. It has a public character as its operations and services are considered of public interest, and its shareholding is mostly subscribed by the Port Authority of Las Palmas (51%). The rest of the shareholding is made up of private companies linked to the port business, including La Luz Market, SA. (14.75%), La Luz, SA (7.43%), Líneas Marítimas Canarias, S.A. (7.33%), OPCSA (6.70%), Terminal de Carga Rodada, SA (6.54%).
In the Official Gazette of the Province of June 8, 2003, the entry into force of the "Merchandise Tax" (the so-called "Sestiba fee") is published, which from then on taxes the entry of merchandise.
To understand the meaning of this measure, it is necessary to go back to 1994. Sestiba's situation was already worrying since, in order to respond to its debts with the Tax Agency, it was forced to deposit a bank guarantee with said agency for an amount of 561 million pesetas, guaranteed by Puertos del Estado. The origin of the debt was not having applied the ITE in the period between 1989 and 1992.
In April 1998, Sestiba declares that its workforce will increase by 250 workers in one year. In May of the same year, it is known that during 1997, and in relation to the previous year, Sestiba's income grew twice as much as that of all the state stevedoring and unloading companies in the port system. That is, almost 16%, while all state companies grew at a rate slightly above 8%. In absolute values, Sestiba's income went from 2,043 million pesetas in 1996 to 2,418 million in 1997.
In October 1998, the media reported that Sestiba intended to pre-retire 140 workers and bring in 220 new stevedores. The expenses of this operation were estimated at that time at 1,200 million pesetas.
A month later, in November of that same year, it was reported that fishing and container transshipments had produced losses for Sestiba worth 330 million pesetas. In a meeting held on November 12, Sestiba agrees that, as of the 15th, it would not face the losses caused, and that these would have to be assumed by the different stevedoring companies.
Five months later, on March 11, 1999, the joint commission formed by workers, employers and Puertos del Estado, agreed to accept the expansion of the workforce by 263 workers, which meant going from 350 to 613 stevedores.
Six months later it was reported that Sestiba could enter technical bankruptcy, given the operating deficit it had entered in the previous month of May, with a negative balance that reached 200 million pesetas until August 31, 1999.
On September 17, the Board of Directors of Sestiba analyzes the possible urgent measures to be adopted in view of the serious situation created. Among them, only six months after accepting an extension of the same, a regulation of the workforce. It is estimated that the situation may worsen to reach a deficit of 400 million pesetas at the end of 1999.
On November 1 of that same year, the Board of Directors of the Port Authority agrees to increase Sestiba's share capital by 400 million pesetas, to reduce the Company's debt to 560 million, estimated at that time at 960 million pesetas.
Sestiba's active capital at that time was 1,600 million pesetas. But it has a debt with the Banco Central Hispano of approximately 1,000 million pesetas. In November 1999, the Board of Directors of the Port Authority authorizes a capital increase of Sestiba of 500 million pesetas.
In the successive meetings of the Board of Directors of Sestiba, the option of the employment regulation file is insistently considered, which would affect some 116 workers. The cost of the same would be around 500 million pesetas.
The newspaper La Provincia of June 6, 2000 reported: "Sestiba agrees to demand that the companies OPCSA and SEMPSA present a bank guarantee in order to guarantee the debts that both have contracted with Sestiba, as a result of the transshipment of containers and pelagic fishing. This is due to the fact that the Banks that facilitated loans to Sestiba require it as a guarantee of the company's situation, avoiding a possible embargo of the building where its headquarters are located".
On the 15th of the same month, in the magazine Transportes XXI it says that "according to D. Luis Hernández, president of Sestiba, it has a deficit in the first five months of 2000 of 500 million Ptas., which could become 1,200 million pesetas at the end of the year".
Between the months of June and July the meetings to analyze the situation of the company are numerous, since the worrying situation that Sestiba is going through makes us think that there is a risk of going to a suspension of payments if the Social Security and the Treasury claim the important fees that are owed.
In March 2001, it is published in La Provincia that Sestiba and the Works Council reached a principle of viability agreement, which saved 4,500 million pesetas in salaries, and which would last for at least five years. And that with this measure it was intended to guarantee the stability of the company's workforce through a series of economic agreements that allowed absorbing the deficit of the last two years, estimated at 1,200 million pesetas. Said plan contemplated the pre-retirement of a total of 36 workers, which meant a cost for the company of about 500 million pesetas. There has not yet been a definitive application of said agreement.
In April 2001, the deficit with which the 2000 financial year had closed is known, and which reached 1,300 million Ptas. It is later said that at the end of the 2000 financial year Sestiba would reach financial balance. And that it would begin to have a surplus from the 2003 financial year.
From this moment on, the facts show that reality is stubborn: in the first quarter of 2003, which was announced with financial balance, there was already talk of a deficit in the year of 600,000 euros, with which the accumulated amount was approximately 6 million euros (La Provincia, March 20, 2003).
Having reached this point, and with the data presented, the cloud that looms over the stevedoring company is evident: deficit, surplus, deficit again, employment regulations and viability plans... The only conclusion that we are able to reach is that the management in Sestiba was, to say the least, of a profound confusion.
At no time is it clearly stated what the economic and financial situation of the company is and what is the share of responsibility contracted by the Board of Directors.
In the end, the great decision that is made to alleviate Sestiba's serious economic and financial situation is to establish a fee, which comes into force in June 2003, and which taxes the merchandise that enters or leaves the port of Las Palmas.
It cannot be considered acceptable that the losses generated by this company are transferred to the entire citizenry. And that, while this is happening, those responsible for the management and administration of the same continue to occupy a position on the Board of Directors of Sestiba, without any authority (political, economic or judicial) having asked for responsibilities, and without a single resignation having occurred.
In short, the debt accumulated by poor management is charged to the citizens of Gran Canaria, seeking a bailout financed by the pockets of taxpayers. Which has an immediate translation in the level of inflation that our society supports.
As of today, both merchandise operators and the citizenry as a whole are the "payers" of a crisis generated by a Board of Directors that has not accounted for it. Furthermore, it is still unknown what the exact amount of the debt is, the real causes that originated it, the responsibilities contracted and on what basis it is decided to convert a situation of bankruptcy into a tax rate.
Two years after the application of the "Sestiba fee" it is unknown how much has been collected for this concept, how much remains to be paid and if a situation that we consider, in all light, an irregular financing is going to last "sine die", because we seriously doubt that it makes legal sense that the financial or economic difficulties of a company, be it public or private, can be converted into a rate that all citizens pay.
And in the meantime, the standard of living and the consumption capacity of our people are deteriorating day by day. Anyone give more?
Don't fail us, Mayoral!!
