Piotr Redmerski dismissed from the position of president of PZB

Piotr Redmerski was dismissed from the position of President of Polish Baltic Shipping. The decision was made several days after the indictment of the unfulfilled construction of the ferry was sent to court. However, the circumstances of the matter require a broader perspective, as the responsibility for the contract and subsequent decisions does not come down to one person.

Why was Peter Redmerski called off from P.D.?

Piotr Redmerski was recalled on 20 July from the board of directors Polish Baltic Shipping. Artur Witkowski, a member of the supervisory board, is to manage the company until the new president is elected. It may carry out these duties for a maximum of three months.

The CB merely informed that the resolution was adopted "with a view to ensuring its continued sustainable development". However, this wording does not answer the most important question: why was the man who won the competition in 2024 and returned to run the company, after just over two years was cancelled again?

The lack of clarification is important because the decision was made several days after the indictment of an unfulfilled contract for the construction of a ferry at the Marine Shiprepair Yard Gryfia was sent to court. The prosecution accuses two then members of the board of directors of PZB of causing damage to the company exceeding PLN 8.1 million. Their responsibility will be decided by the court.

He didn't oppose the new shuttles. He resisted construction without money

This story is easy to bring to a simple picture: the board signed a contract, paid an advance, ferry It didn't exist, so someone has to answer. The problem is that the actual course of events was much more complex.

Redmerski did not claim that PAH I don't need new ones. ferrys. On the contrary, the renewal of the ageing fleet was one of the most important needs of the Polish shipowner. The opposition concerned the way in which the scheme was implemented – the selection of shipyards that did not have adequate facilities and the running of the project without the funding provided.

In a conversation published upon his return to Redmerski, he said directly that he had warned against entrusting the construction of a Gryfia ferry. In his opinion, the yard did not guarantee the performance of the contract and the banks did not want to finance the investment with such a contractor.

This was not just an assessment of the person concerned. The Supreme Chamber of Control stated that financial institutions had refused to cooperate due to a negative assessment of the potential of the selected yard. NIK also concluded that Gryfia had no technical, organisational and financial capacity to carry out the contract independently.

Speaking Polish, Redmerski at one point punched his fist on the table. He felt it was impossible to pretend that ferry is created when there is no money, complete documentation or contractor able to carry out the construction. The President of the State Treasury is to be expected to be responsible. In practice, however, this attitude often becomes a source of problems.

Attempt to recover the advance and appeal one day later

The most important part of Redmerski's statement is the chronology of events of February 2021.

The former president already claims that on February 10, 2021, the board began efforts to recover from Gryfia due to the yard's default from the contract. The following day, the Supervisory Board cancelled the board, interrupting the activities started.

Redmerski also stresses that the PLN 10 million transferred to the yard was an advance which should be settled in the event of a failure to contract. It therefore rejects the presentation of all of this amount as a damage caused to the CB by its board of directors.

The documents of the NIK show that the case cannot be brought back to the simple statement that PLN 10 million has been irrevocably lost. The Chamber indicated that the entire advance remained to be settled, but estimated at the same time that in the event of termination of the contract PZB could lose around PLN 1.4 million, covering the value of the works performed and the costs of storage of the first ferry sections.

This does not automatically mean that all management decisions were correct. It means that the public image of the case as a simple "spending PLN 10 million on a keel" is incomplete. The dispute also concerns why the advance was not settled and who made the decisions after Redmerski's appeal.

The program "Batatory" was no ordinary contract

The Supreme Audit Chamber has negatively assessed the implementation of the contract by PBS. Among other things, the board had the wrong choice of the contractor, the failure to adapt the parameters of the ferry to the needs of the shipowner, and the continued cooperation with the shipyard despite financing problems. According to NIK, the agreement had to be terminated as early as 2018.

These arrangements cannot be silenced. Just as the Redmerski guilt cannot be ruled out before the court is brought to an end.

However, it is impossible to treat this contract as a simple business decision taken in isolation from politics. Bathor program belonged to the flagship projects of the then government, and the location of the keel was presented as the beginning of reconstruction of the Polish shipbuilding industry. In the meantime, funding was not provided, the yard was not ready to complete the order, and the project was mostly in the declarations for subsequent years.

The appeal can be understood. The acquis cannot be crossed out

The prosecution against the President of the State of the Company has put PZB supervisory authorities in a situation requiring a decision. However, this was a reaction to the new legal situation rather than an assessment of the current way of managing the company.

The final resolution was adopted by the Supervisory Board. The decision was a reaction to the new legal situation involving the prosecution. However, it does not mean a negative assessment of the current management of CSF nor does it prejudge Peter Redmerski's guilt.

Nor does it mean that Redmerski was no longer a professional. For years he led Polish Baltic Shipping, knows the ferry market, has experience in maritime transport and contacts in the industry. Such qualifications shall not be acquired in a few months and shall not be cancelled by a single resolution of the supervisory board.

His case remains uncomfortable also for another reason. Defendant was a manager who had previously warned against building a ferry without guaranteed funding and without a contractor prepared to perform the contract. His board also tried to recover the advance from Gryfia, but was cancelled the next day.

Peter Redmerski's responsibility will be decided by the court. The CB limited the communication to information on the recall of the President and the provision of "further sustainable development" to the company. It was not stated whether the direct basis for the decision was to refer the indictment.