Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55) - Peru (Ratification: 1962)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments and asks it to provide additional information in its next report on the following points.

Strengthening of inspections to verify discharge of the obligation to affiliate seafarers to the supplementary insurance scheme for high-risk activities

In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken by the inspection services to promote and enforce the obligation placed on shipowners performing high-risk activities, which include fishing, to take out the supplementary insurance (SCTR) for such risks under Act No. 26790. The reason for the Committee’s request was that the statistics supplied by the Government on visits carried out by the inspection services appeared to account little for seafarers and that according to observations submitted by a trade union, many employers and shipowners had failed to subscribe to the SCTR.

It notes in this connection that the Government’s report does not contain the general information requested, such as the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate to supervise application of the national legislation in the maritime navigation and fishing sector, statistical information on the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing and navigation sectors affiliated to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. The Committee hopes that the Government will do its utmost to gather all this information and trusts that every effort will be made to enable the labour inspectorate to fulfil its duty of informing and supervising the maritime navigation and fishing sectors.

Complaints against the Chapsa and Atlántida fishing enterprises

In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the complaints against the two abovementioned companies, the Government includes in its report the requested extracts of these proceedings. With regard to the Chapsa case, the inspection report finds that the legislation was complied with to the extent that Chapsa did subscribe to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. Listing the Chapsa workers registered with the SCTR, the report goes on to declare the case closed, citing compliance with the legislation. In the Atlántida case, the inspection report sent by the Government establishes, as noted by the Government in its previous report, that the company was fined because, although registered with the SCTR, it had failed to pay by 21 January 2002 the premium for invalidity and survivors’ coverage in the name of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, victim of an occupational accident on 23 June 1998. The report also indicates that thereafter, in June 2002, a further inspection of the enterprise established that the premiums for invalidity and survivors’ coverage had still not been paid. A last visit to the enterprise in January 2003 to verify payment of the bonuses revealed that this worker no longer had an employment relationship with Atlántida, and the case was therefore closed.

The Committee notes this information. As regards the Atlántida case, it notes that the inspection report shows that although ordered to pay a fine, Atlántida had still not paid the contributions for invalidity and survivors’ coverage at the time of the worker’s departure from the enterprise, following which the case was closed. The Government explained earlier that when an enterprise fails to take out supplementary insurance for high-risk activities, or takes out inadequate insurance, it is liable vis-à-vis the social insurance institutions (ESSALUD and the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP)) for payment of benefits in the event of an accident sustained by one of its workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the case of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz was managed, specifying in particular whether this worker actually received the assistance to which he was entitled under the Convention, and stating the body which actually covered the risk. Please also indicate whether Atlántida paid the fine, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 910 and, if not, please specify the penalties imposed on it.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, such as a review of the applicable penalties, to ensure that in practice shipowners do take out accident and sickness insurance for seafarers where this is compulsory, and that where they fail to do so, seafarers may nevertheless be paid all the benefits guaranteed by the Convention. Please provide in this connection information on the number of seafarers who have received assistance pursuant to the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]