Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 2013)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report. It further notes the observations made by Nautilus International and enclosed in the observations made by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), received on 6 September 2015. It also notes that the Government has previously ratified 15 maritime labour Conventions, which have been denounced as a consequence of the entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government and the social partners to implement the Convention. Following a first review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4. Recruitment and placement. The Committee recalls that, under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) of the Convention, Members that have private recruitment and placement service operating in their territories must, in their laws and regulations or other measures, prohibit seafarer recruitment and placement services from using means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment for which they are qualified. The Committee notes the Government’s information, in this respect, that this provision is implemented by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 and the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (SI 2014/88). It notes that, under section 3(2) of both Regulations, no person shall compile, use, sell or supply a prohibited list, which is defined as a list which: (a) contains details of persons who are or have been members of trade unions or persons who are taking part or have taken part in the activities of trade unions; and (b) is compiled with a view to being used by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of discrimination in relation to recruitment or in relation to the treatment of workers. Noting that the protection under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a), of the Convention is not limited to anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it ensures that its legislative provisions prohibiting the use of means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment extend beyond trade union purposes.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3. Hours of work and hours of rest. In its previous comments under the Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), Articles 4 and 5 – which have been incorporated into the MLC, 2006 – the Committee observed that a two watch system (six hours on, six hours off) represents a higher risk of fatigue than the three-watch system and that this factor should be taken into account when determining, approving or revising manning levels. It recalls, in this respect, that paragraph 4 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006, requires the competent authority to take account of the danger posed by the fatigue of seafarers, especially those whose duties involve navigational safety and the safe and secure operation of the ship. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it ensures that its two-watch system does not pose a danger of fatigue on seafarers. In addition, it encourages the Government to consider measures which would allow the watchkeeping system of a ship to be fully taken into account when supervising compliance with applicable hours-of-rest standards and to transmit copies of any studies or empirical findings bearing on this matter.

In its previous comments under Article 5(3)–(5) of Convention No. 180 – which is incorporated in the MLC, 2006 – the Committee recalled that, in principle, the question of granting compensatory rest in case of call-outs to work or minimizing disturbance of rest periods during drills is left to be regulated through collective agreements. It notes that, under Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7–9, of the MLC, 2006, it is only in the absence of such agreements, or if the competent authority determines that any collectively agreed provisions are inadequate, that the Government is expected to regulate these matters. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether there are any collective agreements containing provisions on the matters dealt with in Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7–9 and if not, to take the necessary measures to regulate those matters.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following tripartite consultations, there was an agreement that a seafarer should not be forced to return on leave to a home country if he or she does not wish to do so for the following reasons: (i) it was a war zone; (ii) they feared for their personal safety; (iii) their homes had been destroyed; (iv) they no longer had family in that location; or (v) they feared that if they returned to their home country they may not be permitted to exit again to return to duty on the ship. The Committee notes, in this connection, the Government’s indication that, under this agreement, seafarers may be permitted to change their repatriation destination or to extend their time on board. Concerning the latter possibility, and recalling the importance of paid annual leave to protect the health and well-being of seafarers and to prevent fatigue, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the safeguards it has put in place, if any, to limit the seafarers’ extended time on board in the circumstances described above.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. The Committee notes that sections 19–26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Minimum Requirements for Seafarers, etc.) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1613) regulate seafarers’ repatriation. It notes the exception to the shipowner’s duty to provide repatriation, set out under section 21(6) of the Regulations, when the seafarer confirms in writing that repatriation is not required. The Committee requests the Government to identify any protections in place to ensure that this provision does not enable the waiver of the right to repatriation by seafarers wishing to gain or retain employment.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee notes that sections 48–53 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Minimum Requirements for Seafarers, etc.) Regulations 2014 regulate shipowners’ liability. It notes the exception to shipowners’ liability for wages following sickness or injury sustained by a seafarer, set out under section 50(11)(b) of the Regulations, where the injury was sustained while the seafarer “was not at work”. The Committee recalls that, under Standard A4.2, paragraph 5(a), national laws or regulations may exclude the shipowner from liability in respect of an injury incurred other than in the service of the ship. It notes that the exception in the Regulations “was not at work” appears to be narrower than “in service of the ship”, such as during the offloading of equipment. The Committee requests the Government to explain how it ensures that this exception is limited to circumstances in which seafarers were not in the service of the ship.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5. Social security. The Committee notes that, upon ratification of the Convention, the United Kingdom declared that the branches for which it provides protection in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 10 of Standard A4.5 are: medical care; sickness benefit; unemployment benefit; old-age benefit; employment injury benefit; family benefit; invalidity benefit and survivors’ benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the United Kingdom has reciprocal social security agreements, which include provisions on seafarers, with certain countries outside of the European Union and the European Economic Area. The Committee notes, however, that the Government’s information does not appear to address social security protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom who may be working on ships flying the flag of another country that is not a member of those agreements. It recalls that, although the primary obligation rests with the Member in which the seafarer is ordinarily resident, under paragraph 6 of Standard A4.5, Members also have an obligation to give consideration to the various ways in which comparable benefits will, in accordance with national law and practice, be provided to seafarers in the absence of adequate social security coverage. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the social security protections provided to seafarers ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom that are not covered by its reciprocal social security agreements; (ii) whether consideration has been given to providing comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag; and (iii) how it ensures, to the extent consistent with national law and practice, the maintenance of social security rights, provided through contributory or non-contributory schemes, which has been acquired, or are in the course of acquisition, by all seafarers regardless of residence, as set out under Standard A4.5, paragraph 8.

Regulation 5.2.1 and the Code. Inspections in port. The Committee notes the statistical information contained in the Government’s report, according to which, during the reporting period, 1,152 foreign ships were inspected in port, 598 more detailed inspections were carried out, and 205 cases of significant deficiencies were detected. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, Nautilus International expresses concern with respect to the current shortage of Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine Surveyors. Nautilus International indicates that, presently, there are approximately 30 posts which remain vacant, and that the MCA is under increasing pressure to meet its statutory responsibilities. The Committee requests the Government to provide any comments it may wish to make in this respect.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Marine Guidance Note MGN 487(M) of July 2013, entitled Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 – On-Shore Complaints, which essentially replicates the language of Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. The Committee notes, however, that by its terms, MGN 487(M) “provides guidance to owners, operators and seafarers” and, consequently, does not appear to be mandatory. The Committee further notes that this language differs from the Government’s legislation concerning its on-board complaints procedure, which is contained in the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1785) and is mandatory. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that the requirements under Regulation 5.2.2 concerning the shore complaints procedure, like the requirements concerning the on-board complaints procedure, must be mandatory. The Committee requests the Government to explain how it implements this provision of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2017.]