Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Singapore (Ratification: 2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

General questions on application. Implementing measures. Principal documents. The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and that all maritime labour Conventions previously ratified by Singapore were denounced on entry into force of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the following documents which are requested under sections I and II of Part I of the report form: (i) collective agreements currently in force, which deal with matters provided for in the MLC, 2006, and (ii) examples of Part II of the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC) which has been prepared by a shipowner and accepted by the Government.

General questions on application. Scope of application. Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2, 3 and 6. Seafarers and ships. The Committee notes the definition of seafarer in section 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (hereinafter, “MLC Act”) and the information that cases of doubt have arisen as to the categories of persons who are to be considered seafarers, due to the nature of their jobs. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that it has followed the guidance provided in the resolution concerning information on occupational groups (Resolution VII) that was adopted by the 94th Session of International Labour Conference, and after tripartite consultation, the following occupational groups have been determined not to be seafarers: pilot; port worker; a person temporarily employed on a ship during the period it is in port; diver; guest entertainer; marine superintendent; marine surveyor; privately contracted security personnel; repair technician; researcher; scientist; ship inspector; and specialist offshore technician. The Committee notes that the first three are listed in section 2 of the MLC Act and the remainder are provided for in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Definition of Seafarer) Order 2014. The Committee notes that paragraph 2 of the Order also provides that the following categories of persons are not regarded as seafarers:

• …
• 2. A person who is employed or engaged or who works in any capacity on board a ship and who fulfils the following criteria set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) together with any one of the following criteria set out in subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e):

(a) his duration of stay on board that ship does not exceed 45 consecutive days;

(b) his working duration on board that ship in the aggregate does not exceed 4 months in any 12-month period;

(c) the nature of his work does not form part of the routine business of the ship;

(d) the work he performs is ad-hoc, with his principal place of employment onshore; and

(e) the labour and social conditions given to him by his principal employers are comparable to that provided for under the Act.

The Committee notes that the possible effect of paragraph 2, as worded, is that a person could be working on board a ship for periods of up to 45 consecutive days and up to an aggregate of 4 months per year on one ship, followed by similar periods working on board other ships. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that tripartite consultation led to agreement on a set of guidelines to be applied by the Maritime and Port Authority. It is not clear whether those guidelines include this provision. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, with respect to the categories of persons referred to under paragraph 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Definition of Seafarer) Order 2014, and to provide additional information concerning consultations with respect to the application of paragraphs 1(f), 2 and 3 of Article II of the MLC, 2006.

The Committee notes that under section 4(1)–(3) of the MLC Act, the Maritime and Port Authority may determine that it is not reasonable or practicable to apply any provision of the Act or regulations made under the Act to a Singapore ship of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages and in making such an exemption, the Authority may also impose conditions on the ship or particular categories of ships including those set out in any other laws or in a term of a seafarer’s employment agreement or of a collective agreement or in other measures in lieu of any provision of the Act. The Committee recalls that paragraph 6 of Article II of the MLC, 2006, provides flexibility with respect to the application of “certain details of the Code” to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that do not voyage internationally. This flexibility can only be exercised by the competent authority in consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned in cases where it determines that it would not be reasonable or practicable to apply the details of the Code provisions concerned at the present time. In addition, the subject matter of the relevant Code provisions must be covered (albeit differently) by national legislation or collective agreements or other measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding the consultation process when making these determinations and to clarify whether exemptions relate only to provisions implementing details in the Code of the MLC, 2006 and not the Regulations. The Committee also notes that section 53(12) of the MLC Act provides that, upon the application of the shipowner or master, the Director of Marine may, if satisfied that due to any unforeseen circumstances, it is not reasonably practicable for the shipowner or master to comply with a requirement of the Act or other relevant written law, and that the working and living conditions of the seafarers on board will not be adversely affected, grant a dispensation of that requirement until the next port of call or for a specified period, provided that such period of dispensation shall not exceed one month. Finally, the Committee notes that section 80 of the MLC Act provides that the Director may, on the application of any person, exempt that person from complying with any requirement of the Act or its regulations, provided that the exemption granted: (i) shall not be inconsistent with Singapore’s obligations under the MLC, 2006; (ii) may be granted subject to such terms or conditions as the Director considers appropriate; (iii) shall have effect for such period as the Director considers appropriate; and (iv) shall be in writing and sent by the Director to the person to whom the exemption is granted, with the possibility of extending the period of exemption. While the maximum period of exemption is one month under section 53(12) of the MLC Act, the provisions of both sections appear to provide for exemption of a general nature. Bearing in mind that under the MLC, 2006, exemptions are possible to a limited extent and only where they are expressly permitted by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to explain what circumstances are contemplated under sections 53(12) and 80 of the MLC Act, including the circumstances in which an exemption under section 80 would be considered not to be inconsistent with Singapore’s obligations under the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that no collective agreements have been authorized or registered to allow for exceptions to the minimum hours of rest. It also notes that section 16(9) of the MLC Act provides that the Director may make exceptions with conditions. It further notes that DMLC Part I submitted by the Government in connection with the hours of rest, at points 2and 3 on pages 8 and 9, states that: “Provisions in a collective agreement or any other agreement between a seafarer and shipowner may set out exceptions” from the required hours of rest. Two possible exceptions are set out and any exception is required to take account of more frequent or longer compensatory leave periods. The Committee recalls that paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3 provides for possible exceptions where permitted in a collective agreement; however it does not envisage exceptions being made in agreements between a shipowner and a seafarer. The Committee requests that the Government provide information clarifying possible exceptions to the minimum hours of rest.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee recalls that Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2 of the MLC, 2006, requires that seafarers be granted shore leave to benefit their health and well-being and consistent with the operational requirements of their positions. Section 22, paragraph 4(c) of the MLC Act, provides that temporary shore leave by agreement between the shipowner and the seafarer under the seafarer’s employment agreement is not counted as part of seafarer’s annual leave. The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to whether seafarers on ships flying Singapore’s flag are given shore leave in accordance with Standard A2.4, paragraph 2 of the MLC, 2006 even when such leave is not provided for in the seafarer’s employment agreement.

Regulation 2.7 and the Code. Manning levels. The Committee notes that Part III of the Merchant Shipping Act, regarding manning and certification, and the Merchant Shipping (Training, Certification and Manning) Regulations appear, from the content of the provisions concerned, to provide for manning mainly from the point of view of securing at least the minimum number of qualified personnel for safe navigation. In this connection, the Committee recalls Standard A2.7, paragraph 3 of the MLC, 2006, which provides that, when determining manning levels, the competent authority shall take into account all of the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 concerning food and catering. The Committee notes in that respect that section 25 of the MLC Act requires a ship’s cook to be on board ships that ordinarily operate with ten or more seafarers on board and that the Director may approve requirements that she or he considers to be “substantially equivalent” as well as grant exemptions. The Committee notes the requirements under Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4, regarding substantial equivalence and requests the Government to provide information on how the requirements in Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 on food and catering are taken into account in determining manning levels.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes that section 3(4) of the Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations (hereinafter, “Crew Accommodation Regulations”) authorizes the Director to exempt any ship from any provision of the Crew Accommodation Regulations either unconditionally or subject to conditions (such as where compliance with the provision concerned is either impracticable or unreasonable and the health and safety of crew members on the ship will be protected). However, as stated in paragraph 21 of Standard A3.1, exemptions in the application of Standard A3.1 of the MLC, 2006, are limited to those that are expressly permitted in that Standard. Given that this provision confers wide-ranging authority on the Director, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it is ensured that any exemptions in accordance with section 3(4) of the Crew Accommodation Regulations may be made within the limitation provided for under Standard A3.1 of the MLC, 2006.

The Committee also notes that section 10(7A) of the Crew Accommodation Regulations provides for 2.04 metres of headroom in sleeping rooms on “new MLC ships”. The terms “new MLC ships” are defined in section 2 of the Regulation to mean “a ship to which the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (Act 6 of 2014) applies and of which the keel is laid, or which is at a similar stage of construction, on or after 20th August 2013”. The Committee notes that this is above the minimum of 203 centimetres required under paragraph 6(a) of Standard A3.1; however, the latter requirement applies to all seafarer accommodation where full and free movement is necessary. The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to the headroom requirements in areas of accommodation where full and free movement is necessary, other than sleeping room accommodation.

The Committee also notes that the following provisions of section 10 of the Crew Accommodation Regulations do not appear to apply the minimum requirements for sleeping rooms as provided under paragraph 9 of Standard A3.1 of the MLC, 2006. Section 10(5E) of the Crew Accommodation Regulations allows a sleeping room intended for ratings on a passenger ship to be occupied by more than four persons, provided that the floor area of that room is not less than 3.6 square metres per person. However, Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(j) of the MLC, 2006 allows occupancy by more than four persons only on special purpose ships. Section 10(10) of the Crew Accommodation Regulations provides that “With a view to ensuring adequate and more comfortable accommodations, the Director may grant permission to accommodate up to 10 ratings per sleeping room in the case of certain passenger ships”. The Committee recalls that paragraph 9(i) of Standard A3.1 provides that the maximum number of seafarers per sleeping room on a passenger ship is four. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information clarifying the implementation of the requirements with respect to the maximum number of seafarers sharing sleeping rooms on passenger ships.

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee notes that the provisions of section 40 of the MLC Act are of a general nature, and that the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Health and Safety Protection and Accident Prevention) Regulations 2014 (hereinafter “OSH Regulations”) provides for additional details on the occupational health and safety measures which the shipowner must develop and implement. The Committee notes that these Regulations do not appear to give due consideration to Guideline B4.3, but refer in section 44 to codes of practice with respect to practical guidance on the implementation of these requirements. In that respect, it notes that the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on maritime occupational safety and health, held in October 2014, adopted guidelines for the implementation of the occupational safety and health requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee also notes that section 43 of the OSH Regulations provides for the establishment of a safety committee, for ships ordinarily operating with five or more seafarers, comprising the master and any person designated by the master and seafarers’ representatives. It recalls in this connection that Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d), refers to the seafarers who are appointed or elected as safety representatives to participate in meetings of the ship’s safety committee. It is not clear how the seafarers on the committee are selected. The Committee requests the Government to provide information with respect to any national guidelines or laws or regulations or other measures such as codes of practice to assist in the implementation of the requirements on board ship, including the way in which seafarers are selected for the ship’s safety committee and, to transmit a copy once it is adopted. The Government is also requested to provide any example of a document outlining a shipowner’s practices or on-board programmes for preventing occupational accidents, injuries and diseases.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of any reports on activities of seafarers’ shore-based welfare facilities and services, including that of the Welfare Committee for Seamen.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee recalls that the obligation under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Standard A4.5 is for each Member to take steps according to its national circumstances to provide a least three branches of social security to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. It notes that on ratification, in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 10 of Standard A4.5, the Government specified the following branches of social security as being provided to seafarers ordinarily resident in Singapore: medical care, employment injury benefit and invalidity benefit. This obligation may be implemented in a number of ways, as set out in paragraphs 3 and 7 of Standard A4.5, and the attribution of responsibility may also be the subject of bilateral and multilateral agreements adopted within the framework of a regional economic integration organization, as provided under Standard A4.5, paragraph 4. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that social security benefits are based on employer contributions. The Committee requests that the Government provide information on whether seafarers ordinarily resident in Singapore working on ships flying the flag of another country are provided with social security protection as required under Regulation 4.5 and the Code.

Regulation 5.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Interval of inspections. The Committee notes that section 57(a) and 58 of the MLC Act subjects all Singapore ships ordinarily engaged in commercial activities to an inspection. The Act, however, does not specify the interval or scope of the inspection for flag State inspections of ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate or DMLC. The Committee requests the Government to provide information with respect to flag State inspection of Singapore flagged ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate or DMLC. The Government is also requested to provide a copy of a report or other document on inspections on Singapore flagged ships, which contains information on: (i) the objectives and certification system, including the procedures for its assessment, and (ii) annual reports on inspection activities. The Committee also notes that the MLC Act and its regulations, and the Merchant Shipping Act and its regulations do not appear to establish any procedures to receive and handle complaints to Singapore as a flag State, apart from general provisions under section 55(6) relating to on-board procedures and sections 58(4)(e) and (7) of the MLC Act, which refers to Singapore flagged ships as well as port State control with respect to foreign flag ships. The Committee requests that the Government provide information as to the procedures it has established with respect to receiving and investigating complaints regarding ships that fly its flag, and in particular as to the procedures for ensuring confidentiality. The Committee further notes that section 55(2)(c) of the MLC Act requires that on-board complaint procedures include adequate safeguards to ensure that the rights of the seafarers are not prejudiced by the making of complaints. Paragraph 5 of the model format for on-board complaint procedures contained in Shipping Circular No. 6 of 2013 requires the shipowner to put in place measures to safeguard against possible victimization for filing a complaint. However, these requirements are general in nature and additional guidance would be desirable for practical implementation of the measures indicated in the Act and the Circular. In addition, the MLC Act does not prohibit and penalize acts of victimization, as required under Regulation 5.1.5, paragraph 2. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information concerning any additional guidance it may have adopted concerning specific measures for safeguarding against victimization.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Inspections of foreign ships in port. The Committee notes that Part X of the MLC Act addresses and merges inspections of both Singapore flagged ships and ships operating under the flag of another country. Section 58(4) enumerates conditions in which a detailed inspection may be conducted. It also notes that section 58(8)(g) of the Act confers on inspectors the power to require rectification of deficiencies, but that section does not appear to provide that inspectors must in some cases bring the deficiencies to the attention of the appropriate seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations, as provided under Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 4. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information with respect to its policies and practices for port State control inspection of ships operating under the flag of another country.