Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22) - French Southern and Antarctic Territories

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

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its reports that, since the implementation of Act No. 2005-412 of 3 May 2005, commercial vessels are registered in the French International Register (RIF) and that therefore only a few fishing boats are still registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF). It also notes that the TAAF have no permanent population. Thus, the maritime Conventions which are applicable in the TAAF and which do not cover fishing vessels are rendered moot for these territories. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any development to this situation. With regard to the Conventions which apply to fishing vessels, and in order to provide an overview on the issues relating to their application, the Committee considers it helpful to examine them in a single comment as follows.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134). Article 2. Statistics and investigations into maritime occupational accidents. The Committee recalls that it previously asked the Government to provide copies of reports of investigations established following maritime occupational accidents, as well as statistics on the number, nature, causes and consequences of occupational accidents on board fishing boats registered in the TAAF. While noting the Government’s reference to the activities of the French Marine Accident Investigation Office (BEAmer), the Committee observes that the BEAmer website indicates that, although it intervenes on the same basis in the overseas departments as in the mainland, the situation is different for the overseas territories, including the TAAF, for which the powers devolved to them are taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the BEAmer can intervene in the TAAF and, in all cases, take the necessary measures to ensure that occupational accidents are investigated and properly documented and that detailed statistics on these accidents are established and analysed. It requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee recalls that section 26 of Act No. 96-151 of 26 February 1996 concerning transport permitted the registration, within the jurisdiction of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), of commercial vessels, fishing boats and pleasure craft. However, under section 34 of Act No. 2005-412 of 3 May 2005 concerning the establishment of the French International Register, section 26 of the abovementioned Act of 1996 became inapplicable to commercial vessels as from two years following the publication of the aforementioned Act of 2005 and, on expiry of this period, vessels still registered in the TAAF were to be registered in the French International Register. Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the fleet registered in the TAAF now consists solely of a few fishing vessels, to which the Convention is not applicable pursuant to Article 1(2)(f) thereof. In the light of the above, the Committee observes that the Convention is currently without object in the territory of the TAAF and requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any legislative changes made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee recalls that section 26 of Act No. 96-151 of 26 February 1996 concerning transport permitted the registration, within the jurisdiction of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), of commercial vessels, fishing boats and pleasure craft. However, under section 34 of Act No. 2005-412 of 3 May 2005 concerning the establishment of the French International Register, section 26 of the abovementioned Act of 1996 became inapplicable to commercial vessels as from two years following the publication of the aforementioned Act of 2005 and, on expiry of this period, vessels still registered in the TAAF were to be registered in the French International Register. Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the fleet registered in the TAAF now consists solely of a few fishing vessels, to which the Convention is not applicable pursuant to Article 1(2)(f) thereof. In the light of the above, the Committee observes that the Convention is currently without object in the territory of the TAAF and requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any legislative changes made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with interest the replies to its previous comments provided by the Government in its report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee, referring to its previous observation, notes again that the Government’s report does not reply to the points raised. The Government states that the employment system for seamen and social relations on board vessels registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories are in fact, for the main part, governed by the provisions of the Labour Code and the Maritime Labour Code which are referred to by shipowners and seamen in the context of their contractual relations. The Committee notes, however, that the Government’s report indicates that these employment contracts are not regulated by law but "in fact for the main part", by the provisions of these Codes and does not specify the nature of these employment contracts, namely whether they are seamen’s articles of agreement or ordinary employment contracts. It is therefore bound to renew in part its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that, under the Labour Code, seamen’s articles of agreement are governed by special provisions contained in the Maritime Labour Code - CTM (Act of 13 December 1926). Under the general provisions of this Code, and in view of the specific nature of maritime work, any contract concluded between a shipowner or his representative and a seafarer, whose object is the performance of a service on board ship for the purpose of a voyage, is a maritime labour contract governed by the provisions of this Act.

The Committee also notes that section 4 of the CTM provides that maritime labour contracts are governed by two sets of provisions: by the CTM for the periods in which the seafarer is on board, and by the Labour Code outside these periods.

However, the Committee recalls that the contracts of seafarers employed on ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF) are subject to the provisions of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM), section 30 of which states that the applicable legislation is that of the place at which the contract is executed (lex loci solutionis). The Committee points out that the CTOM contains no maritime provisions and so does not make the distinction between the two sets of provisions applying to seafarers’ contracts under section 4 of the CTM. It notes, however, that the CTOM takes precedence (section 30), and that its geographical scope extends to the antarctic territories and in part to the island of Mayotte.

With regard to the legal status of contracts of seafarers on board ships registered in the TAAF, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, as indicated in the text of the Provisional instructions concerning observance of the application to foreign seafarers of the conditions of employment in force on board vessels registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, these contracts are indeed maritime labour contracts, or ordinary labour contracts, and to indicate in which sectors, other than the maritime sector, economic activities are conducted in the TAAF.

The Committee also notes that the magistrate’s court of Saint-Denis, Réunion, has jurisdiction for individual labour disputes between shipowners and seafarers, for interpreting contracts, or annulling clauses of such contracts.

With regard to the interpretation of contracts and the applicable law (French or foreign), the Committee notes the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of all Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) established by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It notes, inter alia, that section J (applicable law) states that the laws of the Philippines and international treaties ratified by the Philippines apply to all employment contracts of Filipino seamen. The Philippines has not ratified the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). According to section I (Jurisdiction) of the above Standard Employment Contract, the POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the contract.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that no individual or collective disputes concerning the application of this Convention have been registered. It requests the Government to state (i) the law which applies to the contract(s) of seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF in the case of both contracts of French seafarers (or assimilated) and contracts of non-resident foreign seafarers hired under a service contract concluded with the shipowner and a company governed by foreign law, responsible for crew recruitment, and (ii) the venue for litigation from French and foreign seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF.

The Committee recalls that, as regards the applicable labour law, when registration is transferred to the TAAF the contracts concluded by seafarers to work on ships previously registered in a port of metropolitan France, an overseas department or an overseas territory (other than the TAAF), are no longer governed by the CTM, but by the CTOM.

In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the ILO Constitution, to which representative organizations of shipowners and seamen copies of the latest report have been communicated and whether any observations have been received from these organizations in regard to the practical application of the provisions of the Convention or the application of legislative or other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not reply to the points raised. It is therefore obliged to repeat its previous observation concerning the following points: The Committee recalls that, under the Labour Code, seamen's articles of agreement are governed by special provisions contained in the Maritime Labour Code -- CTM (Act of 13 December 1926). Under the general provisions of this Code, and in view of the specific nature of maritime work, any contract concluded between a shipowner or his representative and a seafarer, whose object is the performance of a service on board ship for the purpose of a voyage, is a maritime labour contract governed by the provisions of this Act. The Committee also notes that section 4 of the CTM provides that maritime labour contracts are governed by two sets of provisions: by the CTM for the periods in which the seafarer is on board, and by the Labour Code outside these periods. However, the Committee recalls that the contracts of seafarers employed on ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF) are subject to the provisions of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM), section 30 of which states that the applicable legislation is that of the place at which the contract is executed (lex loci solutionis). The Committee points out that the CTOM contains no maritime provisions and so does not make the distinction between the two sets of provisions applying to seafarers' contracts under section 4 of the CTM. It notes, however, that the CTOM takes precedence (section 30), and that its geographical scope extends to the antarctic territories and in part to the island of Mayotte. With regard to the legal status of contracts of seafarers on board ships registered in the TAAF, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, as indicated in the text of the Provisional instructions concerning observance of the application to foreign seafarers of the conditions of employment in force on board vessels registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, these contracts are indeed maritime labour contracts, or ordinary labour contracts, and to indicate in which sectors, other than the maritime sector, economic activities are conducted in the TAAF. The Committee also notes that the magistrate's court of Saint-Denis, Réunion, has jurisdiction for individual labour disputes between shipowners and seafarers, for interpreting contracts, or annulling clauses of such contracts. With regard to the interpretation of contracts and the applicable law (French or foreign), the Committee notes the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of all Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) established by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It notes, inter alia, that section J (applicable law) states that the laws of the Philippines and international treaties ratified by the Philippines apply to all employment contracts of Filipino seamen. The Philippines has not ratified the Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). According to section I (Jurisdiction) of the above Standard Employment Contract, the POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the contract. The Committee notes from the Government's report that no individual or collective disputes concerning the application of this Convention have been registered. It requests the Government to state (i) the law which applies to the contract(s) of seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF in the case of both contracts of French seafarers (or assimilated) and contracts of non-resident foreign seafarers hired under a service contract concluded with the shipowner and a company governed by foreign law, responsible for crew recruitment, and (ii) the venue for litigation from French and foreign seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF. The Committee recalls that, as regards the applicable labour law, when registration is transferred to the TAAF the contracts concluded by seafarers to work on ships previously registered in a port of metropolitan France, an overseas department or an overseas territory (other than the TAAF), are no longer governed by the CTM, but by the CTOM. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to provide answers to these points. Furthermore, in its comments, the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) recalls its opposition to registration of commercial vessels in the TAAF, and wonders why the Overseas Labour Code should be applicable for merchant vessels which only call at ports in metropolitan France. The Committee requests the Government to reply to these points.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not reply to the points raised. It is therefore obliged to repeat its previous observation concerning the following points:

The Committee recalls that, under the Labour Code, seamen's articles of agreement are governed by special provisions contained in the Maritime Labour Code -- CTM (Act of 13 December 1926). Under the general provisions of this Code, and in view of the specific nature of maritime work, any contract concluded between a shipowner or his representative and a seafarer, whose object is the performance of a service on board ship for the purpose of a voyage, is a maritime labour contract governed by the provisions of this Act. The Committee also notes that section 4 of the CTM provides that maritime labour contracts are governed by two sets of provisions: by the CTM for the periods in which the seafarer is on board, and by the Labour Code outside these periods. However, the Committee recalls that the contracts of seafarers employed on ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF) are subject to the provisions of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM), section 30 of which states that the applicable legislation is that of the place at which the contract is executed (lex loci solutionis). The Committee points out that the CTOM contains no maritime provisions and so does not make the distinction between the two sets of provisions applying to seafarers' contracts under section 4 of the CTM. It notes, however, that the CTOM takes precedence (section 30), and that its geographical scope extends to the antarctic territories and in part to the island of Mayotte. With regard to the legal status of contracts of seafarers on board ships registered in the TAAF, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, as indicated in the text of the Provisional instructions concerning observance of the application to foreign seafarers of the conditions of employment in force on board vessels registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, these contracts are indeed maritime labour contracts, or ordinary labour contracts, and to indicate in which sectors, other than the maritime sector, economic activities are conducted in the TAAF. The Committee also notes that the magistrate's court of Saint-Denis, Réunion, has jurisdiction for individual labour disputes between shipowners and seafarers, for interpreting contracts, or annulling clauses of such contracts. With regard to the interpretation of contracts and the applicable law (French or foreign), the Committee notes the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of all Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) established by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It notes, inter alia, that section J (applicable law) states that the laws of the Philippines and international treaties ratified by the Philippines apply to all employment contracts of Filipino seamen. The Philippines has not ratified the Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). According to section I (Jurisdiction) of the above Standard Employment Contract, the POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the contract. The Committee notes from the Government's report that no individual or collective disputes concerning the application of this Convention have been registered. It requests the Government to state (i) the law which applies to the contract(s) of seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF in the case of both contracts of French seafarers (or assimilated) and contracts of non-resident foreign seafarers hired under a service contract concluded with the shipowner and a company governed by foreign law, responsible for crew recruitment, and (ii) the venue for litigation from French and foreign seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF. The Committee recalls that, as regards the applicable labour law, when registration is transferred to the TAAF the contracts concluded by seafarers to work on ships previously registered in a port of metropolitan France, an overseas department or an overseas territory (other than the TAAF), are no longer governed by the CTM, but by the CTOM.

The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to provide answers to these points.

Furthermore, in its comments, the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) recalls its opposition to registration of commercial vessels in the TAAF, and wonders why the Overseas Labour Code should be applicable for merchant vessels which only call at ports in metropolitan France.

The Committee requests the Government to reply to these points.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee recalls that, under the Labour Code, seamen's articles of agreement are governed by special provisions contained in the Maritime Labour Code - CTM (Act of 13 December 1926). Under the general provisions of this Code, and in view of the specific nature of maritime work, any contract concluded between a shipowner or his representative and a seafarer, whose object is the performance of a service on board ship for the purpose of a voyage, is a maritime labour contract governed by the provisions of this Act.

The Committee also notes that section 4 of the CTM provides that maritime labour contracts are governed by two sets of provisions: by the CTM for the periods in which the seafarer is on board, and by the Labour Code outside these periods.

However, the Committee recalls that the contracts of seafarers employed on ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF) are subject to the provisions of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM), section 30 of which states that the applicable legislation is that of the place at which the contract is executed (lex loci solutionis). The Committee points out that the CTOM contains no maritime provisions and so does not make the distinction between the two sets of provisions applying to seafarers' contracts under section 4 of the CTM. It notes, however, that the CTOM takes precedence (section 30), and that its geographical scope extends to the antarctic territories and in part to the island of Mayotte.

With regard to the legal status of contracts of seafarers on board ships registered in the TAAF, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, as indicated in the text of the Provisional instructions concerning observance of the application to foreign seafarers of the conditions of employment in force on board vessels registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, these contracts are indeed maritime labour contracts, or ordinary labour contracts, and to indicate in which sectors, other than the maritime sector, economic activities are conducted in the TAAF.

The Committee also notes that the magistrate's court of Saint-Denis, Réunion, has jurisdiction for individual labour disputes between shipowners and seafarers, for interpreting contracts, or annulling clauses of such contracts.

With regard to the interpretation of contracts and the applicable law (French or other), the Committee notes the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of all Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels) established by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It notes, inter alia, that section J (applicable law) states that the laws of the Philippines and international treaties ratified by the Philippines apply to all employment contracts of Filipino seamen. The Philippines has not ratified the Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). According to section I (Jurisdiction) of the above Standard Employment Contract, the POEA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the contract.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that no individual or collective disputes concerning the application of this Convention have been registered. It requests the Government to state (i) the law which applies to the contract(s) of seafarers employed on vessels registered in the TAAF in the case of both contracts of French seafarers (or assimilated) and contracts of non-resident foreign seafarers, hired under a contract for the performance of services concluded by the shipowner and a company governed by foreign law, responsible for recruiting the crew, and (ii) the maritime authority authorized to hear complaints from French and foreign seafarers employed on such vessels.

The Committee refers to its general observation and recalls that, when a registration is transferred to the TAAF, as regards applicable labour law the contracts concluded by seafarers to work on ships previously registered in a port of metropolitan France, an overseas department or an overseas territory (other than the TAAF), are no longer governed by the CTM, but by the CTOM.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee refers to its General Observation for the Territories.

The Committee notes the observation made by the General Confederation of Labour "Force Ouvrière" (CGT-FO) and transmitted by the Government, which refers to a decision of the Social Division of the Cour de cassation of 12 January 1993. The CGT-FO relies on its understanding of this decision to state that with respect to vessels registered in the Territories, the Maritime Labour Code applies instead of the Overseas Labour Code.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide any information it considers useful in this regard.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous direct request which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report and particularly the fact that the Maritime Labour Code does not apply to the territory. The Committee recalls the opinion expressed in Circular No. 46-CT/T30 of 24 January 1955 that comprehensive regulations for seafarers would be the best means of resolving all the problems of seafarers' employment, and that such regulations should be based on the relevant international Conventions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

2. With regard to the provisions referred to in the report, the Committee raises the following points:

Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes the provisions of section 32 of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM). It notes, however, that section 34 of the Code provides that the types of agreement and the procedures for establishing them are to laid down in Orders. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any Orders issued under this provision.

Article 3, paragraph 6. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, apart from those laid down in section 32 of the CTOM, there are any formalities and guarantees concerning the conclusion of agreements in the national legislation.

Article 4. The Committee notes the provision of section 32 of the CTOM which provides that the competent authority is to approve agreements after it has ascertained that they are consistent with labour legislation. It asks the Government to provide details of the practical application of this provision, indicating in particular whether it is possible to guarantee by this procedure that the agreement does not contain any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement.

Article 5. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate under what provisions a document is, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, given to French or foreign seafarers, the particulars recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered. It also asks the Government to confirm that the document does not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer's work or as to his wages. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a sample of the document given to foreign seafarers.

Article 6, paragraph 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would state whether agreements are ever made for a voyage in respect of seafarers employed on ships registered in the territory.

Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee notes the provision of section 38 of the CTOM under which, in the absence of collective agreements, the conditions and period of notice required for the rescission of agreements for an indefinite period have to be laid down by Order. It asks the Government to indicate the conditions and period of notice established (paragraph 10(c)). Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the provision under which the various rights and obligations and other particulars specified by this Article must be stated in the agreement.

Article 7. The Committee notes the Circular of 29 August 1990 respecting the registration and commissioning of ships in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, which determines the vessels that must carry a list of crew. However, it notes that section 34 of the CTOM referred to by the Government does not require that the agreement be recorded in or annexed to the list of crew. It asks the Government to state which legal text reproduces this requirement of the Convention.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not lay down the measures whereby the seafarer's rights and obligations are made clear to him, as required by this provision of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide copies of any relevant legal texts.

Article 9, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM allows agreements for an indefinite period to be terminated by either party subject to notice. It asks the Government to state whether agreements may be terminated in ports where the vessel loads or unloads, the period of notice required, and whether the period of notice is established by the parties or the competent authority.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM provides that at the request of the worker concerned, his dismissal must be confirmed in writing within eight days, which would appear to indicate that notice is not given in writing in all cases, as required by the Convention. It asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the national legislation is in conformity with this provision of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the national legislation determines the manner of giving notice and, if so, to state its content.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please provide full information on the nature of the exceptional circumstances determined by national law pursuant to this provision.

Article 10. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this provision and, in so far as use has been made of paragraph (d), please give full information on the clauses in question and provide the relevant legal texts.

Articles 11 and 12. The Committee notes that section 41 of the CTOM provides that agreements for a definite period may be terminated prematurely at the request of one of the parties only in the cases provided for in the agreement or in the event of serious misconduct which shall be determined by the competent jurisdiction. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these Articles with regard to agreements for an indefinite period and to state whether the national legislation lays down circumstances other than serious misconduct in which seafarers may be dismissed or immediately discharged.

Article 13. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM do not ensure that an entry is made in the document issued to the seafarer in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, showing that he has been discharged following the rescission or termination of the agreement. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that effect is given to this provision of the Convention and to provide particulars.

Article 14, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM, referred to by the Government in connection with this Article, do not apply this provision of the Convention. However, section 51 of the CTOM provides that on the rescission of the agreement, workers may require of the employer, subject to the payment of damages, a certificate specifying only the dates on which he joined and left, and the nature and dates of the successive jobs held. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures, including amendment of the national legislation, to ensure that all seafarers, whether French or foreign, are entitled in all cases to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of their work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether they have fully discharged their obligations under the agreement.

Article 15. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the organization of a labour inspection service and the preparation of social legislation for the territory provided for in section 145 of the CTOM are being examined but, owing to practical difficulties, have not yet been realized. Consequently, the only competent authority is the Chief Administrator of the Territory, who is assisted by the maritime authorities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any developments in the establishment of the above-mentioned labour inspection services, and provide information on the methods used to ensure supervision of the application of the relevant national legislation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its General Observation for the Territories.

The Committee notes the observation made by the General Confederation of Labour "Force Ouvrière" (CGT-FO) and transmitted by the Government, which refers to a decision of the Social Division of the Cour de cassation of 12 January 1993. The CGT-FO relies on its understanding of this decision to state that with respect to vessels registered in the Territories, the Maritime Labour Code applies instead of the Overseas Labour Code.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide any information it considers useful in this regard.

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report and particularly the fact that the Maritime Labour Code does not apply to the territory. The Committee recalls the opinion expressed in Circular No. 46-CT/T30 of 24 January 1955 that comprehensive regulations for seafarers would be the best means of resolving all the problems of seafarers' employment, and that such regulations should be based on the relevant international Conventions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

2. With regard to the provisions referred to in the report, the Committee raises the following points:

Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes the provisions of section 32 of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM). It notes, however, that section 34 of the Code provides that the types of agreement and the procedures for establishing them are to laid down in Orders. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any Orders issued under this provision.

Article 3, paragraph 6. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, apart from those laid down in section 32 of the CTOM, there are any formalities and guarantees concerning the conclusion of agreements in the national legislation.

Article 4. The Committee notes the provision of section 32 of the CTOM which provides that the competent authority is to approve agreements after it has ascertained that they are consistent with labour legislation. It asks the Government to provide details of the practical application of this provision, indicating in particular whether it is possible to guarantee by this procedure that the agreement does not contain any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement.

Article 5. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate under what provisions a document is, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, given to French or foreign seafarers, the particulars recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered. It also asks the Government to confirm that the document does not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer's work or as to his wages. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a sample of the document given to foreign seafarers.

Article 6, paragraph 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would state whether agreements are ever made for a voyage in respect of seafarers employed on ships registered in the territory.

Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee notes the provision of section 38 of the CTOM under which, in the absence of collective agreements, the conditions and period of notice required for the rescission of agreements for an indefinite period have to be laid down by Order. It asks the Government to indicate the conditions and period of notice established (paragraph 10(c)). Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the provision under which the various rights and obligations and other particulars specified by this Article must be stated in the agreement.

Article 7. The Committee notes the Circular of 29 August 1990 respecting the registration and commissioning of ships in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, which determines the vessels that must carry a list of crew. However, it notes that section 34 of the CTOM referred to by the Government does not require that the agreement be recorded in or annexed to the list of crew. It asks the Government to state which legal text reproduces this requirement of the Convention.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not lay down the measures whereby the seafarer's rights and obligations are made clear to him, as required by this provision of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide copies of any relevant legal texts.

Article 9, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM allows agreements for an indefinite period to be terminated by either party subject to notice. It asks the Government to state whether agreements may be terminated in ports where the vessel loads or unloads, the period of notice required, and whether the period of notice is established by the parties or the competent authority.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM provides that at the request of the worker concerned, his dismissal must be confirmed in writing within eight days, which would appear to indicate that notice is not given in writing in all cases, as required by the Convention. It asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the national legislation is in conformity with this provision of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the national legislation determines the manner of giving notice and, if so, to state its content.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please provide full information on the nature of the exceptional circumstances determined by national law pursuant to this provision.

Article 10. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this provision and, in so far as use has been made of paragraph (d), please give full information on the clauses in question and provide the relevant legal texts.

Articles 11 and 12. The Committee notes that section 41 of the CTOM provides that agreements for a definite period may be terminated prematurely at the request of one of the parties only in the cases provided for in the agreement or in the event of serious misconduct which shall be determined by the competent jurisdiction. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these Articles with regard to agreements for an indefinite period and to state whether the national legislation lays down circumstances other than serious misconduct in which seafarers may be dismissed or immediately discharged.

Article 13. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM do not ensure that an entry is made in the document issued to the seafarer in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, showing that he has been discharged following the rescission or termination of the agreement. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that effect is given to this provision of the Convention and to provide particulars.

Article 14, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM, referred to by the Government in connection with this Article, do not apply this provision of the Convention. However, section 51 of the CTOM provides that on the rescission of the agreement, workers may require of the employer, subject to the payment of damages, a certificate specifying only the dates on which he joined and left, and the nature and dates of the successive jobs held. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures, including amendment of the national legislation, to ensure that all seafarers, whether French or foreign, are entitled in all cases to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of their work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether they have fully discharged their obligations under the agreement.

Article 15. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the organization of a labour inspection service and the preparation of social legislation for the territory provided for in section 145 of the CTOM are being examined but, owing to practical difficulties, have not yet been realized. Consequently, the only competent authority is the Chief Administrator of the Territory, who is assisted by the maritime authorities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any developments in the establishment of the above-mentioned labour inspection services, and provide information on the methods used to ensure supervision of the application of the relevant national legislation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to its comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report and particularly the fact that the Maritime Labour Code does not apply to the territory. The Committee recalls the opinion expressed in Circular No. 46-CT/T30 of 24 January 1955 that comprehensive regulations for seafarers would be the best means of resolving all the problems of seafarers' employment, and that such regulations should be based on the relevant international Conventions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

2. With regard to the provisions referred to in the report, the Committee raises the following points:

Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes the provisions of section 32 of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM). It notes, however, that section 34 of the Code provides that the types of agreement and the procedures for establishing them are to laid down in Orders. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any Orders issued under this provision.

Article 3, paragraph 6. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, apart from those laid down in section 32 of the CTOM, there are any formalities and guarantees concerning the conclusion of agreements in the national legislation.

Article 4. The Committee notes the provision of section 32 of the CTOM which provides that the competent authority is to approve agreements after it has ascertained that they are consistent with labour legislation. It asks the Government to provide details of the practical application of this provision, indicating in particular whether it is possible to guarantee by this procedure that the agreement does not contain any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement.

Article 5. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate under what provisions a document is, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, given to French or foreign seafarers, the particulars recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered. It also asks the Government to confirm that the document does not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer's work or as to his wages. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a sample of the document given to foreign seafarers.

Article 6, paragraph 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would state whether agreements are ever made for a voyage in respect of seafarers employed on ships registered in the territory.

Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee notes the provision of section 38 of the CTOM under which, in the absence of collective agreements, the conditions and period of notice required for the rescission of agreements for an indefinite period have to be laid down by Order. It asks the Government to indicate the conditions and period of notice established (paragraph 10(c)). Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the provision under which the various rights and obligations and other particulars specified by this Article must be stated in the agreement.

Article 7. The Committee notes the Circular of 29 August 1990 respecting the registration and commissioning of ships in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, which determines the vessels that must carry a list of crew. However, it notes that section 34 of the CTOM referred to by the Government does not require that the agreement be recorded in or annexed to the list of crew. It asks the Government to state which legal text reproduces this requirement of the Convention.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not lay down the measures whereby the seafarer's rights and obligations are made clear to him, as required by this provision of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide copies of any relevant legal texts.

Article 9, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM allows agreements for an indefinite period to be terminated by either party subject to notice. It asks the Government to state whether agreements may be terminated in ports where the vessel loads or unloads, the period of notice required, and whether the period of notice is established by the parties or the competent authority.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM provides that at the request of the worker concerned, his dismissal must be confirmed in writing within eight days, which would appear to indicate that notice is not given in writing in all cases, as required by the Convention. It asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the national legislation is in conformity with this provision of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the national legislation determines the manner of giving notice and, if so, to state its content.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please provide full information on the nature of the exceptional circumstances determined by national law pursuant to this provision.

Article 10. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this provision and, in so far as use has been made of paragraph (d), please give full information on the clauses in question and provide the relevant legal texts.

Articles 11 and 12. The Committee notes that section 41 of the CTOM provides that agreements for a definite period may be terminated prematurely at the request of one of the parties only in the cases provided for in the agreement or in the event of serious misconduct which shall be determined by the competent jurisdiction. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these Articles with regard to agreements for an indefinite period and to state whether the national legislation lays down circumstances other than serious misconduct in which seafarers may be dismissed or immediately discharged.

Article 13. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM do not ensure that an entry is made in the document issued to the seafarer in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, showing that he has been discharged following the rescission or termination of the agreement. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that effect is given to this provision of the Convention and to provide particulars.

Article 14, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM, referred to by the Government in connection with this Article, do not apply this provision of the Convention. However, section 51 of the CTOM provides that on the rescission of the agreement, workers may require of the employer, subject to the payment of damages, a certificate specifying only the dates on which he joined and left, and the nature and dates of the successive jobs held. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures, including amendment of the national legislation, to ensure that all seafarers, whether French or foreign, are entitled in all cases to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of their work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether they have fully discharged their obligations under the agreement.

Article 15. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the organization of a labour inspection service and the preparation of social legislation for the territory provided for in section 145 of the CTOM are being examined but, owing to practical difficulties, have not yet been realized. Consequently, the only competent authority is the Chief Administrator of the Territory, who is assisted by the maritime authorities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any developments in the establishment of the above-mentioned labour inspection services, and provide information on the methods used to ensure supervision of the application of the relevant national legislation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report and particularly the fact that the Maritime Labour Code does not apply to the territory. The Committee recalls the opinion expressed in Circular No. 46-CT/T30 of 24 January 1955 that comprehensive regulations for seafarers would be the best means of resolving all the problems of seafarers' employment, and that such regulations should be based on the relevant international Conventions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

2. With regard to the provisions referred to in the report, the Committee raises the following points:

Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes the provisions of section 32 of the Overseas Labour Code (CTOM). It notes, however, that section 34 of the Code provides that the types of agreement and the procedures for establishing them are to be laid down in Orders. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any Orders issued under this provision.

Article 3, paragraph 6. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, apart from those laid down in section 32 of the CTOM, there are any formalities and guarantees concerning the conclusion of agreements in the national legislation.

Article 4. The Committee notes the provision of section 32 of the CTOM which provides that the competent authority is to approve agreements after it has ascertained that they are consistent with labour legislation. It asks the Government to provide details of the practical application of this provision, indicating in particular whether it is possible to guarantee by this procedure that the agreement does not contain any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement.

Article 5. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate under what provisions a document is, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, given to French or foreign seafarers, the particulars recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered. It also asks the Government to confirm that the document does not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer's work or as to his wages. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a sample of the document given to foreign seafarers.

Article 6, paragraph 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would state whether agreements are ever made for a voyage in respect of seafarers employed on ships registered in the territory.

Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee notes the provision of section 38 of the CTOM under which, in the absence of collective agreements, the conditions and period of notice required for the rescission of agreements for an indefinite period have to be laid down by Order. It asks the Government to indicate the conditions and period of notice established (paragraph 10(c)). Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the provision under which the various rights and obligations and other particulars specified by this Article must be stated in the agreement.

Article 7. The Committee notes the Circular of 29 August 1990 respecting the registration and commissioning of ships in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, which determines the vessels that must carry a list of crew. However, it notes that section 34 of the CTOM referred to by the Government does not require that the agreement be recorded in or annexed to the list of crew. It asks the Government to state which legal text reproduces this requirement of the Convention.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not lay down the measures whereby the seafarer's rights and obligations are made clear to him, as required by this provision of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide copies of any relevant legal texts.

Article 9, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM allows agreements for an indefinite period to be terminated by either party subject to notice. It asks the Government to state whether agreements may be terminated in ports where the vessel loads or unloads, the period of notice required, and whether the period of notice is established by the parties or the competent authority.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 38 of the CTOM provides that at the request of the worker concerned, his dismissal must be confirmed in writing within eight days, which would appear to indicate that notice is not given in writing in all cases, as required by the Convention. It asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the national legislation is in conformity with this provision of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the national legislation determines the manner of giving notice and, if so, to state its content.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please provide full information on the nature of the exceptional circumstances determined by national law pursuant to this provision.

Article 10. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this provision and, in so far as use has been made of paragraph (d), please give full information on the clauses in question and provide the relevant legal texts.

Articles 11 and 12. The Committee notes that section 41 of the CTOM provides that agreements for a definite period may be terminated prematurely at the request of one of the parties only in the cases provided for in the agreement or in the event of serious misconduct which shall be determined by the competent jurisdiction. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these Articles with regard to agreements for an indefinite period and to state whether the national legislation lays down circumstances other than serious misconduct in which seafarers may be dismissed or immediately discharged.

Article 13. Please indicate how the national legislation ensures that full effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM do not ensure that an entry is made in the document issued to the seafarer in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, showing that he has been discharged following the rescission or termination of the agreement. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that effect is given to this provision of the Convention and to provide particulars.

Article 14, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that sections 45 and 172 of the CTOM, referred to by the Government in connection with this Article, do not apply this provision of the Convention. However, section 51 of the CTOM provides that on the rescission of the agreement, workers may require of the employer, subject to the payment of damages, a certificate specifying only the dates on which he joined and left, and the nature and dates of the successive jobs held. It asks the Government to take the necessary measures, including amendment of the national legislation, to ensure that all seafarers, whether French or foreign, are entitled in all cases to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of their work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether they have fully discharged their obligations under the agreement.

Article 15. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the organization of a labour inspection service and the preparation of social legislation for the territory provided for in section 145 of the CTOM are being examined but, owing to practical difficulties, have not yet been realized. Consequently, the only competent authority is the Chief Administrator of the Territory, who is assisted by the maritime authorities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate any developments in the establishment of the above-mentioned labour inspection services, and provide information on the methods used to ensure supervision of the application of the relevant national legislation.