Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8) - Aruba

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

Implementation of the Conventions. In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that there were neither seafarers nor ships registered in the territory, and that the Government intended to terminate the acceptance of the obligations of a number of ratified maritime Conventions after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its reports that there are no developments concerning the possible termination of the acceptance of the obligations of these Conventions.

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the data collected by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in its 2014 Review on Maritime Transport, which indicated that Aruba’s container ship fleet consists of seven ships. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to clarify the current situation concerning the number of seafarers and ships registered in Aruba.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. In its previous report, the Government had indicated that there were neither seafarers nor ships registered in Aruba and that for that reason it planned to consult with employers’ and workers’ organizations on the possibility of formally terminating acceptance of the obligations of the Convention on behalf of Aruba. In its last report, the Government indicated that there have been no changes with respect to maritime shipping and that no progress has been made regarding the intention to denounce the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any new developments that might have an impact on the application of the Convention and also on the outcome of the discussions within the tripartite committee on international labour affairs concerning the termination of the acceptance of the obligations of the Convention on behalf of Aruba.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

In reply to the Committee’s comments made since 1995, the Government indicated that no shipowner has had recourse to the notion of “serious misconduct” and that this term has therefore not been subject to any interpretation by a court. Moreover, the Government states that the profession of seafarer does not exist in Aruba and that no vessel is engaged in maritime navigation. The Government intends to denounce the declaration accepting the obligations of this Convention for Aruba. The Government indicated that it would make efforts to consult the employers’ and workers’ organizations on the question of denunciation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any changes regarding the number of vessels and seafarers registered as well as of the outcome of the tripartite consultations concerning denunciation.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that under section 552, subsection 1, of the Code of Commerce, in the event of loss or foundering of the vessel, the owner shall pay all members of the crew, for the period of unemployment resulting from such loss or foundering, an indemnity corresponding to the rate of wages payable under the contract, which may be limited to two months’ wages. However, the Committee notes that under subsection 4 of the same section, the shipowner who considers that one or more members of the crew have been guilty of serious misconduct in relation to the shipwreck may apply to the court of the first instance to request suspension of the obligation imposed on him by subsection 1 of section 552, in respect of those members of crew, during a period to be determined by the judge and which may be extended until the cause of the damage has been established. In addition, as a result of that verdict, the court may release the owner from his obligation definitively. In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether shipowners have had in any cases recourse to the notion of “serious misconduct” and, if so, to specify the interpretation given by the courts to this notion of “serious misconduct” and to supply particulars of instances where this notion has been used for suspending the obligation of the shipowner under section 552, subsection 1.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that under section 552, subsection 1, of the Code of Commerce, in the event of loss or foundering of the vessel, the owner shall pay all members of the crew, for the period of unemployment resulting from such loss or foundering, an indemnity corresponding to the rate of wages payable under the contract, which may be limited to two months' wages. However, the Committee notes that under subsection 4 of the same section, the shipowner who considers that one or more members of the crew have been guilty of serious misconduct in relation to the shipwreck may apply to the court of the first instance to request suspension of the obligation imposed on him by subsection 1 of section 552, in respect of those members of crew, during a period to be determined by the judge and which may be extended until the cause of the damage has been established. In addition, as a result of that verdict, the court may release the owner from his obligation definitively. In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether shipowners have had in any cases recourse to the notion of "serious misconduct" and, if so, to specify the interpretation given by the courts to this notion of "serious misconduct" and to supply particulars of instances where this notion has been used for suspending the obligation of the shipowner under section 552, subsection 1.