Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Norway (Ratification: 2009)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the Government’s third report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), as well as the observations of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes that the amendments to the Code of the Convention approved by the International Labour Conference (ILC) in 2018 entered into force for Norway on 26 December 2020.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee refers to the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes that it did not have the opportunity to examine the application of the MLC, 2006, by Norway during the peak of the pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue and requests the Government to ensure that any remaining restrictions are lifted in order to guarantee full compliance with the MLC, 2006.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. 1. Project personnel. The Committee previously noted that Circular RSV 04/2013 on guidance to the Regulations of 19 August 2013 concerning the scope of application of Act of 21 June 2013 No. 102 relating to employment protection etc. for employees on board ships (Ship Labour Act) provides that “Persons who are employed by other employers than the company, and who perform work which in its nature does not form part of the ship’s ordinary operation, are not considered seafarers under the MLC, 2006. This is often the case on offshore vessels where such persons are the contractor’s own employees.” The Circular contains a list of the categories of persons considered as “project personnel” (including catering personnel, technicians and health personnel). The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that although project personnel are not considered as seafarers under the Convention, this does not mean that they are without rights and that their working and living conditions are not inspected. Moreover, this category is covered by the Ship Safety and Security Act without exception. The Committee further notes that LO reiterates that (1) the partial exclusion of project personnel is not in line with the MLC, 2006, as such personnel can be employed for long periods on board; (2) there is no reason to treat them differently from others; and (3) it is irrelevant whether they are employed by an employer other than the shipowner. The Committee considers that persons who work more than short periods on board a vessel to which the Convention applies should be considered as seafarers, regardless of the nature of their contract or the tasks they perform, and benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention. The Committee accordingly requests the Government totake the necessary measures to ensure that all the provisions of the Convention are fully implemented with respect to seafarers falling under its scope, including project personnel.

2. Seafarers undertaking diving operations. The Committee notes that LO indicates that: (i) on 7 May 2021, the Parliament agreed to an amendment (not in force yet) excluding from the Ship Labour Act seafarers undertaking diving operations from a ship, instead including such employees under Act no. 62 of 17 June 2005 relating to working environment, working hours, employment protection, etc. (Working Environment Act); (ii) the Working Environment Act, which applies to all other categories of workers except seafarers, does not directly implement the MLC, 2006, although providing in several areas at least the same, or better, level of protection, and (iii) such exclusion is in breach of Article II, paragraph 3 of the Convention and Resolution concerning information on occupational groups (Resolution VII), adopted in 2006 by the 94th (Maritime) Session of the ILC. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

3. MODUs. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that: (i) mobile offshore units (MOUs) – which are not considered ships under the relevant legislation – are not part of the certification regime for cargo and passenger ships; and (ii) while Norway has not implemented the non-mandatory IMO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2009 (2009 MODU Code), these units are required to undergo a separate inspection and certification from ships that need International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) / MARPOL certificates. Considering that the MLC, 2006, applies to all ships ordinarily engaged in commercial activities, the Committee requests the Government to clarifywhether mobile offshore units, as defined by Regulation of 26 June 2007 No. 706 on the scope of application of the Ship Safety and Security Act for mobile offshore units, are engaged in navigation in areas not excluded by the scope of the MLC, 2006, and if so, to specify how the MLC, 2006, is applied to such units.

Article VI and Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a). Substantial equivalence. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. The Committee notes that the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), part I, includes a substantial equivalence regarding the signature of the SEA. In particular, the national legislation differs from the Convention requirement that the SEA is signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative thereof. In this regard, the Ship Labour Act provides that the company (i.e. shipowner) shall see to that the seafarer has an employment agreement signed by both the seafarer and the employer. The company shall also ensure that the employment agreement is in accordance with the requirements in Standard A2.1 and that the particulars in the employment agreement are being fulfilled by the employer. The Committee observes that, for the purpose of Article VI of the Convention, the national provisions cited above: (i) are not conducive to the full achievement of the purpose of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), which is to ensure that seafarers do not have to deal with more than one person or entity with respect to their working and living conditions and that that one person, i.e. the shipowner, is the sole responsible for ensuring that the working and living conditions of all seafarers conform to the MLC, 2006, requirements and are respected; and (ii) do not give effect to the same Standard, which provides that seafarers shall have a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative thereof. The Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), with regard to all seafarers covered by the Convention (see Article II). It also requests the Government to supply an example of a model seafarers’ employment agreement currently used.

Article VI and Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Substantial equivalence. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee noted that under section 51, paragraph 1, of the Regulations of 21 April 2017, no. 515 on accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering on ships (Regulations No. 515 of 2017), the Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) may upon written application from the company permit other solutions than those required by these Regulations, if the company documents that such solutions are equivalent to the requirements of the Regulations. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how it ensures that the recourse to substantial equivalence measures is made in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it acknowledges that substantial equivalence is not to be understood in the same way as in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and that this should be respected for the parts of the Regulations implementing the MLC, 2006. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that recourse to substantial equivalence follows the requirements of Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 1–3. Minimum Age.Night work. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that: (i) while sections 8 and 9 of Regulations of 25 April 2002 No. 423, allow persons under 16 years of age to work on board Norwegian ships covered by the Convention, it is clearly stated that the activities are not considered work within the meaning of section 18 of the Ship Safety and Security Act; (ii) the intention of section 18 is expressed in the preparatory work of the Act, as follows: “[...] it will not be possible to derogate from the age limit of 16 years if the work is remunerated or otherwise compensated by other means. The provision does not preclude young persons under the age of 16 years who are allowed on board as part of schooling or education. …”; (iii) hence, those provisions allow person under 16 years age to undertake activities on board Norwegian ships invariably as part of vocational training programmes; and (iv) the Regulations also cover young persons typically spending short periods on board a ship as a means of gaining work experience. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee observes, in addition to what previously noted, that Regulations No. 423, as amended in 2017: (1) apply to young persons between 14 and 18 (section 1); (2) include in the definition of “work”, work that forms part of apprenticeship contracts or secondary education (section 1, paragraph 2); and (3) provide for possible exemptions from the prohibition against night work for young people who have reached the age of 15 and who are not subject to compulsory schooling where this is necessary for the vocational training and the work is carried out under supervision (section 10, third paragraph). The Committee observes that Regulations No. 423 are not fully in line with the Convention. In this regard, it recalls that: (i) obtaining on-board training for the purpose of becoming a seafarer by definition implies working on board and, as a result, cadets and trainees are to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention, and are covered by all its provisions (see Article II); (ii) the minimum age to work on board ships is 16 years, without exceptions (Standard A1.1, paragraph 1); and (iii) Standard A1.1, paragraph 3 establishes specific alternative requirements for granting exception to strict compliance with the night work restriction for seafarers between 16 and 18 years, which are more stringent than those provided by section 10, third paragraph, of Regulations No. 423. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that trainees are regarded as seafarers and that they fully enjoy the protection provided for by the Convention. It also requests the Government to amend Regulations No. 423 to ensure that: (i) no person below 16 years is employed or engaged or works on a ship, as required by the Convention; and (ii) young persons may only be allowed to perform night work from 16 years of age subject to the alternative conditions specified under Standard A1.1, paragraph 3. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to supply statistical data and inspection reports concerning any violation of the provisions on minimum age on board Norwegian ships.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum Age.Hazardous work. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that, while section 8, third paragraph, of Regulations No. 423, in practice, does not allow exemptions from the prohibition of hazardous work for young people of less than 18 years that goes beyond Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, it will be revised to be clearer in this respect. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the revision of section 8, third paragraph, of Regulations No. 423 to give full effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 4.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraphs 2 and 5. Recruitment and placement.Private services. Requirements. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that Regulations of 19 August 2013 No. 999 on the use of recruitment and placement services on ships, also apply to recruitment and placement services operating in Norway. The Committee observes, however, that section 3 of the above Regulations only provides that “It is sufficient that the employer can document having used a recruitment and placement service operating in: (a) Norway …”, without specifying the requirements applicable to those services. While the Government indicated that compliance with Regulation 1.4 is inspected and certified, the Committee observes that the Norwegian legislation does not fully reflect the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5 with regard to seafarer recruitment and placement services operating in the Norwegian territory whose principal purpose is the recruitment and placement of seafarers, or who recruit a significant number of seafarers. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to fully implement Standard A1.4, paragraph 5, and to indicate the relevant national provisions giving effect to those requirements.

Regulation 2.1 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. In relation to the 2018 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee notes that section 4 of Regulations of 19 August 2013 No. 1000 on employment agreement and pay statement, etc., implements Standard A2.2, paragraph 7. It also notes that, according to Circular No. RSR 16-2020 transmitted by the Government, in relation to Standard A2.1, paragraph 7, “[I]t is the wish of the NMA that this is specified in Norwegian legislation by including a new provision to the Ship Labour Act stating that the employment agreement is still valid if an employee who is working on a Norwegian ship or covered by the MLC, 2006, is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against the ship, regardless of whether the date fixed for its expiry has passed or either party has given notice to suspend or terminate it before or during the captivity”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the national provisions implementing Standard A2.1, paragraph 7, as soon as they have been adopted.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3-5. Wages. Allotments.Noting that section 4-2, paragraph 3, of the Ship Labour Act regulates allotments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A2.2, paragraph 5.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 8 and 9. Hours of work and hours of rest. On-call work. The Committee notes that, in reply to the concerns raised by the Confederation of Unions for Professionals on the watch system with only one engineer on board, the Government indicates that on ships that have permission to reduce manning due to an approval (issued by the NMA or a recognized classification society) regarding operation with periodically unattended machinery spaces, the company shall see to, and the master shall ensure, that the reduction of the manning level will not affect the rest hours of the remaining seafarers in order to uphold the rest hours requirements of the Ship Safety and Security Act and the relevant regulations. If the master fails to ensure an adequate compensatory rest due to the seafarer being the only qualified engineer on board, the master shall notify the company that the manning of the ship is not adequate to uphold the safety and security of the ship’s operation and the equipment on board. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 13 and 14. Hours of work and hours of rest. Exceptions. Immediate safety and distress at sea. 1. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that no collective agreement concerning section 4, second paragraph, of Regulations of 26 June 2007 No. 705 on hours of work and rest on board passenger and cargo ships, etc., has been registered by the competent authority. To ensure that the collective agreements are in compliance with the Ship Safety and Security Act, the NMA will check them during MLC, 2006, certification and other following inspections. If the NMA has any indication, e.g. a complaint, that the minimum hours of rest are not in compliance with the relevant legislation, additional surveys on board the ship will be carried out (e.g. under section 14 of Regulations No. 705 of 2007). The Committee takes note of this information.

2. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that extra work according to section 6, first paragraph, of Regulations of 26 June 2007 No. 705 (suspension of schedule of working hours or hours of rest) should be read to exclusively cover work for reasons of safety due to extraordinary situations and occurrences, which could not reasonably have been predicted. Planned or foreseen situations before the start of the ship’s journey are not included in this exemption. While noting this explanation, the Committee requests the Government to amend Regulations No. 705 accordingly to ensure harmonized implementation at the national level and full conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraph 14.

Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Shore leave. The Committee notes LO’s comment that while the Labour Act provides for shore leave, this does not apply “if the circumstances or conditions of the ship make it necessary for the person concerned to stay on board.” In LO’s view this provision has narrowed the scope of the MLC, 2006. Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic seafarers were refused shore leave, not only by the port authorities, but also by shipowners when there were no restrictions by the port authorities. LO indicates that, in a letter from the NMA of 18 October 2021, the Authority addressed this issue and established that the shipowner can deny shore leave if the latter has undertaken a risk assessment demonstrating that it is not advisable to go ashore. In LO’s view, that further narrows the fundamental right to shore leave protected by the Convention. Moreover, the Ministry of Health, for a long period required foreign seafarers to provide a European vaccination certificate to get shore leave, thus neglecting the fact that on board ships entering Norwegian ports, many seafarers did not have such a certificate and were denied shore leave. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Method of calculation. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that: (i) section 5, first paragraph, of the Holidays Act, No. 21 of 29 April 1988, stipulates that employers are obliged to ensure that employees have 25 working days’ leave in connection with holidays each holiday year; (ii) employees are obliged to take holidays each year; (iii) such provision cannot be derogated through collective agreement; (iv) section 2, first paragraph, of Regulations No. 1285 of 12 December 1989 concerning entitlement to leave for seafarers does not mean that employees working on Norwegian ships only have 18 working days’ leave, as it merely stipulates that for employees on ships engaged on foreign voyages, a main holiday comprising 18 working days may be granted outside the main holiday period between 1 June and 30 September; and (v) in conclusion, employers are obliged to ensure that employees working on Norwegian ships have 25 working days’ leave in connection with holidays each holiday year. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.4, paragraph 2, provides that – subject to any collective agreement or laws or regulations providing for an appropriate method of calculation that takes account of the special needs of seafarers in this respect – the annual leave with pay entitlement shall be calculated on the basis of a minimum of 2.5 calendar days per month of employment, which would amount to 30 days annual leave. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation in compliance with Standard A2.4, paragraph 2.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Prohibition to forgo paid annual leave. Exceptions.The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A2.4, paragraph 3.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s information under this Standard that, pursuant to section 5-14(1) of the Ship Labour Act, the employer may summarily dismiss an employee if the latter is guilty of a “gross breach of duty or other serious breach of the contract of employment”. The Committee recalls that under Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3, each Member shall prohibit shipowners from requiring that seafarers make an advance payment towards the cost of repatriation at the beginning of their employment, and also from recovering the cost of repatriation from the seafarer’s wages or other entitlements except where the seafarer has been found, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective bargaining agreements, to be in “serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what is considered to be “gross breach of duty or other serious breach of the contract of employment” under the relevant legislation, as well as to provide information on the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations” for the purpose of Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Financial security in the event of abandonment. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Committee refers to the provisions of Regulations of 19 December 2017, No. 2293 on financial security related to the entitlements of abandoned employees on Norwegian ships, which give effect to the requirements of Standard A2.5.2.The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee noted that section 51, paragraph 2, of the Regulations of 21 April 2017, No. 515 provides that the NMA may exempt a ship from one or more of the requirements of the Regulations when the company applies for an exemption in writing. The Committee noted that this provision is not in conformity with the Convention, as it does not limit the scope of exemptions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in addition to this general provision, the Regulations have special conditions for exemptions concerning Standard A3.1.The Committee requests the Government to ensure that any exemptions authorized under section 51, paragraph 2, of the Regulations of 21 April 2017, No. 515 are limited to those provided by Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1. Medical care on boardand ashore.Dental care. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government reiterates that section 8-1 of the Ship Labour Act, paragraph 1, covers the dental care, although not explicitly mentioned, and that collective agreements incorporate the right to dental care. No explicit regulation in subordinate legislation has been adopted. The Committee further notes LO’s observation that, contrary to the MLC, 2006, Norwegian legislation does not contain a right for seafarers to dental care. While in the original proposal of the Ship Labour Act it was indicated that dental care would be considered implemented in regulations, this has so far not been done. In this regard, LO considers that the right to dental care must be provided in regulations laid down under the Ship Labour Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect, including any example on how the right to dental care for seafarers has been implemented in practice. The Committee further requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that seafarers have the right to visit a dentist without delay in ports of call.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government provides information on the provisions of Regulations of 18 February 2005, No. 145 on guarantees for social security entitlements for employees on Norwegian ships, as amended, and the Ship Labour Act, which implement Standards A4.2.1, paragraphs 8–14, and A4.2.2. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. National guidelines.The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the development, after consultation with representative shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, of national guidelines for the management of occupational safety and health to protect seafarers that live, work and train on board ships flying its flag, and to provide a copy thereof when available.

Regulation 4.4 and Standard A4.4. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government provides information on seafarers’ centres in Norwegian ports. The centres are operated by the Norway Seamen’s Mission and Seaman’s Church International; the welfare centre in Narvik is operated in cooperation with the NMA. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code.Social security. In relation to the application of the Seafarers’ Pensions Convention, 1946 (No. 71), the Committee requested the Government to provide information in relation to a number of issues, including: the supervision by the NMA of compensation to seafarers working as hotel and restaurant personnel on board tourist ships; the minimum retirement age; and the level of pensions of seafarers. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to its comments under Convention No. 71.

Regulations 5.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that it appointed a tripartite working group to investigate the issues with regard to inspections on multipurpose vessels. However, the report (delivered in 2019) does not make any specific conclusions, and there is disagreement between the social partners regarding multi-purpose vessels. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the inspection system for working conditions of seafarers on multi-purpose vessels.

Regulation 5.1.3 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. Content. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that, when the NMA carries out inspections, it checks the procedures referenced in DMLC, Part II, and assesses whether they contain measures adopted to ensure ongoing compliance with the national requirements. The procedures are often a part of the vessel’s Safety Management System, which is constructed to ensure ongoing compliance with the national requirements and continuous improvement. The Committee also notes that the Government has supplied four new examples of DMLC, Part II. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 3. Flag State responsibilities. Qualified inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the qualifications and training required for flag and port State inspectors carrying out inspections under the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. Flag State responsibilities. Reporting on inspections. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to this provision of the Convention, ensuring that inspectors submit a report of each inspection to the competent authority, that a copy is furnished to the master and another posted on the ship’s notice board.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that when a vessel is detained by Port State control officers, and the detainable deficiency is related to the MLC, 2006, the ILO and shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations in Norway are informed by a copy of the detention notice and the inspection report. When the deficiencies are solved and the vessel is released, the same are informed with a copy of the release notice and the final inspection report. The Committee takes note of this information.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Unions for Professionals, received with the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for Norway on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019 respectively. It further notes that the Government’s report was received before the entry into force of both amendments. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification regarding the scope of application of the Act of 21 June 2013 No. 102 relating to employment protection etc. for employees on board ships (The Ship Labour Act). The Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government as well as the adoption of Circular RSV 04/2013 to provide guidance to the Regulations of 19 August 2013 concerning the scope of application of the Ship Labour Act. The Circular provides clarification with respect to the categories of persons who are not to be considered as seafarers under the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes that Circular RSV 04/2013 contains an additional determination with respect to (a) workers that carry out work that is not part of the ship’s ordinary operations and (b) employees covered by the civil servant act to whom the Ship Labour Act only applies in part. With respect to workers that carry out work that is not part of the ship’s ordinary operations, the Committee notes that the Circular states that “Persons who are employed by other employers than the company, and who perform work which in its nature does not form part of the ship's ordinary operation, are not considered seafarers under the MLC, 2006. This is often the case on offshore vessels where such persons are the contractor's own employees.” The Circular contains a list of the categories of persons considered as “project personnel” (including catering personnel technicians, health personnel). The Committee considers that if these workers work more than short periods on board, what seems to be the case, they should be considered as seafarers and benefit from the protection of the Convention. The Committee further notes that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Unions for Professionals raised concerns with respect to project personnel on ships in the offshore industry whose work contracts are not within the scope of the Ship Labour Act implementing the MLC, 2006, since the employer, and not the shipowner, has the liability for economic rights such as wages, entitlement to leave, etc., covered by the convention. They are also not subject to the certification process and therefore their work contract and working and living conditions are not inspected. The Committee requests the Government to re-examine the exclusion of the categories of persons defined as project personnel in light of Article II and the guidance provided by the International Labour Conference in order to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to the Regulations of 19 August 2013 concerning the scope of application of the Ship Labour Act, although the Ship Labour Act applies in part to employees working on board mobile offshore units, such units are not considered ships. Regulations of 26 June 2007 No. 706 on the scope of application of the Ship Safety and Security Act for mobile offshore units states in section 1 that Mobile offshore unit means a mobile platform, including drilling ship, equipped for drilling for subsea petroleum deposits, and a mobile platform for purposes other than drilling for subsea petroleum deposits. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article VII. Consultations. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in relation with the observations of the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers that Norway as a flag State does not practice tripartite consultation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, throughout the process of defining the scope of application of the Ship labour Act, the social partners were consulted. Several meetings were held over several years with all social partners and Regulation of 19 August 2013 No. 990 concerning the scope of application of the Ship Labour Act was adopted after the required period of consultation with all stakeholders. The Committee takes notes of this information.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Concept of substantial equivalence. The Committee notes that under section 51 (1) of the Regulations of 21 April 2017 No. 515 on accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering on ships, “the Norwegian Maritime Authority may upon written application from the company permit other solutions than those required by these Regulations, if the company documents that such solutions are equivalent to the requirements of the Regulations”. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the concept of substantial equivalence is not a matter for administrative discretion but has to be decided by a Member on a horizontal basis – i.e. not on an ad hoc basis – following the requirements of Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to clarify how it ensures that the recourse to substantial equivalence measures is made in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 1. Minimum Age. Noting that Regulation of 25 April 2001 No. 423 concerning work and placement of young people on Norwegian ships applies to young people of at least 14 years of age who are placed on ships engaged on domestic voyages under work/training schemes as part of schooling or occupational orientation in practical work, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no person under the age of 16 years is employed or work on board in any function. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulation of 25 April 2001 No. 423 was adopted prior to the MLC, 2006, and that it has provided good protection for young seafarers as well as providing them with opportunities for employment at sea under supervised conditions. The Government indicates that this Regulation may continue to serve its purpose until it is possible, with regard to available resources, to develop a new Regulation. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.1, paragraph 1, provides that the employment, engagement or work on board a ship of any person under the age of 16 shall be prohibited and that no exceptions are permitted in this respect. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to adopt the necessary measures to amend its legislation to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. Noting that section 8 of Regulation of 25 April 2001 No. 423 provides that the Norwegian Maritime Authority may grant exemptions from the provisions concerning the prohibition of hazardous work where this is necessary for the vocational training of a young person and the work is carried out under the supervision of the master, a person authorized by the master, or a safety representative, the Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance with Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates in this regard that the Regulation will continue to apply until it can be revised. The Committee recalls that the Convention, under Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, requires the absolute prohibition for young seafarers of the types of work considered hazardous but allows, under Guideline B4.3.10, the determination of types of work which young seafarers cannot undertake without adequate supervision and instruction. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, giving due consideration to Guideline B4.3.10. Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraphs 2 and 5. Recruitment and placement. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to give effect to Standard A1.4 paragraphs 2 and 5 to any private service that may be operating in its territory. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the recruitment and placement services of seafarers in Norway is not a specifically maritime responsibility and is covered by general Norwegian law on the subject. The Government states that the legal responsibility of the shipowner is regulated by maritime law, and the submission of the necessary documentation before a Maritime Labour Certificate is issued attests to the conformity with Standard A1.4. The Committee notes however that the Government has not provided information on the functioning of the licensing system and the operational practices of the recruitment and placement services in Norway. The Committee requests the Government once again to indicate the specific provisions of the Norwegian legislation that implement the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraphs 2 and 5, with respect to recruitment and placement services operating in its territory.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing this Standard as well as Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3 with respect to the record of employment. The Committee notes that the provisions of the Ship Labour Act, the Regulations of 19 August 2013 No. 1000 on employment agreement and pay statement, etc. and Regulations of 25 November 1988 No. 940 on supervision of maritime service give effect to the different requirements of Standard A2.1. The Committee notes that sections 5 and 6 of the Regulations of 25 November 1988 No. 940 on supervision of maritime service provide that, upon application, a sea service book shall be issued for Norwegian nationals and a record of service shall be issued for persons other than Norwegian nationals. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 13 and 14. Hours of work and hours of rest. Noting that section 4 of Regulation No. 705 on hours of work and rest on board Norwegian passenger and cargo ships, etc. provides that regular working hours may be exceeded on passenger ships with watch systems, without however referring to collective agreements authorized or registered by the competent authority permitting exceptions to the established limits, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A2.3, paragraph 13. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, with regard to watchkeeping on ships, the hours of rest are determined in compliance with IMO and ILO standards and in particular Resolution A 1047(27) on the Principles of Safe Manning which ensures that when shipowners submit their requests for a Safe Manning Document, they must document how their planned level of manning is conducive to compliance with hours of rest. The Committee notes however that the Government does not indicate if any collective agreement has been authorized or registered permitting exceptions to the minimum hours of rest. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate if any exceptions to the minimum hours of rest for watchkeepers have been permitted by collective agreements authorized by the competent authority in accordance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 14. Noting that pursuant to section 6 of Regulation No. 705, the master of the ship is entitled to require a seafarer to perform any hours of work necessary not only for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or the cargo, or to render assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea but also with a view to enforcing customs regulations, quarantine or other health-related issues, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 14. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the suspension of the schedule of the hours of work in situations justified by the enforcement of customs laws, as well as quarantine and other health related provisions tend to occur in ports or in the vicinity of ports. The Government also states that, in such situations, the safety of the population in the port and surrounding areas are of more immediate concern than the safety of the ship, providing of course that it has been safely moored. While noting this information, the Committee considers that the work related to enforcing customs regulations, quarantine or other health-related issues should be performed respecting the minimum hours of rest given that these situations go beyond the exceptions contemplated in the Convention. Recalling that the suspension of the schedule of the hours of rest is only allowed under Standard A2.3, paragraph 14, if necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this requirement of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Confederation of Unions for Professionals raise concerns regarding the watch system with only one engineer aboard the ship which it considers contrary to Standard A2.3, paragraph 8. The Committee recalls that under this provision, when a seafarer is on call, such as when a machinery space is unattended, the seafarer shall have an adequate compensatory rest period if the normal period of rest is disturbed by call-outs to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2. Entitlement to leave. The Committee noted that while seafarers seems to be granted, in practice, the minimum of 2.5 calendar days for each month of service as the basis for the calculation of paid annual leave, this minimum entitlement is not implemented in national laws and regulations. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the legislation giving effect to Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the entitlement to leave has been adequately provided for in both legislation and collective agreements and that further legislation is therefore not needed at this time. The Committee notes that under section 5 of the Holidays Act, No. 21 of 29 April 1988, employees are entitled to 25 working days’ annual leave. Section 2(2) provides that in respect of employees on ships, the King issues Regulations concerning more detailed rules required by the conditions of service at sea. The Committee further notes that section 2 of Regulation No. 1285 of 12 December 1989 concerning entitlement to leave for seafarers said – whose text in not available in English - provides that employees on ships in international shipping are entitled to a “main holiday including 18 working days”. The Committee observes that, based on the information available, it is not clear what is the duration of the paid annual leave for seafarers. As the said Regulation refers to “international shipping”, it is also not clear whether it applies to all seafarers covered under the Convention. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to clarify these points and to explain in detail how the relevant legislation gives application to Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Financial security in the event of abandonment. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. It notes that Regulations of 19 December 2017 No. 2293 on financial security related to the entitlements of abandoned employees on Norwegian ships was adopted to give effect to the requirements of Standard A2.5.2. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment? (if yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond?; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation?; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9?; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2-I of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7).

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes that section 51(2) of the Regulations of 21 April 2017 No. 515 on accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering on ships provides that the Norwegian Maritime Authority may exempt a ship from one or more of the requirements of the Regulations when the company applies for an exemption in writing. The Committee notes that this provision does not limit the scope of exemptions. The Committee recalls that Standard A3.1, paragraph 21, of the Convention states that “any exemptions with respect to the requirements of this Standard may be made only where they are expressly permitted in this Standard and only for particular circumstances in which such exemptions can be clearly justified on strong grounds and subject to protecting the seafarer’s health and safety”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that all exemptions to the application of the Regulation are made within the limitations provided for under Standard A3.1, paragraph 21.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1. Medical care on board, including essential dental care. Noting that the existing laws and regulation did not include essential dental care as a part of health protection and medical care, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with this requirement of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Section 8-1 of the Ship Labour Act, paragraph 1 covers the issue of dental care, although not explicitly mentioned and that collective agreements incorporate the right to dental care. The Government further states that it is considering whether explicit regulation in subordinate legislation is needed. The Committee notes in this regard that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Unions for Professionals in their observations underline the lack of provisions for dental care and the need to regulate this right. Recalling that under Standard A4.1 paragraph 1, each Member shall ensure that measures providing for health protection and medical care, including essential dental care, for seafarers working on board a ship that flies its flag are adopted, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security in the event of death or long-term disability. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned?; (b) how national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay, (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount, (iii) interim payments (while situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship, (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident, and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary)?; (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4-I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease, (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated, and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated?; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4-I of the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14).

Regulation 4.4 and Standard A4.4. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee noted the observations of the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers, the Norwegian Shipowners’ Organization, the Norwegian Maritime Officers’ Association and the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union indicating that Norway has poorly developed welfare services for seafarers and that the Norwegian Maritime Authority has stated that it is not willing to continue its active role with regard to seafarers’ welfare facilities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on measures taken to promote the development of adequate welfare facilities as required under Regulation 4.4 and Standard A4.4. In the absence of specific information from the Government in this regard, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulations 5.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the Regulations to be adopted and the new system for inspection. The Committee notes with interest that Regulations of 22 December 2014 No. 1893 on supervision and certificates for Norwegian ships and mobile offshore units was adopted since the last report, aimed at giving effect to the provisions of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions raise concerns regarding the inspection system for working conditions of workers on multi-purpose vessels. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Regulation 5.1.3 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. Content. With respect to examples of DMLC Part II provided by the Government, the Committee noted that under certain items, they referred to other documents by name or numbers and did not contain an explanation with respect to the shipowner’s implementation of the national requirements. The Committee notes that the situation is the same in the three examples of DMLC Part II recently provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that the DMLC Part II shall identify the measures adopted to ensure ongoing compliance with the national requirements between inspections and the measures proposed to ensure that there is continuous improvement. The Committee requests the Government, once again, to ensure that the DMLC Part II fully implements the requirements of Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10.

Regulations 5.2, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on port State inspection activities and in relation to the implementation of Standard A5.2.2, paragraph 6. The Committee notes with interest that since its last report, the Government adopted Regulations of 24 November 2014 No. 1458 on port State control which gives effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes however that the national provisions do not specify the procedure with respect to complaints which have not been resolved and recalls that in accordance with Standard A5.2.2, paragraph 6, a copy of the authorized officer’s report is to be transmitted to the Director-General (together with any flag State reply) and that the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations in the port must similarly be informed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to this provision of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations made by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, the Norwegian Shipowners’ Organization, the Norwegian Maritime Officers’ Association, the Norwegian Seafarers' Union and the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers, received on 8 September 2014.

General questions on application. Information in the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance, Parts I and II. The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). Norway has previously ratified 20 maritime labour Conventions, all of which were automatically denounced on the entry into force of the MLC, 2006 for Norway. The Government provided a list of legislation implementing the Convention, but on most matters it has referred to the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC) Part I and two examples of an approved DMLC Part II as containing sufficient information on national implementation. The Committee notes that, in a number of cases, including with respect to one of the two cases of substantial equivalence, the detailed information and references to national legislation appears to be incorrect and refers to legislation that has been repealed. Moreover, the information in one of the two DMLC Part II, which were prepared by shipowners and approved by the competent authority or an authorized organization, refers to other documents by name or numbers and does not contain an explanation with respect to the shipowner’s implementation of the national requirements. Neither document provides adequate information on the application in law or practice, nor do they appear to fulfil the purpose for which they are required under the MLC, 2006, which is to help all persons concerned, such as flag state inspectors, authorized officers in port States and seafarers, to check that the national requirements are being properly implemented on board ship. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of a DMLC Part I and another example of a DMLC Part II that applies paragraph 10 of Standard A5.1.3 giving due consideration to the guidance provided in Guideline B5.1.3.

General questions on application. Scope of application. Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and (i), 3 and 5. Seafarers and ships. The Committee notes the observations of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, the Norwegian Shipowners’ Organization, the Norwegian Maritime Officers’ Association, the Norwegian Seafarers' Union and the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers according to which:

[I]t is reported that Norway has excluded six categories of workers from the definition of “seafarer” under the convention. Five of these categories are covered by general Norwegian labour standards, which basically give them the same level of protection as the Norwegian standards implementing the MLC. However, regarding the “exclusion" of offshore project personnel we do not believe the report fully reflects their legal status in Norway. The ILO conventions for land-based personnel/fixed offshore installations are not applicable for offshore project personnel on ships. Neither is the Norwegian Labour Act applicable since it explicitly excludes ships from its scope. Henceforth, the Norwegian report could be construed to be interpreted as these workers are not protected. Fortunately, that is not the case. The MLC is basically implemented in two acts in Norway; the Ship Safety Act and the Ship Labour Act. The former act covers such personnel in its entirety, whereas the latter act covers such personnel, with a couple of exceptions. Furthermore, we would like to draw the attention to the fact that on many specialized offshore ships, typically Multi-Purpose Ships, such personnel contain around 80 per cent of the total numbers of workers on board, which could give the impression that Norway has excluded the vast majority of workers on board such ships from the fundamental rights set out in the convention.

The Government indicates that the term “seafarer” is defined in the Ship Labour Act of 21 June 2013 No.102 relating to employment protection for employees on board ships (Ship Labour Act) and the Ship Safety and Security Act of 16 February 2007 No. 9 (Ship Safety and Security Act), as well as Regulation of 19 August 2013 No. 990 concerning the scope of application of the Ship Labour Act. It further indicates it will be using the guidance provided in the Resolution concerning information on occupational groups (Resolution VII) adopted by the 94th Session of the International Labour Conference in order to determine if a person engaged on board a ship to which the Convention applies is a seafarer for the purpose of MLC, 2006 compliance. The Government indicates, in connection with information on cases of doubt, that after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, as required under Article II, paragraph 3, it has determined that the following persons are not seafarers for the purpose of MLC, 2006 application: (a) personnel involved in project organizations on Offshore Service Vessels; (b) port workers, including travelling stevedores; (c) pilots and port officials; (d) ship surveyors and auditors; (e) equipment repair/service technicians and riding crew whose principal place of employment is on shore; and (f) guest entertainers who work occasionally and short term on board with their principal place of employment being on shore. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers has observed that Norway as a flag State does not practise tripartite consultation.

The Committee further notes that the Ship Labour Act, section 1–2, states that it applies to any employee working on board Norwegian ships and that certain sections also apply to “other persons working on board Norwegian ships”. That section states that the Act does not apply to employees who only work on board while the ship is in port or serve Norwegian Armed Forces vessels, except for civilian personnel on board ships chartered by the Norwegian Armed Forces. Regulation No. 990 regarding the scope of application of the Ship Labour Act states in section 1 that the Ship Labour Act does not apply to persons who only work on board while the ship or mobile offshore unit is in port, or are on armed forces vessels, or only carry out inspections on board, or serve as pilots, or are covered by the Working Environment Act, and who perform work on board for a shorter period of time. Section 2 refers to employees to whom the Ship Labour Act applies in part. That section states that for employees performing work which in its nature does not form part of the ship’s ordinary operation, the Ship Labour Act shall apply with the exception of a paragraph of section 2–4 of the Act and that the certification of a ship under the Ship Labour Act is not to include these persons. Section 3 of the Regulation addresses the application of the Ship Labour Act to persons working on board mobile offshore units and provides that, for persons working on those units who were included in the manning certificate, the Ship Labour Act does apply to a certain extent. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to a Guidance Note on Norway’s implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 dated 9 April 2013 (hereinafter, “Guidance Note”) which explains that mobile offshore units are not included under the ships to which the MLC, 2006 applies. The same document also provides information with respect to the application of the term sheltered waters, as addressed in the Regulation of 4 November 1981 No. 3792 concerning trade areas.

The Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006 does not allow for the partial application of the national law implementing its provisions if the workers concerned are seafarers covered by the Convention. Such partial application is only possible where: (a) the workers clearly do not come within the definition of “seafarer”; or (b) the ship concerned is clearly not a “ship” covered by the Convention; or (c) a doubt can arise in regard to (a) or (b) above and a determination has been made, in accordance with the Convention, that the categories of workers concerned are not seafarers or are not working on ships covered by the Convention; or (d) the provisions in the Ship Labour Act that do not apply to such workers relate to subjects that are not covered by the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide clarification as to which workers are excluded from the application of which provisions of the Ship Labour Act, with an explanation as to the reasons for such exclusions in cases where a provision implements the MLC, 2006 and the workers concerned are not clearly outside the scope of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide its comments in relation with the observations of the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers concerning tripartite consultations.

Regulation 1.1 and the Code. Minimum age. The Committee notes that the Ship Labour Act sets a minimum age of 16 years for working on board ship and that under section 9 of Regulation of 25 April 2001 No. 423 concerning work and placement of young people on Norwegian ships, persons under the age of 16 shall not be employed in paid work or receive any other remuneration from employment. However, the Regulation also applies to young people of at least 14 years of age who are placed on ships engaged on domestic voyages under work/training schemes as part of schooling or occupational orientation in practical work. In this regard, section 9 of the Regulation also regulates working time of persons between 14 and 16 years of age. With respect to the protection of persons under the age of 18 from potentially hazardous work, section 8 of the Regulation provides that the Norwegian Maritime Authority may grant exemptions from the provisions of this section where this is necessary for the vocational training of a young person and the work is carried out under the supervision of the master, a person authorized by the master, or a safety representative. The Committee recalls that paragraph 1 of Standard A1.1 of the MLC, 2006 prescribes that the employment, engagement or work on board a ship of any person under the age of 16 shall be prohibited and does not provide for any exception. It also recalls that paragraph 4 of Standard A1.1 does not allow for any exception to the prohibition of hazardous work for persons under 18 years of age. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no person under the age of 16 years is employed or work on board in any function. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation in line with paragraph 4 of Standard A1.1 of the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee notes that paragraph 2 of Regulation 1.4 requires seafarer recruitment placement services operating in the Member’s territory to be operated in accordance with the provision of the Code. The Committee notes that section 3–9 of the Ship Labour Act requires employers that use recruitment and placement services to document that these services conform to the requirements of the Labour Market Act and that the Government indicates, with respect to the application of paragraph 2 of Standard A1.4 to any private services operating in its territory, that it has adopted Regulation of 19 August 2013 No. 999 on the use of recruitment and placement services on ships. The Committee notes that section 3 of the Regulation addresses flag State responsibility with respect to shipowners using recruitment and placement services operating in countries other than the Member, but that it does not provide specific information with respect to the regulation of private services that may be operating in Norway’s territory and, in particular, the obligations set out under paragraph 5 of Standard A1.4. The Committee notes that in 2010 it had requested similar information with respect to the implementation of the Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Convention, 1996 (No. 179). It also notes that the second paragraph of section 3 of the Regulation addresses the case of seafarer recruitment services operating in a country that has ratified either the MLC, 2006 or Convention No. 179. The Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006 does not contain exactly the same provisions as Convention No.179, particularly with respect to the requirements in paragraph 5(b) and (c)(vi) of Standard A1.4. The Government is requested to provide information on the application of paragraphs 2 and 5 of Standard A1.4 to any private service that may be operating in its territory and to clarify the situation with respect to the use of services operating in countries that have not ratified the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the DMLC Part I on this matter and that the DMLC Part I contains information on legislation that has been repealed. It also notes that the Ship Labour Act and Regulation of 19 August 2013 No. 1000 on employment agreements and pay statements regulate seafarers’ employment agreements. It also notes that these do not appear to implement paragraphs 1(e) and 3 of Standard A2.1 regarding the seafarer’s record of employment, although section 16 of Regulation of 22 December 2011 No. 1523 concerning qualifications and certificates for seafarers refers to a record of service. In addition the Government did not provide a copy of the record of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing this Standard. It also requests the Government to supply an example of the approved document for seafarers’ records of employment, as well as a standard form example of a seafarers’ employment agreement.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee notes that the legislation implementing the MLC, 2006 is the Ship Safety and Security Act (sections 23 and 24) and Regulation of 26 June 2007 No. 705 concerning hours of work and rest on board Norwegian passenger and cargo ships. The Committee recalls its comments under the Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), in which it noted that, by virtue of section 6 of Regulation No. 705, the master of the ship is entitled to require a seafarer to perform any hours of work necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or the cargo, or to render assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea but also with a view to enforcing customs regulations, quarantine or other health-related issues. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that any suspension of the schedule of the hours of rest for reasons provided under section 6 of Regulation No. 705, only occurs when it is necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea and therefore permissible under paragraph 14 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006. In the same comments under Convention No. 180, the Committee noted that there were ships registered in Norway operated on a two-watch system. The Committee notes section 4 of Regulation No. 705 providing that regular working hours may be exceeded on passenger ships with watch systems. It recalls that the two-watch system appears to represent a higher risk of fatigue than the three-watch system. It also recalls that paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006 allows for national laws or regulations or a procedure for the competent authority to authorize or register collective agreements permitting exceptions to the limits set out in the Convention. Any exception must, as far as possible, follow the provisions of the Standard but may take account of more frequent or longer leave periods or the granting of compensatory leave for watchkeeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ships on short voyages. In this connection, the Committee notes that under section 24 of the Ship Safety and Security Act, the provisions on hours of rest may be departed from in a binding collective agreement. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3 as regards watchkeeping seafarers. It further 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.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee notes that the Government did not provide any information on this matter, which must be implemented in its laws and regulations. It also notes that the Guidance Note refers to the Holiday with Pay Act, which appears to provide for 25 working days annual leave, and to Royal Decree No. 1285 of 12 December 1989 concerning entitlement to leave for seafarers. The latter does not appear to be available. Paragraph 2 of Standard A2.4 sets a minimum of 2.5 calendar days for each month of service as the basis for the calculation of paid annual leave. The Committee notes that the two sample collective agreements provided by the Government appear to provide for more than this minimum; however paragraph 1 of Standard A2.4 requires that the minimum entitlement be set out in legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on legislation implementing Regulation 2.4 and the Code of the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes that, in addition to the provisions in paragraph 2 of Regulation 3.1 for existing ships, paragraph 20 of Standard A3.1 provides for possible exemptions with respect to specific requirements for a particular category of ship after consultation with shipowner and seafarers organizations concerned. The Committee notes that in 2012 the Government adopted a Regulation concerning amendments to Regulation of 15 September 1992, No. 707 concerning the accommodation and catering services on ships, in order to implement the MLC, 2006. It notes that the amended Regulation No. 707, provides for possible exemptions in connection with specific matters, such as sleeping room size (e.g. section 15, subsection 3(b)) after consultation, as provided for under the Convention. It further notes that section 4 of the amended Regulation No. 707 provides that the Norwegian Maritime Authority may, in individual cases, and upon written request, grant exemptions from the requirements of the Regulation. These exemptions must be for special reasons, justifiable on the basis of safety and must not contravene international agreements that Norway has acceded to. The Committee recalls that Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1 do not provide for any exemptions other than those set out in the Convention, as indicated in paragraph 21 of Standard A3.1. It requests the Government to provide information with respect to any exemptions that have been granted under section 4 of Regulation No. 707 and whether the organizations of shipowners and seafarers have been consulted.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board ship and ashore. The Committee notes that the DMLC Part I refers to a law that has been repealed. The Committee understands that the Ship Safety and Security Act, Regulation of 1 January 2005 No. 08 concerning the working environment, health and safety of workers on board ship and Regulation of 9 March 2001 No. 439 concerning medical supplies on ships, implement Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1 of the MLC, 2006. The Committee recalls that paragraph 1 of Standard A4.1 includes “essential dental care” as a part of health protection and medical care. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it is ensured that the medical care available to seafarers on ships flying its flag includes essential dental care. Noting that the Government’s report does not contain information with regard to the standard medical report form to be adopted under paragraph 2 of Standard A4.1 of the MLC, 2006, the Government is requested to provide information on whether a standard medical report form has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy of it.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes the observations of the Norwegian Union of Marine Engineers, the Norwegian Shipowners´ Organization, the Norwegian Maritime Officers’ Association and the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union indicating that Norway has poorly developed welfare services for seafarers. The unions observe that there are currently discussions in Norway on whether the Norwegian Maritime Authority should continue its active role with regard to seafarers’ welfare and that the Government should continue to play a leading role, inter alia, in promoting the further development of seafarer welfare facilities in ports in Norway as well as other welfare services. They also observe that, regrettably, the Norwegian Maritime Authority has stated that it is not willing to take this role, and it remains to be seen what is the outcome of the discussions on this matter. The Committee refers to its comments of 2010 on Norway’s application of the Seafarers' Welfare Convention, 1987 (No. 163), in which it noted the observations of the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union, according to which the Norwegian Government Seamen’s Service (NGSS) budget had been decreased to around 10 per cent of its 1980 level, and that government officials had even suggested that welfare services should be charged to the seafarers. The Norwegian Seafarers’ Union added that the Government had become dependent on the efforts of seamen’s churches and charity organizations to distribute newspapers and books. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to promote the development of adequate welfare facilities as required under Regulation 4.4 and Standard A4.4 of the Convention.

Regulations 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. The Committee notes the Government’s information that new legislation has been implemented and a new system for inspection has been set up. The Government also refers to a Regulation on certification to be adopted in September 2014. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Guidance Note, which to some extent explains the process envisaged. It notes that the Government has not provided copies of requested material or information on a significant number of matters with respect to the inspection system. The Committee refers, in connection with the application of paragraph 10 of Standard A5.1.3 and the guidance provided for in Guideline B5.1.3, to its comments above regarding the DMLC Part I and one of the two examples of an approved DMLC Part II. It notes that the MLC, 2006 has been in force for Norway since 20 August 2013 and that ships have been inspected and certified since that time. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the legislation and the inspection system mentioned in its report and to provide the requested documentation for flag State inspection activities.

Regulations 5.2, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Government indicates that it is a member of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (PMoU), and that port State control is governed by the PMoU Instructions which are made binding through EU directive 2009/16/EC, and Norwegian Regulation of 30 December 2010 No. 1849 on port State control. It further indicates that it has 56 authorized officers. However, it has not provided the requested copy of the inspection guidelines or statistics (or alternatively a copy of the report to the PMoU). In connection with Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code, the Government refers to Regulation No. 1849, sections 34–36, and indicates that four complaints have been received and reported through the PMoU database and that the Government does not keep separate records. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Standard A5.2.2, in the case of unresolved complaints, a copy of the authorized officer’s report is to be transmitted to the Director-General (together with any flag State reply) and that the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations in the port must similarly be informed. It requests the Government to provide the requested documentation for port State inspection activities and to indicate whether information concerning any unsolved complaints was also provided to the appropriate shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations in accordance with paragraph 6 of Standard A5.2.2 of the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 5.3 and the Code. Labour-supplying responsibilities. The Committee refers to its request with respect to the implementation, including enforcement, of Regulation 1.4 and the Code, for any services operating in Norway’s territory.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]