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

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Belgium (Ratification: 2013)

The Committee notes 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 Belgium on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. Following 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), 2 and 3, of the Convention. Scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that seafarers with a status other than that of employee are not covered by the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions (Act of 3 June 2007) or by its implementing regulations. However, one title of the Act, on seafarers’ agreements, contains provisions on living and working conditions on board ships and these are relevant to the Convention. Among seafarers with employee status, some of those employed on dredgers appear to be covered not by the Act of 3 June 2007 but by the Labour Act of 16 March 1971. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that section 5(1)(2) of the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, provides that the shipowner must guarantee that seafarers with a status other than that of employee enjoy the same decent living and working conditions equivalent to those guaranteed for seafarers with employee status by the national provisions giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee also notes that section 5(1)(1) provides that the Act of 13 June 2014 applies both to seafarers covered by the Act of 3 June 2007 and its implementing regulations and to seafarers without employee status. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that seafarers employed on dredgers are covered by a number of collective agreements in the merchant navy sector, further to the conclusion of the collective agreement of 20 January 2017, concerning conditions of work and pay on dredgers.

In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007 allows the King to establish, after consultation of the relevant joint committee, the categories of persons who are not seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of decisions taken pursuant to section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007. The Committee notes that the Government adopted the Royal Decree of 7 March 2016 determining the categories of persons who are not seafarers pursuant to section 28/1. The Committee notes that this Decree provides that “the following categories of persons shall not be considered seafarers within the meaning of section 28/5 of the Act of 3 June 2007: […] 2. Trainees”. The Committee recalls that under Article II, paragraph 1(f), of the Convention, a seafarer is defined as “any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which this Convention applies”. The Committee considers that undergoing on-board training with a view to becoming a seafarer implies by definition working on board and so there can be no doubt that trainees in this situation must be considered as seafarers for the purposes of the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that the protection granted by the Convention assumes particular importance for the most vulnerable categories of persons such as trainees. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that trainees are considered as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection afforded by the Convention. The Committee is fully aware of the shortage of qualified officers capable of serving on board ships undertaking international voyages and ensuring their effective operation, a situation that is likely to persist in the maritime sector, and of the difficulties encountered in ensuring that trainee officers (cadets) satisfy the requirements of minimum compulsory seagoing service which forms part of the conditions prescribed by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) with regard to certification. In view of the above, the Committee recalls that, as indicated in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention, governments, in consultation with the social partners, may, if necessary and in conformity with the Convention, agree on measures which are substantially equivalent to be applied to trainee officers.

Regulation 1.1 and the Code. Minimum age. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the dredging sector is covered by the Labour Act of 16 March 1971, which defines the concept of “night” as the period between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Section 34bis of the Act provides that for “young workers over 16 years of age the limits set are 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the case of: (1) work, the performance of which, by reason of its nature, cannot be interrupted; (2) work organized in shifts”. Recalling that Standard A1.1, paragraph 2, of the Convention requires that the term “night” “shall cover a period of at least nine hours starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m.”, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the periods referred to in section 34bis cover a period of only eight consecutive hours. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, in accordance with the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I, young seafarers employed on dredgers are subject to clause 6 of Appendix 1 to the Royal Decree of 12 March 2003 concerning the application of the provisions relating to maintaining compulsory hours of work of seafarers on board ships calling at Belgian ports, which provides that the term “night” shall cover a period of at least nine consecutive hours, starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m.

The Committee previously noted that in connection with the determination of the types of work likely to jeopardize the health or safety of seafarers under 18 years of age (Standard A1.1, paragraph 4), the Government refers to a Royal Order of 3 May 1999 on the protection of young persons at work. Observing that this order does not contain any provisions which deal expressly with work on board seagoing ships, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to adopt the list of types of work required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Royal Order of 3 May 1999 is also applicable to seafarers and that the DMLC, Part I, for the dredging sector contains a list of examples of prohibited types of work. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, provides that the employment, engagement or work of seafarers under the age of 18 shall be prohibited where the work is likely to jeopardize their health or safety, and that the types of such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with relevant international standards. The Committee requests the Government to adopt for the merchant navy sector, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, the list of types of work specifically prohibited on board seagoing ships as required by Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, of the Convention, and to send a copy of the DMLC, Part I, applicable to the dredging sector.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that no public or private services for the placement of seafarers operate in its territory. The Committee nonetheless noted that there are several sets of national regulations which govern placement activities by both public institutions and private employment agencies, and it asked the Government to indicate the provisions that implement Standard A1.4. The Government indicates that the Flemish region has public and private placement offices which are governed by the Decree of 10 December 2010 concerning private placement and by an Order adopted pursuant to this Decree. The Government states that this Decree was adopted to apply the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). However, the Committee notes that the Decree of 10 December 2010 has not been amended to incorporate the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Government indicates that there are no public or private seafarer placement services operating in the Brussels-Capital region. However, the Ordinance of 14 July 2011 concerning the joint management of the labour market in the Brussels-Capital region, which came into force in October 2012 further to the implementing order of 12 July 2012 adopted by the Brussels-Capital regional government, allows the placement of seafarers by private employment agencies. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 2, provides that where a Member has private seafarer recruitment and placement services operating in its territory whose primary purpose is the recruitment and placement of seafarers or which recruit and place a significant number of seafarers, they shall be operated only in conformity with a standardized system of licensing or certification or other form of regulation. This system shall be established, modified or changed only after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 5, specifies the conditions which the system established in paragraph 2 must satisfy pursuant to the legislation or other measures in force. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to give full effect to the requirements of Standard A1.4.

The Committee also previously requested information on current procedures for dealing with complaints pertaining to the recruitment of seafarers on ships registered in Belgium (Standard A1.4, paragraph 7). The Committee notes that the Government describes the conditions for the implementation of the complaints procedure established in section 21 of the Decree of 10 December 2010 concerning private placement in the Flemish region. The Government indicates that monitoring of the application of the Decree is undertaken by an independent Flemish inspection service having competence in labour law and that this service can always be reached through various channels of communication enabling seafarers to highlight any problems. The Government indicates that no complaints from seafarers have been recorded so far.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Record of employment. The Committee previously noted that section 52 of the Act of 3 June 2007 provides that “when the employment agreement ends, the employer shall give the seafarer all the social documents and a certificate recording only the date of the beginning and the end of the agreement, and the nature of the work. The certificate may contain no other entries, except at the express request of the seafarer …”. The Committee noted that the Government had provided a document entitled “Certificate of service”, which has a field headed “Remarks” without specifying that it shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer’s work. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to Standard A2.1, paragraph 3, which specifies that this document “shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarers’ work or as to their wages”. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the “Remarks” field will be supplemented with the following statement (in English): “This document shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarers’ work or as to their wages”.

Regulation 2.2 and the Code. Wages. The Committee notes that section 15 of the Act of 12 April 1965 concerning the protection of workers’ pay provides that the worker shall be provided with a statement (in paper or electronic form) at the time of each final payment. The King may determine the details that the statement must contain and how they are subdivided under different headings. It is stated that, in the six months following the entry into force of this Act, the joint committees must determine the particulars to be included in this document. In the event of any shortcoming or absence of the joint committees, the King shall take the necessary measures after consulting the National Labour Council. Recalling that Standard A2.2, paragraph 2, provides that seafarers shall be given a monthly account of the payments due and the amounts paid, including wages, additional payments and the rate of exchange used where payment has been made in a currency or at a rate different from the one agreed to, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which determine the main headings to be included in the seafarers’ monthly wage statement.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee previously noted that section 10/1(2) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 on seafarers’ certificates of proficiency provides that the limits on hours of work or rest shall be established in reference to maximum duration of work or to minimum duration of rest. The Government indicated in its report that both options were possible and that, as a rule, shipowners opted for minimum hours of rest. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to establish either a maximum number of hours of work not to be exceeded in a given period, or a minimum number of hours of rest to be granted in a given period (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5). The Government indicates that clauses 7 and 8 of the collective labour agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool fix the minimum number of hours of rest and that clauses 9–11 of the collective labour agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings (ordinary seafarers) registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company fix the hours of work for watchkeeping personnel, day personnel and general service personnel. However, the Committee notes that the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 does not deal with maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest but with the organization of hours of work. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.3, paragraph 2, provides that national laws and regulations must decide, in accordance with the Convention, the applicable system of maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest and that the Government cannot therefore transfer responsibility for this decision to the social partners through collective bargaining. Also observing that Standard A2.3, paragraph 2, should not be interpreted as giving shipowners or masters the choice between several systems, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that either a maximum number of hours of work which shall not be exceeded in a given period of time, or a minimum number of hours of rest which shall be provided in a given period of time is fixed (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5).

The Committee asked the Government to provide further information on the performance of safety watches provided for in clause 14 of the collective bargaining agreement of 1 February 2006 for masters and officers registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company, as amended by the collective bargaining agreement of 2 September 2009. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the collective bargaining agreement of 1 February 2006 was repealed and replaced by the agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool. The Committee notes that the agreement in force no longer contains any provisions for a system of safety watches in ports comparable to the previous one. The Committee also previously noted that under clause 6 of the collective bargaining agreement of 14 December 2005 for navy personnel registered with the pool of seafarers employed on board shortsea ships flying the Belgian flag, the master reserves the right to order at any time work relating to, inter alia, fire drills, lifeboat drills and any similar exercise prescribed by international agreements. The Committee reminded the Government that Standard A2.3, paragraph 7, requires such exercises to be conducted in a manner that minimizes the disturbance of rest periods and does not induce fatigue. The Committee notes that section 10/1(4)(2) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 concerning seafarers’ certificates of competency, mentioned by the Government, is compliant with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes that shortsea ships are not excluded from the scope of application of this Royal Order. Lastly, the Committee noted that clauses 14 and 15 of the collective agreement of 1 February 2006 did not establish the requirement of compensatory rest prescribed by Standard A2.3, paragraph 8, in the event of actual work during an on-call period. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this obligation is covered by section 10/1(6) of the above-mentioned Royal Order of 24 May 2006, which provides that, if seafarers are on call, for example when an engine room is not attended, they shall have an adequate period of compensatory rest if the normal rest period is disturbed by call-outs. The Committee also notes that the above-mentioned collective labour agreement of 22 October 2015, which repeals and replaces the collective agreement of 1 February 2006, does not contain any requirement contrary to section 10/1(6) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the points raised previously.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the leave entitlement for seafarers not registered with the pool is “18 days of leave in a 30-day period of work”, but that no further details on this issue are provided. The Committee noted that the applicable collective agreement of 3 August 2012 defines entitlement to leave in reference to a scale set out in an appendix. However, there is no indication as to whether the figures in this table refer to the number of days’ leave for each month worked or for each year worked, cadets having 18 days whereas the ship’s master has 171 days. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate exactly how entitlement to leave is determined for seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag. The Government indicates that seafarers who are not registered with the pool always have fixed-term contracts, so rules on leave do not apply. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the pay of seafarers not registered with the pool includes a holiday allowance. The Committee also notes that clause 16 of the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 provides that leave days may only be taken during the period of employment if so desired by the seafarer and if this does not disrupt work on board. Clause 3 indicates that seafarers are recruited on fixed-term contracts of a maximum duration of seven months. 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. Recalling the fundamental importance of annual leave with pay for protecting the health and well-being of seafarers and preventing fatigue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag are entitled to a minimum of 2.5 calendar days of leave per month of employment, calculated on a pro rata basis where necessary.

The Committee recalls that, further to a combined reading of Standard A2.4, paragraph 3, on annual leave and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), on repatriation, the maximum continuous period of service on a ship without any leave is in principle 11 months. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which give full effect to the Convention on this point for all seafarers, regardless of the collective agreement that applies to them.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate the provisions that require the provision of financial security, in accordance with Regulation 2.5, paragraph 2. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s explanation that the Act of 6 March 2017 amending the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions and the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, has incorporated into the national legislation the necessary provisions for giving effect to the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of a standard certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2-I to the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7). The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the Maritime Labour Certificate and the DMLC, Part I, in the version which incorporates the information required further to the adoption of the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that for ships built before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006, the requirements for the construction and equipment of ships set forth in the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92), and the Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133), shall continue to apply to the extent that they were applicable prior to that date, under the law or practice of the Member concerned (Regulation 3.1, paragraph 2). The Committee noted that under the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, ships built before the entry into force of the Convention in Belgium are subject only to the requirements on the construction and equipment of ships set forth in Convention No. 92. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the requirements of Convention No. 133 in respect of ships built before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 20 July 1973 regulating maritime inspection. The Government points out that this is very similar to Convention No. 133 and hence the conformity of Belgian ships with the provisions of Convention No. 133 is ensured. The Committee notes that clause 1(5) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 20 July 1973 provides that the requirements of this Appendix implementing Regulation A3.1 of the MLC, 2006, which deals with the construction and equipment of ships, only apply to ships built on or after 20 August 2014. For ships built before 20 August 2014, the requirements concerning the construction and equipment of ships set forth in Convention No. 92 and Convention No. 133 will continue to apply. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee notes that clause 7(2)(A) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 1973 provides that on passenger ships where more than four crew members are lodged in the same berth area the minimum surface area per occupant shall be 2.22 square metres. Recalling that Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(i), provides that on passenger ships the floor area of sleeping rooms for seafarers not performing the duties of ships’ officers shall not be less than 14.5 square metres in rooms accommodating four persons, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the Convention does not provide for any exceptions to the implementation of this requirement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the maximum number of seafarers per sleeping room and the size of these rooms on passenger ships comply with the requirements of Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(i).

The Committee notes that clause 13(1) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 1973 provides that any ship covered by section 1 of the Royal Order of 7 January 1998 concerning medical assistance on board ships of more than 500 gross tonnage carrying 15 or more seafarers and engaged in a voyage of more than three days’ duration shall provide accommodation for the administration of medical care. Recalling that Standard A3.1, paragraph 12, not only applies to ships of more than 500 gross tonnage, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the conformity of its national legislation with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that sections 13 and 15 of the Royal Order of 30 September 2014 refer to permissible exemptions and derogations from the provisions of Standard A3.1 and that a follow-up committee has been established at national level, whose mandate includes issuing an opinion on the feasibility of derogations from the requirements of Standard A3.1. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the decisions, either adopted or under preparation, which would constitute exemptions or derogations from the application of Standard A3.1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no exemption or derogation has been granted or requested. Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board and ashore. Regarding measures ensuring that seafarers are able to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delay in ports of call, where practicable (Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c)), the Government mainly refers to the Royal Order of 15 December 2010 concerning first aid for workers suffering injury or illness. The Committee notes that this text does not specifically cover the situation of seafarers calling at a foreign port when they are working under the Belgian flag or calling at a Belgian port, whether they are working under the Belgian or a foreign flag. The Committee also notes that the Royal Order of 15 December 2010 deals with first aid defined as all acts needed to limit the consequences of an accident or traumatic or non-traumatic incident and to ensure that injuries are not aggravated while waiting, if necessary, for specialist assistance. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c), is not solely concerned with situations of first aid. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information on the national measures giving full effect to Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that seafarers on ships sailing in Belgian territorial waters or calling at a Belgian port have access to medical facilities on shore when they need immediate medical or dental care (Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3), but the Government does not specify the applicable measures. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures giving effect to Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3.

In response to its previous comment on the level of training required for seafarers who are not medical doctors and who are in charge of providing medical care (Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c)), the Committee notes with interest the Government’s reference to the relevant provisions of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 and to the Royal Order of 7 January 1998 concerning medical assistance on board ships, as amended. The Committee also requests the Government to send the standard medical report form for seafarers adopted pursuant to Standard A4.1, paragraph 2.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee previously noted that under section 65 of the Act of 3 June 2007, the assistance due from shipowners in the event of illness or accident covers only medical treatment and the provision of medicines and other therapeutical appliances, and that board and lodging expenses appear to be borne by the shipowner only in the event of repatriation. The Committee recalled in this connection that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(c), provides that shipowners shall be liable to defray the expense of board and lodging away from home until the sick or injured seafarer has recovered or until the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character. It further noted that these costs also appeared not to be covered by the social security scheme applying to merchant navy seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that shipowners bear the costs of board and lodging for seafarers suffering accident or illness when they are not repatriated, if such costs are indeed not covered by the applicable social security scheme. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it goes without saying that if the seafarer is not repatriated following an accident or illness and he or she remains on board, the obligation established in section 65 of the Act of 3 June 2007 still applies. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee previously noted that the Act of 3 June 2007 does not provide for the shipowner to bear the cost of burial expenses. The Committee emphasized that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d), also makes the shipowner liable to pay the cost of burial expenses in the event of death occurring on board or ashore during the period of engagement, while Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 6, allows an exemption for the shipowner if such liability is assumed by the public authorities. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1(d) and 6. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to clause 9 of the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 issuing provisions common to the collective labour agreement for officers and ratings registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company, which is in conformity with the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures ensuring that seafarers not covered by this collective agreement enjoy the protection prescribed by Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d).

In its previous comment, noting that sections 65 and 66 of the Act of 3 June 2007 continue to specify the end of the voyage or the actual repatriation of the seafarer as limits to the shipowner’s liability, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to provide seafarers working on board Belgian-flagged ships with protection that meets the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 concerning the working conditions of seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag, as established by section 1bis(1) of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945. The Government adds that the usual social security rules apply to seafarers registered with the pool. All are covered by the regulations relating to occupational accidents and compulsory health insurance. The Government points out that the laws and regulations exceed the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that an employer that has paid the requisite remuneration or a share in medical or travel expenses may recover these costs from the seafarer or the seafarer’s dependants if it demonstrates that the illness or accident is due solely to serious misconduct on the part of the seafarer. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether this serious misconduct must also be wilful, as provided in the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, by analogy with the general regulations on occupational accidents, which provide, in section 48 of the Act of 10 April 1971, that compensation established by the present Act is not due when the accident was deliberately caused by the victim, the expression “serious misconduct” referred to in section 67 of the Act of 3 June 2007 should be interpreted as serious misconduct involving a deliberate act carried out with the intention of causing harm. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regarding the safeguarding of property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers, the Committee noted that neither the Act of 3 June 2007 nor the applicable collective agreements establish an obligation to return the property to the seafarers or to their next of kin (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7). The Committee asked the Government to indicate the provisions adopted or envisaged to ensure compliance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of two collective agreements: the agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool; and the agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings registered with the Belgian pool and employed by a Belgian company. The Committee notes that these two collective agreements indeed provide for the coverage of baggage transport costs, but only in cases of repatriation and not in cases of death as required by Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. The Committee also notes that these collective agreements are only concerned with seafarers registered with the pool. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate the measures that give full effect to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7, for all seafarers within the meaning of the MLC, 2006.

Regarding the financial security that shipowners are required to provide in order to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(b) and paragraphs 8–14, and Standard A4.2.2), the Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Act of 6 March 2017 “amending the Act of 3 June 2007 on labour law” and the Act of 13 June 2014 “implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006”, which gives effect in Belgian law to the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes that section 7 of the Act of 13 June 2014 provides that any ship of 500 gross tonnage or more flying the Belgian flag and engaged in an international voyage or operating from a port or between ports of another country shall hold on board and keep up to date a Maritime Labour Certificate, a DMLC and insurance certificates as required by the MLC, 2006. The present title also applies to any other ship flying the Belgian flag at the request of the shipowner or designated official. The insurance certificates designate the certificate of insurance relating to repatriation and the certificate of insurance or any other financial security relating to the shipowner’s responsibility. The Committee recalls that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 11, provides that all ships – and not only those obliged to be certified pursuant to Regulation 5.1.3, paragraph 1 – must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures giving full effect to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 11. The Committee also requests it to send a copy of a standard certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4-I to the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14.)

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that implementation of the requirements of Regulation 4.3 is ensured mainly through the provisions of the Act of 3 June 2007, the Act of 4 August 1996 concerning the welfare of workers in the performance of their work and the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 336/2006 of 15 February 2006 on the implementation of the International Safety Management Code within the Community. The Committee asked the Government to specify the categories of seafarers that fall within the scope of the Act of 4 August 1996. The Committee also asked the Government to provide detailed information on national guidelines pertaining to the management of occupational safety and health on board ships flying the Belgian flag that have been promulgated or that are being developed (Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2) and on occupational safety and health policies and programmes on ships that have been adopted and are being effectively implemented at national level (Standard A4.3, paragraph 1(a)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Act of 4 August 1996 concerning the welfare of workers is applicable to workers bound by a seafarers’ employment agreement and workers bound by an inland waterways employment agreement. The Government indicates that all the legislation concerning worker welfare and the various Royal Orders implementing them are therefore applicable to seafarers employed on ships, including seafarers not registered with the merchant navy pool. The Government explains that certain generally applicable regulatory texts are not concerned with seafarers who are covered by specific instruments and that self-employed persons do not come within the scope of the Belgian legislation relating to worker welfare. However, regarding these workers, the Government refers to section 5(1)(2) of the Act of 13 June 2014, which provides that the shipowner must ensure that seafarers having a status other than employee enjoy decent living and working conditions equivalent to those afforded to seafarers with employee status by the national provisions giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to send copies of specific instruments that deal with the prevention of occupational hazards for workers employed on ships to which the MLC, 2006, applies.

The Committee previously noted that clause 29(5) of the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company refers to an “advisory committee on safety and health”, which has authority to examine the nature and gravity of occupational accidents on board ships, to explore possible preventive measures and to present advice and proposals to competent bodies, organizations and institutions, and shipowners in connection with the health and safety of crews. Recalling that Standard A4.3, paragraph 3, requires member States regularly to review the laws and regulations and other measures taken, in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations and, if necessary, revise them to take account of changes in technology and research and of the need to improve them continuously, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the “advisory committee on safety and health” has actually been established and, if not, to specify the framework in which such regular review takes place. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this collective labour agreement is no longer applicable. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee previously noted that access to benefits provided to seafarers residing in Belgium, in respect of social security protection supplementary to that specified in Regulations 4.1 and 4.2, is ensured through affiliation to the national social security scheme, pursuant to sections 2, 2bis and 2ter of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 concerning the social security of merchant navy seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on the different categories of seafarers who are actually allowed to join this social security scheme. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the application of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 is very broad and makes no distinction between the various categories of seafarers. The Government explains that the crucial elements for determining seafarer status are: (1) employment on a seagoing ship, which excludes persons employed on pleasure craft or inland waterway vessels; (2) being assigned to operation of the ship, which excludes divers, scientists or instructors on training ships; and (3) the signature of a seafarers’ employment agreement with a shipowner, which excludes pilots, for example. However, the Committee notes that the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 mainly refers to the flag of the ship to determine its scope of application. The Committee also notes that section 30 of the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions indicates that its provisions are applicable to employment agreements for seafarers on Belgian seagoing ships, regardless of the place where the agreement was concluded and the nationality of the employer, shipowner or seafarer. Its provisions are also applicable to seafarers’ employment agreements concluded between a Belgian employer or a Belgian shipowner and a seafarer principally resident in Belgium employed on ships flying a flag other than the Belgian flag. The conclusion of an employment agreement gives rise, for seafarers whose shipowner or employer comes under the authority of the joint committee for the merchant navy, to the statutory application of the Belgian social security scheme, as established by the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945. The Committee recalls that Standard A4.5, paragraph 3, provides that each Member shall take steps according to its national circumstances to provide the complementary social security protection referred to in paragraph 1 of this Standard to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. This provision therefore does not limit this responsibility to agreements concluded with a Belgian shipowner or employer, as section 30 of the Act of 3 June 2007 appears to indicate. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to extend the protection provided under Standard A4.5, paragraph 3, to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory and who work on board foreign-flagged ships.

In its previous comment, the Committee also noted that the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 concerning the working conditions of seafarers not registered with the Belgian pool who are employed on merchant ships flying the Belgian flag – which, according to its preamble, concerns seafarers residing outside the European Union – deals with certain social security benefits. The Committee noted that clause 20 of the collective agreement requires the employer to take out adequate insurance to cover in full any unforeseen circumstances arising under the terms of the collective agreement. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the specific risks that must be covered by this insurance and any applicable penalties for non-compliance with this requirement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all risks deriving from obligations determined by the collective labour agreement of 3 August 2012 are insured. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 does not lay down any penalties but that the competent authority must decide them if necessary. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all the measures taken or contemplated that seek to provide social benefits to seafarers who do not reside in the national territory, who work on ships flying the national flag and who do not have adequate social security coverage (Standard A4.5, paragraphs 5 and 6; Guideline B4.5, paragraph 5).

Regulation 5.1.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. General principles. The Committee previously noted that three bodies had been established with competence to implement the requirements of Title 5 of the Convention (follow-up committee, coordination task force and single contact point) through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) concluded pursuant to section 5 of the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006. It asked the Government to specify the composition of the above-mentioned bodies. The Committee notes the transmission of the MoU, which specifies the composition, tasks and functioning of these three bodies. The Committee notes that clause A.6 of the MoU indicates that the follow-up committee shall evaluate the implementation of the MoU each year. The evaluation shall address any deficiencies recorded, their nature and the measures taken to rectify them. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee previously noted that section 5 of the Act of 13 June 2014 states that “in the case of ships flying the Belgian flag, this Act applies only to the seafarers specified in the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions and in its implementing orders, and to seafarers holding a status other than that of employee. The shipowner shall ensure that seafarers with a status other than that of employee enjoy decent working and living conditions equivalent to those established for seafarers with employee status in the national laws and regulations giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006”. The Committee recalled that Regulation 5.1 of the Convention applies to all seafarers working in any capacity on board ships flying the flag of the State concerned, irrespective of their State of residence or their nationality. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the categories of seafarers that are excluded from the scope of application of the Act of 13 June 2014. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Royal Order of 7 March 2016 establishing the categories of persons who are not seafarers pursuant to section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007, and notes that no other category of seafarers is excluded from the scope of application of the Act of 13 June 2014. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 5.1.2 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Authorization of recognized organizations. The Committee previously noted that under section 3(4) of the Royal Order of 13 March 2011 setting common rules and standards for ship inspection organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, inspection and certification activities may be delegated to bodies approved by a decision of the competent minister. The Committee asked the Government to provide further information on any such delegation granted. The Committee notes that the Government has provided an example of a contract for the delegation of tasks relating to the renewal of ships’ certificates and also a document entitled “The Work Matrix” (version 7), which describes the conditions in which recognized organizations perform their tasks. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime Labour Certificate and DMLC. The Committee recalls that Regulation 5.1.3, paragraph 6, provides that where the competent authority of the Member or a recognized organization duly authorized for this purpose has ascertained through inspection that a ship that flies the Member’s flag meets or continues to meet the standards of this Convention, it shall issue or renew a Maritime Labour Certificate to that effect and maintain a publicly available record of that certificate. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions ensuring that the record of the Maritime Labour Certificate is indeed publicly available.