Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The collective agreements provided in 1987 were concluded between the Association of Peruvian Shipowners and the Peruvian Federation of Seafarers. In accordance with Peruvian legislation, "seafarers" means those who show they have satisfactorily completed the corresponding training course organised by the National Merchant Marine School as well as the Training, Qualification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers Standards and obtained the boarding document from the maritime authorities (section B030308 and following of the Captaincy and Marine, River and Lake Activities Regulations). Thus, the collective agreements in question only apply to ordinary seafarers, since officers are covered by other collective agreements.

The above-mentioned Regulations, approved by Supreme Decree No. 02-87-MA of 9 April 1987, brought the Peruvian maritime legislation up to date and regulate the organisation, jurisdiction and functions of the maritime authority in maritime, river and lake activities in Peru and the supervision of activities in navigable waters, as well as personnel and material questions in the national merchant marine, fishing and water sports: maritime labour and similar activities; protection of the marine environment and its resources and wealth; safety of life at sea and on navigable rivers and lakes, safety and supervision of ports and docks; and the struggle against smuggling and other illegal activities within its competence. It also decides on administrative procedures for the investigation of damage or accidents to ships or persons, damage to cargo and contamination of waters.

The Regulations are obviously wide-ranging and comprehensive and they include the working conditions of seafarers on board ship.

As regards the Convention, the Regulations deal with the quantity and quality of food and catering on board ship and the right of crew members to make complaints to the competent authorities in respect of the quality and quantity of food provided on board. Yet there are some gaps and some unclear provisions in the Regulations which are being studied in detail by those concerned with a view to amending them.

Legislation dealing specifically with food and catering on board ship is envisaged.

Besides this, Parliament is studying a law to regulate working conditions of seafarers on board ship. Further, the present Committee should be informed that a tripartite seminar is taking place in Peru this month with participation of all professional maritime organisations in order to lay the foundations for working conditions on board ship.

In addition, a Government representative stated that, with respect to the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the necessity to adopt legislation on food and catering arrangements and to establish a labour inspection system, two legal provisions existed. The first, Supreme Decree No. 012-77-SA of October 1977, contained rules concerning the approval by the Ministry of Health for water for human consumption and the periodic control of equipment. As well, it set out the rules which must be observed in the supply, storage and handling of food. The other legal provision which covered ships' crews was the Captaincy Rules issued in 1987 which were intended to bring into conformity national legislation with ratified Conventions, including the present Convention. These rules specified that before ships set sail verification must be made that, according to the route, time of year, duration of the voyage and other foreseeable factors, sufficient supplies were on board. They also established the responsibilities of the administration. In regard to the establishment of an inspection system, the rules also required periodic inspection. Inspectors must record any deficiencies found, and these would be subject to sanctions. The rules also established the right of ships' crews if they numbered no less than one-third, to protest against the quantity and quality of the food supplied to them to the Maritime or Consular Authorities. The directorate of the Captaincy would take into consideration the comments made by the sectors affected by the rules so that any necessary modifications could be made. The Maritime Authorities had stated that with respect to the observations made by the Committee of Experts, that one of the issues which would be completed would be the supply of food and catering services. In conclusion, the Government representative stated that studies were being carried out with the aim of eventually enacting a law which would regulate the working conditions of ships' crews and that assistance in this matter had been requested from the ILO.

The Employers' members stated that collective agreements were also a means of applying the Convention, but what needed to be known was who were covered by these agreements. They asked if in Peru there existed the possibility to extend collective agreements by national legislation. They thought that the legal texts which had been referred to should be communicated to the ILO in order that they could be examined for any shortcomings and the means by which these could be overcome. They hoped that in the next report the Government would reply to the observations made by the trade unions in regard to the application of this Convention.

The Workers' members associated themselves with the comments made by the Employers' members. They remarked that this case had been discussed in 1983, 1984 and 1986, and that it had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1984. They hoped that the law to which the Government representative had referred would be enacted as quickly as possible and that the information requested from the Government, especially on the points raised by the Peruvian trade unions, would be sent as quickly as possible to the ILO.

The Worker member of Argentina expressed his agreement with the remarks made by the Workers' members' spokesman. He stressed the importance that food supplies and catering arrangements had for seafers given the nature of their work which obliged them to live away from their families for long periods of time. He asked the Government representative to urge her Government to undertake the necessary legislative measures to fulfil the provisions of the present Convention.

The Government representative stated that her Government recognised that the provisions of the Convention had not been fully complied with, but that they were endeavouring to bring into conformity all legislation with the provisions of international Conventions. She referred to the problems that arose when responsibilities were shared with other sectors; in the present case the Ministry of Defence of which depends also the Merchant Navy. In reply to the Employers' members on the question of collective agreements, she stated that collective agreements which applied to ships' crews members had been sent to the ILO; those which applied to officers would be sent shortly.

The Committee takes note of the detailed written and oral information supplied by the Government. As pointed out in the observation of the Committee of Experts, laws or regulations should be adopted to give effect to several Articles of the Convention. The indications given by the Government show that the regulations adopted in 1987 do not meet all these requirements, especially since the case was discussed for many years. The Committee hopes that the Government will take all necessary measures in the near future, with the assistance of the ILO, and supply full information in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of Conventions Nos 22, 23, 55, 56, 68, 69 and 147. It also notes the observations of the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions (CONFIEP) and the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), received on 29 August and 1 September 2024, respectively. The Committee regrets to note that there has not been any progress in the adoption of the necessary measures to give full effect to the provisions of the Conventions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to adopt the necessary measures for this purpose without further delay, taking into account the points raised below.

The Committee recalls that, in the context of the Standards Review Mechanism, the Governing Body of the ILO has included an item on the agenda of the 118th Session (2030) of the International Labour Conference for the abrogation of Conventions Nos 22, 23, 55, 56, 68 and 69 and has requested the Office to carry out an initiative to promote, as a priority, the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), by countries that are bound by the above Conventions. Noting that almost all the maritime Conventions ratified by Peru (with the exception of Convention No. 147) will in principle be abrogated in 2030, the Committee encourages the Government to ratify the MLC, 2006.

In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of the maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

Seamen ’ s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22)

Article 3 of the Convention. Guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its comments, that Bill No. 5869/2023-CR, regulating the status and recognition of maritime workers, the provisions of which are related to the Convention, is currently being reviewed by the Labour and Social Security Commission of the Congress of the Republic. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure compliance with the guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement and to give full effect to Article 3.

Articles 4 and 6. Clauses and particulars of the articles of agreement. The Committee notes that, in its reply to its previous comments, in addition to referring to the Bill noted above, the Government indicates that, although provisions have not been adopted on the clauses or content of the articles of agreement, that does not prevent the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority (SUNAFIL) from verifying compliance in general terms with social and labour rules in the maritime sector. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, despite section 444(4) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 on the strengthening of the armed forces within the areas of competence of the National Maritime Authority – Port and Coastguard Directorate-General (DICAPI), which provides that “The competent authority shall specify the clauses to be included in the articles of agreement of seafarers, in accordance with the national legislation and the international instruments to which Peru is a party …”, this is not referred to in any of the other sections of the Regulations, and there do not exist national laws specifically regulating the articles of agreement of seafarers. The CATP adds that, as there are no specific regulations, the engagement of seafarers is governed by the rules applicable to private activity, without taking into account the atypical conditions of seafarers, who are therefore vulnerable in relation to articles of agreement and their fundamental rights are violated. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 4 and to establish the particulars and clauses to be included in the articles of agreement of seafarers under section 444(4) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 and in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention.

Article 5.Document recording service on board. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government refers to the inspections carried out by the labour inspection services in the fishing sector, which are not relevant to the present case. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the State of Peru has not amended the legislation with a view to guaranteeing that seafarers receive a document containing a record of their employment on board. The CATP adds that the limited coordination between the authorities that enforce compliance with this requirement makes it impossible to verify compliance in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 5.

Articles 9 and 11. Termination of an agreement of an indefinite period. Immediate discharge. With reference to its previous comments, in which it noted that the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 do not give effect to these provisions, the Government notes that the Government refers in generic terms to the information provided on the previous points. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the general rules applicable to the private sector are the only ones implemented in this respect, which does not permit the direct application of the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention. In contrast, the rules governing private labour activities, contained in the Single Codified Text of Legislative Decree No. 728, the Act on labour productivity and competitiveness, Presidential Decree No. 003-97-TR, provides that notice of termination shall be 30 calendar days. With reference to Article 11 of the Convention, the CATP indicates that section 31 of the same Presidential Decree provides for immediate discharge in cases of “flagrant serious fault”, which makes it possible for employers to discharge workers abruptly, without having to comply with the regular procedure for termination of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to determine the conditions for the termination of articles of agreement for an indefinite period and the circumstances in which the shipowner or the master may immediately discharge a seafarer, in accordance with Articles 9 and 11.

Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23)

Article 6. Obligations of the public authority of the country in which the vessel is registered. Noting that, in accordance with section 755(2) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147, the National Maritime Authority shall contribute to the prompt repatriation or re-embarkation of seafarers by the shipowner following a marine accident, the Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the instructions received by the public authority to ensure the repatriation of seafarers without distinction of nationality and to advance repatriation expenses if necessary. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will provide information on this subject in the near future. The Committee also notes the CONFIEP’s indication that, despite the challenges implicit in the geographical area, companies comply with the provisions of the Convention and have established clear procedures for repatriation situations, including taking out insurance to cover the related costs. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, although the National Maritime Authority is required to collaborate in the repatriation of seafarers, in practice there are no provisions under which this requirement is given effect. In this context, none of the obligations of the National Maritime Authority set out in section 775(2) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 (protection of the basic human rights of seafarers affected by a marine accident, rapid investigation of accidents, recording of cases of unfair treatment following a marine accident) are complied with in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to give full effect to Article 6.

Shipowners ’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Articles 6(3) and 8 of the Convention. Repatriation.Safeguarding property left on board. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request on the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)) and the measures to safeguard property left on board in the case of sick or injured seafarers (Article 8), the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CONFIEP’s indication that formal fishing companies not only take occupational safety and health preventive action to minimize occupational accidents, but also, in the event that any work-related accident occurs, they make claims from all insurance policies to provide compensation and ensure the provision of the necessary medical care in the event of sickness or injury. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that there is a clear legislative disparity between the occupational safety and health legislation (Act No. 29783 on occupational safety and health) and the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 since, while the former provides that occupational accidents and diseases shall be registered on the platform of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE) by the employer or the corresponding occupational doctor, the latter envisage a different role for the National Maritime Authority. With reference to Article 8, the CATP indicates that there is currently no legislation in force in Peru providing for the safeguarding of property left on board by sick or injured seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to determine the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)) and to ensure the safeguarding of property left on board by sick or injured seafarers.

Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56)

The Committee notes the CATP’s indication that, as a result of the legislative fragmentation respecting the social security system for fishers, of the approximately 133,000 workers who were in the fishing sector in 2022, only 37 per cent are affiliated to any insurance scheme in Peru, while 63 per cent do not have any social insurance coverage. It adds that efforts were made to ensure compulsory insurance coverage for artisanal fishers (a group which includes the great majority of workers in the sector) through Act No. 30636 establishing the Compulsory Insurance Scheme for Artisanal Fishers (SOPA). This scheme operated as an insurance for personal accidents and covered the risks of the death and physical injury of self-employed artisanal fishers and crewmembers, as well as third persons who are not in the crew, during fishing work, as a consequence of an accident in which the vessel is involved, including in waters adjacent to the maritime domain. The CATP indicates that, regrettably, regulations were never issued under Act No. 30636 and that in 2022 it was repealed by Act No. 31428, and that full effect is not therefore given to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention in Peru. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (No. 58)

The Committee notes the indication by the CONFIEP that the effective implementation of this Convention in the national context faces various challenges. Young persons who work in the maritime sector are faced by a variety of risks and hazards, including extreme working conditions, such as very long hours of work, the lack of rest, work in confined spaces, exposure to hazardous substances and the risk of accidents. One of the main difficulties in the application of this Convention in Peru lies in the high rate of informality characteristic of the maritime sector. The absence of labour registers and the difficulty of identifying workers, especially minors, makes effective enforcement difficult. This is compounded by the limited capacity of the competent authorities to carry out inspections, which facilitates non-compliance with labour rules, including those respecting the minimum age for admission to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Food and Catering (Ships ’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68)

Article 3 of the Convention. Cooperation with organizations of shipowners and seafarers. The Committee notes that, in reply to its comments, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that the legislation in force does not provide any legislative guarantee to ensure the existence in practice of effective cooperation between the Government and the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, and that effect is not therefore given to Article 3. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to ensure cooperation between the competent authority and the organizations of shipowners and seafarers in relation to food and catering on board.

Article 11(2). Refresher courses. The Committee notes the CATP’s indication that, although the Government had indicated previously that there were some training courses related to work performed by seafarers, the current legislation in Peru does not directly establish the requirement for refresher courses for personnel involved in the provision of food and catering on board ships. It adds that it is reported to be a common practice that the personnel responsible for the provision of food do not always have the necessary qualifications or skills for that purpose, which is the clear responsibility of the shipowners who recruit such workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 12. Collection and dissemination of information and recommendations. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government once again indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CATP’s indication that, over eight years since the Committee’s request (of 2016), the Government of Peru has not managed to provide information on this subject, since in practice no action has been taken on the collection and dissemination of information on food and catering on board ships. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay for the collection and dissemination of information and for issuing recommendations on food and catering.

Certification of Ships ’ Cooks Convention, 1946 (No. 69)

Article 4(4) of the Convention. Examination for a certificate of qualification. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, although it is currently the DICAPI that establishes guidance for the provision of courses, shipping companies are also responsible for the provision of courses and their content, which not only gives rise to a potential conflict of interests, but is also a model that is not provided for in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 4(4), particularly in relation to the organization and content of the examination for the granting of a certificate of qualification for ships’ cooks.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Article 2(d)(i) and (ii) and (g) of the Convention. Procedures for the engagement of seafarers on Peruvian ships. Complaints concerning the engagement of seafarers on foreign ships. Publication of the report of an inquiry into a serious accident. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous requests on these provisions, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the possibility for the labour inspection services, under the responsibility of the SUNAFIL, to inspect ships depends on the collaboration and cooperation of the DICAPI. Up to now, no provision has been found which makes it possible to ensure the existence in practice of the collaboration that should exist between these two bodies, nor is there a protocol on intersectoral coordination envisaging such joint work. More specifically, in relation to Article 2(d)(i) and (ii), there are no legislative provisions in Peru respecting the engagement of seafarers, nor any procedures for complaints relating to the articles of agreement of seafarers. The CATP indicates that conditions on board (deficient Internet connection, little telephone communication, excessive periods on board, restrictions on shore leave, etc.), make it difficult for seafarers to have access to such procedures, which in many cases involve a visit to the offices of public bodies. The CATP adds that effect is not given to Article 2(g) since, although there exists a department for the investigation of maritime accidents by the National Maritime Authority, there are no procedures for the publication of information. The CATP adds that the possibility should exist, in line with the provisions of Article 4 of Convention No. 147, for workers’ organizations to be able to submit complaints or representations directly to the DICAPI, but there are no explicit provisions on this in the current legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to regulate the engagement of seafarers on ships registered in its territory (Article 2(d)(i)) and the procedures for the transmission of complaints concerning the engagement of seafarers on foreign ships (Article 2(d)(ii)), and to give full effect to the requirement for the final report of official inquiries into any serious accident involving ships registered in its territory to be made public (Article 2(g)).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of the Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55), and the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56). In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of these maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55). Article 6. Repatriation. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention, in particular those relating to the specific destinations to which the seafarer may be repatriated and the items of expense covered. The Committee notes that section 447.1 of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 (adopted by Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE of 28 November 2014) provides that seafarers have the right to be transported to the port of embarkation at the expense of the shipowner in the event of illness, provided that the seafarer cannot continue to carry out his or her duties or cannot be expected to continue doing so in specific circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)).

Article 8. Safeguarding property left on board. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to adopt measures to ensure that the national legislation requires shipowners or their representatives to take steps to safeguard the property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on this matter. The Committee also notes that section 404 of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, like the repealed Decree No. 028-DE/MGP, provides that the captain is obliged to safeguard all of the papers and clothing of any seafarer who dies on board the ship. However, it does not provide for the adoption of measures for safeguarding property left on board by sick or injured seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56). Articles 1 and 2. Payments under the compulsory sickness insurance scheme. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the adoption of SBS Resolution No. 14707-2010 of 15 November 2010 concerning the dissolution of the Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP). The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures in practice the payment, under all circumstances, of cash benefits for a minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity and to supply detailed information on any measures taken to reorganize and operate an insurance body responsible for providing the benefits prescribed by the Convention. The Committee also requested the Government to provide its comments in response to the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) regarding, inter alia, the absence of legislative provisions guaranteeing the payment of cash benefits for at least the first 26 weeks of incapacity.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to the Committee’s comments and the observations of the CGTP, that under section 447.2(c) of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, with a view to guaranteeing the access to social security of working and retired fishers covered by Decision SBS No. 14707-2010, the National Congress adopted Act No. 30003 of 27 March 2013, which governs the special social security scheme for working and retired fishers. The Government indicates that the Act and its implementing regulations (Supreme Decree No. 007-2014-EF) regulate the following financial benefits: the “direct transfer to retired fishers” benefit (TDEP); the retirement pension for fishers affiliated to the special pension scheme for fishers (REP); the disability benefit for fishers affiliated to the REP; the payment of the TDEP as survivors’ benefit; and a survivors’ benefit from the REP. The Government adds that section 2(b) of Act No. 30003 guarantees full insurance for fishers and their dependants, and those in receipt of a pension from the now dissolved CBSSP, as regular members of the contributory social security health scheme under the aegis of the Social Health Service of Peru (ESSALUD). In this regard, section 27 of the Act provides that fishers affiliated to the REP or the Pension Funds Private Administration System (SPP) are covered by ESSALUD as regular members of the contributory social security health system. To this effect, the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 005-2005-TR, or any superseding legislation, are applicable, even in the event that the fisher was not affiliated to the CBSSP. Under section 6 of Supreme Decree No. 005-2005-TR, dependent fishers, retirees and their dependants shall be entitled to the benefits established in Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, implementing the Social Health Insurance Modernization Act. The Government also refers to section 15 of the regulations governing the temporary incapacity benefit, which provides that the benefit shall be equal to the average daily wages during the 12 months preceding the contingency, multiplied by the number of days for which the benefit is to be paid. If the total number of months is less than 12, the average shall be determined on the basis of the length of time that the regular member has been contributing. The benefit shall be granted for a maximum consecutive period of 11 months and ten days. Entitlement to the benefit starts on the 21st day of incapacity; during the first 20 days the employer is still required to pay wages. Lastly, the Government indicates that, as of 30 June 2015, a total of 2,724 fishers were affiliated to the REP and there were 7,523 beneficiaries in receipt of TDEP benefits.

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its reports on the application of various maritime Conventions, that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), is being examined within the Technical Labour Committee of the National Council for Labour and Employment Promotion. The Committee also notes the adoption, by Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE of 28 November 2014, of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 on the strengthening of the armed forces in terms of the competencies of the National Maritime Authority – Port and Coastguard Directorate-General (DICAPI) (hereinafter Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government according to which officials of the Labour Inspection Policies Directorate-General at the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (hereinafter Ministry of Labour) and of the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority (SUNAFIL) are drafting a “Maritime Labour Protocol” concerning inspections on board ships and forecast that the drafting process will be completed by January 2017. In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of the maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

The Committee observes that article 55 of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that treaties concluded by the State and still in force form part of national law. On this basis, the Committee requests the Government to confirm whether, in the absence of specific national provisions that give effect to the self-executing provisions of the Conventions, the latter provisions are directly applicable in Peru.

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

Article 2(2) of the Convention. Amount of unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. In its previous comments, the Committee reminded the Government that the compensation mechanism of the common labour system, based on length of service, is not in conformity with the Convention, which provides for compensation based on the actual period of unemployment in the event of the loss or foundering of the ship. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 449(d) of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 provides that the foundering of a national vessel does not exempt the shipowner from payment of compensation resulting from the loss or foundering of the ship, in accordance with the national regulations and international instruments to which Peru is party. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether national provisions have been adopted which establish the amount of indemnity provided for in section 449 of the abovementioned Decree.

Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920 (No. 9)

Articles 1–10 of the Convention. System for the placement of seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Convention was applied through Supreme Decree No. 018-73/MA of 18 December 1973, establishing the Seafarers’ Placement Office, and Ministerial Decision No. 1905-73/MA/SF of 21 December 1973, issuing the regulations for the Seafarers’ Placement Office. However, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that both legislative texts have been repealed. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that seafarers’ placement offices ceased to operate after the Regulations implementing Act No. 26610 were issued and that there are currently no public or private bodies responsible for placing seafarers in employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that an efficient and adequate system of offices for finding employment for seafarers without charge is organized and maintained.

Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22)

Article 3 of the Convention. Guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement are respected, as established by the Convention. In this respect, the Government refers to the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147. The Committee observes that although section 446 of the aforementioned Regulations guarantees the formalization before the Peruvian consul of articles of agreement concluded abroad, the said section does not establish the conditions for the signature of articles of agreement when the latter are concluded in Peru. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the provisions adopted or contemplated to give effect to Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 4. Clauses on the rules of jurisdiction. The Committee notes that section 444.4 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 stipulates that the competent authority shall establish the clauses to be included in employment contracts for seafarers. However, the Committee observes the Government’s indication that no supplementary regulations have been issued regarding the clauses governing articles of agreement. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, adequate measures must be taken to prevent articles of agreement from containing any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to give effect to Article 4 of the Convention.

Article 5. Document recording service on board. The Committee notes that, under section 444.3 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, shipowners shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that seafarers, including the ship’s master, can easily obtain on board ship clear information on the terms of their employment, in particular a copy of the employment contract, and shall provide seafarers with a document containing a record of their service on board. However, the Committee observes that the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 do not determine the form or the content of the record of service on board. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, seafarers must be given a document containing a record of their service on board and that the legislation shall determine the form of the document, the particulars to be recorded and the manner under which the latter are to be entered in it. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Article 5 of the Convention.

Article 9. Termination of an agreement for an indefinite period. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the provisions that give effect to Article 9, under which an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given in writing, which shall not be less than 24 hours. National law shall determine the exceptional circumstances in which notice even when duly given shall not terminate the agreement. The Committee notes that the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 do not give effect to the provisions of this Article. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the provisions adopted or contemplated to give effect to Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 11. Immediate discharge. The Committee observes that the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 do not lay down the conditions for immediate discharge. The Committee recalls that, under the Convention, national law shall determine the circumstances in which the owner or master may immediately discharge a seafarer. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Article 11 of the Convention.

Article 14(2). Separate certificate regarding the quality of work. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate how it is ensured that seafarers can obtain a separate certificate regarding the quality of their work from the ship’s master. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147. However, the Committee observes that the Regulations do not give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate the manner in which effect is given to Article 14(2) of the Convention.

Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23)

Article 3(1) and (4) of the Convention. Conditions of repatriation. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to clarify the status of law and practice regarding the conditions under which Peruvian and foreign seafarers have the right to repatriation. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 govern the conditions of repatriation of seafarers without distinction of nationality in accordance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 4(c). Repatriation expenses in the event of illness. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate how it is ensured that the expenses of repatriation are not a charge on the seafarer in the event of illness. The Committee notes with interest that section 447.1 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 prohibits the expenses of repatriation being a charge on the seafarer in the event of illness.

Article 6. Obligations of the public authority of the country in which the vessel is registered. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the instructions received by the public authority to ensure the repatriation of seafarers without distinction of nationality and to advance repatriation expenses if necessary. The Committee notes that, under section 775.2 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, the National Maritime Authority must help to enable the prompt repatriation or re-embarkation of seafarers by the shipowner further to a marine accident. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the analysis of the requested information is still in progress. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to Article 6 of the Convention.

Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68)

Article 3 of the Convention. Cooperation with organizations of shipowners and seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on cooperation between the competent authority and organizations of shipowners and seafarers regarding food and catering on board ship. The Committee observes that although the Government supplies information on the coordination of activities between the authorities concerned, it does not indicate how cooperation between the competent authority and organizations of shipowners and seafarers is ensured. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures taken in this respect, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 11(2). Refresher courses. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on refresher courses for catering staff on ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that training for seafarers in food and catering on ships is carried out by the shipping companies in coordination with the various maritime and other training centres that provide training in the practical aspects of cooking, food and personal hygiene, food storage, management of stocks, and protection of the environment, and safety and health in catering. The Committee notes this information.

Article 12. Collection and dissemination of information and recommendations. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the competent authority collects and disseminates information and issues recommendations on food and catering on ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the analysis of the requested information is still being completed with a view to forwarding the information to the Committee as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide details of the measures taken to collect and disseminate information and issue recommendations on food and catering.

Certification of Ships’ Cooks Convention, 1946 (No. 69)

Article 4(4) of the Convention. Examination for a certificate of qualification. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, the competent authority shall prescribe the examination for the granting of a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook directly or, subject to its control, by an approved school for the training of cooks or other approved bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the training of ships’ cooks is conducted by the shipping companies in coordination with the various maritime and other training centres that provide training in the practical aspects of cooking, food and personal hygiene, food storage, management of stocks, and protection of the environment, and safety and health in catering. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken by the competent authority to give effect to Article 4(4) of the Convention and to send information especially on the organization and content of the examination for the granting of a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook.

Article 6. Recognition of certificates. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether or not provision had been made for the recognition of certificates of qualification issued by other countries. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that DICAPI recognizes foreign qualifications pursuant to section 385 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147.

Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73)

Article 3 of the Convention. Recognition of certificates. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the content of medical examinations for seafarers. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Executive Decision No. 0619-2010/DCG of 13 August 2010, issuing regulations governing medical examinations for merchant navy personnel.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. Safety standards. Substantial equivalence to Article 7 of Convention No. 134. Prevention of accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the members of the crew responsible for accident prevention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that accident prevention on board ship is the responsibility of the ship’s master, pursuant to sections 387, 400, 402, 403, 407, 408 and 409 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147. The Committee notes this information.

Article 2(b) and (f). Exercise of effective jurisdiction or control by the flag State. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the control of ships flying the Peruvian flag with respect to safety on board ship, social security and conditions of employment. The Committee notes that sections 12, 14, 16, 312, 581, 603 and 642–645 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 establish a system of control over safety on board ship. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, under section 3 of the General Labour Inspection Act (No. 28806) the Ministry of Labour is responsible for the inspection of merchant ships, regardless of the flag they fly. The Committee notes this information.

Article 2(d)(i). Procedures for the engagement of seafarers on Peruvian ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are currently no public or private entities responsible for the placement of seafarers. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, the Government must ensure that there are adequate procedures for the engagement of seafarers on ships registered in its territory. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken in law or in practice to ensure compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(d)(ii). Procedures for the transmission of complaints concerning the engagement of seafarers on foreign ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 100 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, when port State officials (OSERP) detect any defects which impede the sailing of the ship, they notify the harbourmaster’s office with a view to informing the flag State administration and, where appropriate, the recognized organizations that have issued relevant certificates on behalf of the flag State. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, the Government must ensure that any complaint concerning the engagement in its territory of foreign seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country is reported to the competent authority of the country in which the ship is registered, with a copy to the Director-General of the International Labour Office. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(g). Publication of the report on an inquiry into a serious accident. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate how it is ensured that an official inquiry is held in the event of a serious maritime accident. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the DICAPI has a department for the investigation of maritime accidents, which is responsible for holding the relevant inquiries and forwarding the information to the corresponding bodies and organizations. The Committee recalls that the requirement of publication can be satisfied when the final report is made available to the interested parties and the conclusions are announced publicly (see 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships, paragraph 258). The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the manner in which the conclusions of the department for the investigation of maritime accidents are published.

Article 4. Port State control. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to specify whether complaints may be submitted to the port authority by professional bodies, associations or trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that any person with a legitimate interest, including trade unions and other professional bodies, may voice grievances to the port authority and file complaints through the system established at the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for the inspection of merchant ships, irrespective of the flag they fly. The Committee notes this information.

Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Convention, 1996 (No. 178)

Article 1(7) of the Convention. Scope of inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to clarify the scope of inspection of seafarers’ working and living conditions. The Committee notes the drafting of the “Maritime Labour Protocol”. The Committee also notes that sections 642.1 and 642.2 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 provide that naval vessels and craft inspected by the Inspection and Audit Office of the National Maritime Authority must fulfil all conditions for ensuring the safety of human life at sea, conditions of accommodation and catering, and conditions of health and hygiene. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Inspection and Audit Office investigates other aspects of seafarers’ working and living conditions such as conditions relating to minimum age, articles of agreement, recruitment, manning, qualifications, hours of work, prevention of occupational accidents, medical care, sickness and injury benefits, social welfare and related matters, and repatriation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide updated information on the drafting of the “Maritime Labour Protocol”.

Article 3(1). Periodic inspection of registered ships. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether all Peruvian-flagged vessels above 500 gross tonnage are inspected at intervals not exceeding three years, with a view to verifying that seafarers’ working and living conditions are in conformity with the national legislation. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information in reply to this request. However, the Committee observes that section 649 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 provides that national vessels undertaking international voyages must undergo the necessary inspections, together with the annual or periodic examination, to verify that they observe the appropriate conditions regarding accommodation, health, hygiene, prevention of occupational accidents, and food and catering. The Committee notes this information.

Article 4. Qualifications of inspectors. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate by what means it is ensured that inspectors responsible for verifying seafarers’ working and living conditions have appropriate qualifications to perform their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the DICAPI has a specialized department and OSERP officials perform duties in ports. However, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is for the Ministry of Labour to conduct inspections on board merchant ships, pursuant to section 3 of Act No. 28806. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the qualifications of inspectors of the Ministry of Labour who conduct inspections on board ship.

Article 9(1). Inspection report. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate by what means it is ensured that, in the case of ship inspections, one copy of the inspection report is communicated to the master of the ship and another copy is posted on the ship’s noticeboard for the information of the seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 45(a) and (b) of Act No. 28806 provides that when the labour inspectorate establishes non compliance with social and labour obligations, it issues an infringement report and notifies the employer to that effect. However, the Committee observes that the aforementioned provision does not ensure that the master of the inspected ship receives a copy of the infringement report or that the report is posted on the ship’s noticeboard for the information of the seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate how effect is given to Article 9(1).

Article 9(2). Submission of the inspection report pursuant to a major incident. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to specify how it is ensured that, in the case of a ship inspection pursuant to a major incident, the inspection report is submitted as soon as practicable, but not later than one month, following the conclusion of the inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 13 of Act No. 28806 provides that the investigation or verification activities of the labour inspectorate shall be carried out within the time frame indicated for each specific case, though this may not exceed 30 working days and, where necessary, authorization may be given to prolong the verification activity. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate which measures ensure that the inspection report pursuant to a major incident is submitted as quickly as possible.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its reports on the application of various maritime Conventions, that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), is being examined within the Technical Labour Committee of the National Council for Labour and Employment Promotion. The Committee also notes the adoption, by Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE of 28 November 2014, of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 on the strengthening of the armed forces in terms of the competencies of the National Maritime Authority – Port and Coastguard Directorate-General (hereinafter Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government according to which officials of the Labour Inspection Policies Directorate-General at the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (hereinafter Ministry of Labour) and of the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority are drafting a “Maritime Labour Protocol” concerning inspections on board ships and forecast that the drafting process will be completed by January 2017. In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of the maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

The Committee observes that article 55 of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that treaties concluded by the State and still in force form part of national law. The Committee requests the Government to confirm whether, on this basis, in the absence of specific national provisions that give effect to the self-executing provisions of the Conventions, the latter provisions are directly applicable in Peru.

Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68)

Article 7(2) of the Convention. Inspection at sea. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take measures to ensure that the results of inspections carried out at sea by the ship’s master or a specially deputed officer are recorded in writing. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the drafting of the “Maritime Labour Protocol” which is in progress. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures without delay to give effect to Article 7(2).

Article 10. Annual report. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the preparation of an annual report on food and catering on board ship. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the analysis of the requested information is still being completed. The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures without delay to give effect to Article 10.

Certification of Ships’ Cooks Convention, 1946 (No. 69)

Article 4(2)(b) of the Convention. Minimum period of service at sea. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to prescribe a minimum period of service at sea for obtaining a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 5(15), 374, 378 and 442 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 and Supreme Decree No. 048-90-DE/MGP of 9 October 1990 approving the Regulations concerning ships’ cooks. However, the Committee observes that the aforementioned provisions do not establish a minimum period of service at sea for obtaining a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to give effect to Article 4(2)(b).

Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73)

Article 3 of the Convention. Recognition of certificates. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the content of medical examinations for seafarers. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Executive Decision No. 0619-2010/DCG of 13 August 2010 issuing regulations governing medical examinations for merchant navy personnel.

Article 8. Further examination after refusal of a medical certificate. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the provisions that ensure that a person who has been refused a certificate may apply for a further examination by one or more independent medical referees. The Committee notes that the Government refers to sections 49 and 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 32222, which establish the obligation for the employer to conduct occupational medical examinations before, during and after the employment relationship. However, the Committee observes that the aforementioned provisions do not guarantee the right to request a second medical examination when the first has resulted in refusal. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take measures without delay to give effect to Article 8.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Article 2(a)(i) and (iii) of the Convention. Safety standards and shipboard living arrangements. Substantial equivalence to the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92). In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to consider appropriate measures to ensure that the national legislation contains provisions that are substantially equivalent to those concerning safety standards and shipboard living arrangements laid down in Convention No. 92. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that although the National Maritime Authority has the competence to issue supplementary regulations concerning accommodation pursuant to section 447.2 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, it has not exercised that competence. The Committee observes that neither the Regulations nor the Code of Safety for the equipment of naval, maritime, river and lake vessels and craft, adopted by Executive Decision No. 0562-2003/DCG of 5 September 2003 (Safety Code) regulate the following matters relating to safety standards and shipboard living arrangements laid down in Convention No. 92: notification of the adoption of provisions concerning accommodation (Article 3(2)(a)), prior consultation of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations regarding the framing of regulations on accommodation (Article 3(2)(e)), inspections when the ship has undergone alterations (Article 5), materials used (Article 6), adequate system of heating (Article 8(1) and (6)), adequate lighting (Article 9), location of sleeping rooms (Article 10(1)), recreation spaces (Article 12), sanitary accommodation for the crew (Article 13(1), (8) and (10)), hospital accommodation on board (Article 14), and weekly inspections (Article 17). The Committee recalls that these Articles are considered substantive provisions of Convention No. 92 relating to safety and shipboard living arrangements, with which compliance is necessary in order to establish the existence of substantial equivalence (see 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships, paragraphs 120, 174 and 175). The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation contains provisions substantially equivalent to those concerning safety standards and shipboard living arrangements established in Convention No. 92.

Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Convention, 1996 (No. 178)

Article 3(3) of the Convention. Inspection in cases of substantial changes. The Committee recalls that it asked the Government to indicate whether, in cases of substantial changes in construction or accommodation arrangements, the ship is inspected within three months of such changes. The Committee notes with regret that the Government indicates that the process of analysis is still being completed and does not provide any information in reply to its request. However, the Committee notes that section 579 of the Regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 provides that the alteration of naval vessels and craft is governed by technical standards established to that end by the Directorate-General but does not shed any light on whether these technical standards require an inspection within three months. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to clarify whether substantial changes in ship construction or accommodation arrangements are inspected within three months of such changes.

Article 6(2). Compensation for unreasonable detention or delay. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate how it is ensured that, if a ship is unreasonably detained or delayed, the shipowner or operator of the ship is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in reply to this request. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 6 of the Convention. Repatriation. Recalling that the shipowner’s obligation to defray the expense of repatriating a sick or injured seafarer who is landed during the voyage in consequence of sickness or injury is now reflected in Standard A2.5(1)(c) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), to be read in conjunction with Guideline B2.5.1(1)(b)(i), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention, in particular those relating to the specific destinations to which the seafarer may be repatriated and the items of expense covered. The Committee also requests the Government to refer to the comments made in 2010 under the Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23).

Article 8. Safeguarding property left on board. The Committee notes that under section E-010609 of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MGP of 25 May 2001, the ship’s master has to secure the belongings left on board by deceased persons. However, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires measures to be taken for safeguarding the property left on board by sick or injured seafarers as well. Recalling that the same requirement has been incorporated in Standard A4.2(7) of the MLC, 2006, with the additional obligation to return the property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers to their next of kin, the Committee requests the Government to take measures in order to fully align its legislation with the Convention on this point.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding the number of inspections carried out during the period 2009–10 with respect to the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, the number of seafarers to whom the Convention applies and who have benefited from medical care and maintenance, distinguishing, if possible, between those left ashore in the national territory and those landed elsewhere; the amounts paid by shipowners and the social security institution for sick, injured or deceased seafarers; copies of collective agreements containing provisions related to the Convention; and relevant extracts from activity reports of the Social Security Health Insurance (EsSalud) and of the National Directorate of Labour Inspection.

Finally, the Committee recalls that most of the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated in Regulation 4.5 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006 and therefore ensuring compliance with Convention No. 55 would facilitate compliance with the corresponding requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments regarding the process of ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.

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

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance scheme. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the adoption of Resolution SBS No. 14707-2010 of 15 November 2010 concerning the dissolution of the Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP). The Government had previously indicated that cash benefits to fishers affiliated to the CBSSP were paid directly by the employers, which nonetheless implied the absence of a sickness insurance scheme administered by a self-governing institution, as required under this Convention. Following the dissolution of the CBSSP, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures in practice the payment, under all circumstances, of cash benefits for a minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity and also to detail any measures taken or planned for reorganizing and operating an insurance institution responsible for providing the benefits prescribed by the Convention.

In addition, the Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), which were transmitted to the Government on 28 September 2010, concerning the absence of legislative provisions guaranteeing the payment of cash benefits for at least the first 26 weeks of incapacity and also the Government’s failure to engage in nationwide consultations with a view to addressing the problems of social security in the fishing sector. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of the CGTP.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 7 of the Convention. Crew list. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires articles of agreement to be either recorded in or annexed to the crew list. Having been unable to find any relevant provision in Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MGP of 25 May 2001 on Regulations on Ports and Activities at Sea and on Inland Waterways, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how effect is given to this Article of the Convention in law and practice.

Article 14(2). Certificate. The Committee recalls that under this Article of the Convention seafarers have the right to obtain from the master, at all times, a document other than the record of employment concerning the quality of their work. Noting that the national legislation only provides for a seaman’s book (libreta de embarco), the Committee requests the Government to specify any relevant provisions, legislative or other, giving effect to this requirement of the Convention.

In addition, the Committee refers to numerous observations it has addressed to the Government over the past 25 years without having received clear and documented answers to the points raised. In view of the legislative changes which have occurred in the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to specify the national laws or regulations – and transmit copies of any text not previously communicated to the Office – that give effect to: Article 3 (safeguards prior to signing the agreement), Article 6 (particulars to be included in the agreement), Article 8 (information on conditions of employment available on board), Article 9 (termination of an agreement for indefinite period in any port), and Article 12 (conditions under which seafarer may demand his/her immediate discharge) of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, inspection results, samples of seafarers’ employment agreements and copies of applicable collective agreements.

Finally, the Committee recalls that the new Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), contains in Regulation 2.1, Standard A2.1 and Guideline B2.1 up-to-date and more detailed requirements on seafarer’s employment agreements that revise existing standards set out in Convention No. 22. The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the MLC, 2006, in the very near future and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 3(1) and 4(c) of the Convention. Conditions for repatriation. The Committee notes the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 076-2005-RE on consular regulations, which repeals Supreme Decree No. 002-79-RE on consular regulations. Noting, however, that both decrees give only partial effect to the basic requirements of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the state of law and practice with respect to the exact conditions under which seafarers are entitled to repatriation and to forward copies of all relevant legislative or regulatory texts.

Article 3(4). Repatriation of foreign seafarers. In the absence of any indication in the Government’s report concerning the repatriation of foreign seafarers, the Committee again requests the Government to provide full particulars on the application of this Article of the Convention, and to transmit copies of any relevant laws or regulations.

Article 5(1). Repatriation expenses. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Supreme Decree No. 076-2005-RE presumably as an instrument implementing the requirements of the Convention with regard to repatriation expenses. It notes, however, that section 413(d) of the Decree merely provides that the maintenance and repatriation of seafarers are the responsibility of the shipowner, or ship agent in the case of sale of ship or shipwreck, while section 413(g) provides that the master must arrange for the medical treatment and repatriation of a seafarer left behind by reason of illness. The Committee recalls that the expenses of repatriation must cover the transportation charges, accommodation and food for the seafarer during the journey and maintenance up to the time fixed for his/her departure. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to give full effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention.

Article 6. Responsibility of the public authority. The Committee notes that the consular authorities may draw upon the “Humanitarian Legal Assistance and Consular Services Programme” in order to cover repatriation expenses. It understands that, in accordance with section 276 of the consular regulations approved by Supreme Decree No. 076-2005-RE, the aforementioned programme is limited to those cases where repatriation of nationals is granted on grounds of destitution and extreme necessity. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional explanations in this respect, in particular as regards the type of expenses covered and the conditions under which repatriation expenses are given in advance.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistical information, provided by the Government in its report, concerning the number of repatriations of seafarers effected from April to June 2010. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up-to-date information on the practical application of the Convention.

Finally, the Committee recalls that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), contains in Regulation 2.5, Standard A2.5 and Guideline B2.5, up-to-date and more detailed requirements on repatriation that revise existing standards on repatriation set out in Convention No. 23 and the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166). The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the MLC, 2006, in the very near future and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. Denunciation of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in view of its incompatibility with the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), Convention No. 58 is no longer applicable in the internal legal order. The Committee understands that, under section 1 of Decree No. 007-2006-MIMDES of 21 July 2006, work on the high seas is listed among the hazardous occupations in which no young persons below 18 years of age may be employed, which implies that Convention No. 58 has for all practical purposes become without object.

In this respect, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention once more to established practices and procedures regarding the denunciation of international labour Conventions in general, and the specific terms on which Convention No. 138 revises, among others, Convention No. 58. In fact, under Article 10(4)(d) of Convention No. 138, should the Government specify that Article 3 of Convention No. 138 (that is minimum age of 18 years for admission to employment which by its nature is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of young persons), applies to maritime employment, this would involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 58. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to consider possible action in accordance with Article 10 of Convention No. 138, which would lead to the denunciation of Convention No. 58.

Moreover, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that Convention No. 58, together with 67 other international maritime labour instruments, is revised by the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). More concretely, the minimum age for admission to employment on board a ship is raised to 16 years (Standard A1.1(3)), while special attention is given to young persons under the age of 18, for example, prohibition of night work (Standard A1.1(2)), maximum validity of medical certificate of one year (Standard A1.2(7)), and prohibition to be employed as a ship’s cook (Standard A3.2(8)). The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision taken or envisaged with respect to the early ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 3 of the Convention. Cooperation with organizations of shipowners and seafarers and with national authorities. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the provisions contained in the Act of 30 May of 1996 on Ports and Activities at Sea and on Inland Waterways and legislation relating to the sanitary control of food and beverages. It recalls that the Convention requires that the activities of the various authorities be duly coordinated so as to avoid overlapping or uncertainty of jurisdiction. However, the Committee understands that the national legislation makes no provision for cooperation with shipowners and seafarers organizations and other entities, except in matters of labour inspection under section 33 of the Labour Inspection and Protection of Workers Act of 16 March 2001. In addition, the Committee recalls that the same requirement has been incorporated in Guideline B3.2.1(4) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional information concerning the manner in which such collaboration and coordination are effectively ensured.

Article 5(2). Laws and regulations on food supplies and catering services. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it noted that national legislation does not regulate the quantity and quality of the food supply and catering arrangements on board ships. It recalls, in this respect, that the same requirement has been incorporated in Standard A3.2(1) and (2)(a) of the MLC, 2006. In the absence of the Government’s reply on this point, the Committee once more requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the provision of food of suitable quantity and quality as well as the arrangement and equipment of the catering department in every vessel are regulated by means of laws or regulations.

Article 7(2). Inspection at sea. Further to its previous comment regarding the absence of a written record of inspections carried out at sea, the Committee emphasises that, according to the Convention, there must be a written record of such inspections. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not provide any indication relating to the measures taken in order to bring the national legislation in line with this Article of the Convention. In addition, the Committee recalls the same requirement has been incorporated in Standard A3.2(7) of the MLC, 2006. Consequently, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the results of each inspection carried out at sea by the ship’s master are duly recorded, as required under this Article of the Convention.

Article 10. Annual report. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour has envisaged the setting up of a tripartite sectoral committee for the consideration of the situation concerning the implementation of Article 10 of the Convention. It recalls, in this connection, that the Government in earlier reports made reference to a special standing commission responsible for examining and evaluating international labour Conventions on matters relating to seafarers (CECMAL–OIT), but has not given any information on the functioning of such a Committee since 1994. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the report on inspections activities as soon as it is drawn up.

Article 11(2). Refresher courses. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour has submitted the question of application of Article 11 of the Convention for the consideration by the Directorate General of Ports and Coast Guards. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report concerning the measures adopted to establish refresher courses pursuant to this Article of the Convention.

Article 12. Collection and publication of information. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour has envisaged the setting up of a tripartite sectoral committee for the consideration of the situation concerning the implementation of Article 12 of the Convention. It recalls that the same requirements have been incorporated in Guideline B3.2.1(1) and (2) of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any measures taken by the competent services to discharge their responsibility for collecting and disseminating up-to-date information on food and catering on board ships and issuing recommendations.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. Noting that the Government has not provided for several years any information of a general nature concerning the application of the Convention in practice, the Committee requests the Government to supply up-to-date information, including, for instance, extracts from reports of the inspection services, any available information as to the number and nature of complaints which may have been made by members of ships’ crew, copies of any applicable collective agreements containing clauses on food and catering, relevant decisions of the Directorate General of Ports and Coast Guards, information on any training courses for members of the catering department of seagoing vessels copies of any notices issued by the competent authority to ships’ masters, stewards or cooks on food and catering issues, including recommendations to avoid wastage of food or to maintain a proper standard of cleanliness.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that most of the provisions of Convention No. 68 have been incorporated into Regulation 3.2, Standard A3.2 and Guideline B3.2.1 of the MLC, 2006. Moreover, the MLC, 2006, introduces some new provisions regarding the obligations to take into account the differing cultural and religious backgrounds, to provide food free of charge and to carry a fully qualified cook on board. The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the MLC, 2006, in the very near future and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 4(2) of the Convention. Conditions for granting certificates of qualification for ships’ cooks. Further to its previous comments regarding the absence of any provision establishing the minimum period of service at sea as a precondition for the obtention of a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Resolution of the General Directorate of Ports No. 0564-2003-DCG of 10 September 2003. According to the Government’s report, a minimum period of no less than two months of service is generally required for seafarers prior to the issuance of a certificate, in accordance with the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). The Committee recalls, however, that the STCW Convention does not contain specific provisions relating to cooks. It also recalls that Decree No. 048-DE/MPG of 9 October 1990 – to which the Government referred in previous reports – does not contain any relevant provisions either. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional explanations in this respect and also to transmit a copy of Resolution
No. 0564-2003-DCG.

Article 6. Recognition of certificates. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether certificates of qualification issued by other countries were recognized. While noting the Government’s indication that the matter has been referred to the Directorate General of Ports and Coast Guard, the Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed information on this point.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. Noting that the Government has not provided for a number of years general information on the practical application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply up-to-date information in this regard, including, for instance, statistical information on the number of ship’s cook certificates issued during the reporting period, extracts from reports of the inspection services and any difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that the Convention has been revised by the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and that its main provisions are now reflected in Regulation 3.2(3), Standard A3.2(3) and (4), and Guideline B3.2.2 of the latter instrument. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the MLC, 2006, in the very near future and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. Safety standards. Prevention of accidents. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MGP of 25 May 2001 on regulations on ports and activities at sea and on inland waterways, but observes that this Decree does not provide for the appointment, from amongst the crew of the ship, of a suitable person or persons or of a suitable committee, responsible under the master for accident prevention. It recalls that a similar requirement for the designation of a ship’s safety committee with the participation of seafarers’ representatives has been included in Standard A4.3(2)(d) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). The Committee therefore again requests the Government to indicate how substantial equivalence is ensured with the requirement of Article 7 of the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134).

Article 2(a)(iii). Shipboard living arrangements. Crew accommodation. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it noted that, in view of their limited content, Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG and Resolution No. 562‑2003/DGG could not be considered as being substantially equivalent to the detailed provisions of the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92). It also recalls that similar requirements have been incorporated in Regulation 3.1 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006. The Committee therefore requests once more the Government to consider appropriate action to ensure that national laws or regulations contain provisions substantially equivalent to the standards set out in Convention No. 92 with regard to the following crew accommodation requirements: Article 7(1) (adequate ventilation of sleeping and mess-rooms); Article 8(1) (adequate heating system); Article 9(2) (adequate lighting); Article 10(1) (situation of sleeping rooms the load line amidships or aft); Article 13 (sufficient sanitary accommodation, ventilated and with adequate soil and waste pipes); Article 14(1) (separate hospital accommodation); and Article 17 (inspection of crew accommodation by the ship’s master and crew members at least once a week).

Article 2(b). Exercise of effective jurisdiction and control. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the manner in which the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion discharges its responsibility to effectively control ships flying the national flag to ensure compliance with national laws and regulations pertaining to social security, seafarers’ conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements.

Article 2(f). Flag State inspections. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the competent authority for exercising control over safety standards on board merchant ships is the Directorate General of Ports and Cost Guards. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the functioning of the system of ship inspection, for example, the number and powers of inspectors, the frequency of inspections, statistics on inspection results and any action taken, and the number and nature of any complaints received.

Article 2(g). Inquiries into serious marine casualties. The Committee once more requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that an official inquiry is held into a serious marine casualty leading to injury or loss of life that involves a ship flying the Peruvian flag – irrespective of any notification or request of the ship’s master, shipowner, agent or operator, as required by this Article of the Convention. In addition, the Committee recalls that the same requirement has been incorporated in Regulation 5.1.6(1) of the MLC, 2006.

Article 4. Port State control. Further to its previous comment, the Committee requests the Government to specify how it is ensured in law and practice that, for the purposes of exercising port State control activities, complaints may be submitted by a member of the crew, a professional body, an association or a trade union, and also that complaints other than in writing may be investigated. The Committee recalls that the same requirements have been incorporated in Standard A5.2.1(1)(d) and (4) of the MLC, 2006.

Part IV of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government concerning the number of seafarers and the number of complaints received by the Port Authority. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up-to-date information on the practical application of the Convention, including for instance, the number of seafarers covered by the relevant legislation, statistics on flag State and port State inspections, the number and nature of any complaints considered and the action taken, copies of any standardized inspection checklist or inspection report form and official publications.

Finally, the Committee recalls that Convention No. 147, together with 67 other international maritime labour instruments, is revised by the MLC, 2006. The Committee accordingly hopes that, when considering appropriate measures to bring the national legislation into line with Convention No. 147, the Government will also take due account of the corresponding requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision taken or envisaged with respect to the early ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the general information supplied by the Government concerning developments related to the application of the Convention.

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of right to sickness insurance after termination of engagement. Having noted that section 37 of Supreme Decree
No. 009-97-SA provides for the continuation of the right to sickness insurance after termination of the last engagement, the Committee had previously asked the Government to provide information, including statistics, on the practical application of this provision. In its latest report, the Government states that it has requested statistics from the relevant entities and that it will forward them as soon as received. The Committee expects the Government to supply, in its next report, the requested statistical data on the average interval between successive engagements, as well as on the average period of time during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

The Committee also notes that, according to section 8 of Supreme Decree No. 020-2006-TR, fishers whose employment relationship has ended, have the right to medical benefits, if and when they have paid two monthly contributions, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, during the six months prior to the contingency. Please clarify how section 8 of Supreme Decree No. 020-2006-TR and section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which also provides for the right of fishers to medical benefits in case of unemployment or suspension of the employment relationship, relate to each other.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the trade union allegations on the persistent failure of employers to affiliate fishers to the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR), as well as the 2005 government statistics, according to which only 168 of 2,541 fishing enterprises had subscribed to the SCTR. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the penalties incurred by employers for failure to meet their obligations towards fishers as regards the SCTR (section 82 and Annex 5 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA), and on the measures envisaged to secure observance by all maritime fishing companies of their obligations under the law. Furthermore, the Committee hoped that Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007, according to which large industrial fishing vessels must show a certificate attesting to payment of social security contributions (constancia de no adeudo) in order to be permitted to leave port, would, in practice, be an incentive to all shipowners to fulfil their obligations under the Convention and the national legislation, and requested the Government to keep the Office informed on any progress made in this area.

The Government indicates that, further to the above Supreme Decree No. 003-2007, the related Supreme Decree No. 019-2007-PRODUCE of 17 October 2007 specifies that permission to large fishing vessels to depart shall only be granted if the obligation to regularly pay the contributions under, inter alia, the SCTR is met. The Decree further provides that the competent authority shall transmit to the relevant ministries the list of the permissions granted to leave port as well as the list identifying the cases and reasons for which fishing vessels have not been authorized to leave port, for the purpose of adopting adequate supervisory and fiscal measures and imposing appropriate sanctions.

The Government also reports that, following a series of inspections performed in 2007 pursuant to communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007, further inspections of 33 fishing enterprises with industrial vessels fishing anchovies have been carried out in June 2008 by 44 labour inspectors from the National Directorate for Labour Inspection at the request of the Ministry of Production. The scope of inspection specifically related to the SCTR and payslips (including information on remuneration and health and social security benefits). The Chamber of Commerce of Lima indicates that inspections have become more frequent and effective so that less and less employers take the risk to incur a penalty relating to the payment of the SCTR or other social security obligations.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the impact of the above measures on the affiliation to the SCTR and payment of SCTR contributions by employers. In particular, the Committee asks the Government to supply, in its next report, up to date statistics on the cases where fishing vessels have been prohibited from leaving port under Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE, to describe the reasons invoked, and to indicate the penalties imposed against employers for not taking out SCTR or not paying SCTR contributions as well as other enforcement actions taken. Given that the inspection report has yet to be completed, the Committee further asks the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the final inspection report containing the infringements detected and the sanctions imposed for not taking out SCTR or not paying SCTR contributions. Please also indicate the number of claims, in relation to occupational diseases or accidents, filed under the SCTR during the reporting period.

Moreover, the Committee notes from Report No. 030-2008-DPR.SA/ONP supplied by the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP) that, from the entry into force of the SCTR in 1997 until 17 June 2008, no claims for economic benefits arising from occupational diseases or accidents in the fishing sector have been filed under section 88 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which provides for benefits by insurance institutions in the event of failure of employers to take out SCTR or pay contributions under the SCTR. In view of the above, the Committee understands that the provisions of national legislation guaranteeing the right to benefits in case of non-affiliation to the SCTR or non-payment of SCTR contributions by the employers have so far not been implemented in practice. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which workers whose employers have failed to affiliate them to the SCTR or to pay relevant contributions, have been granted the medical and cash benefits guaranteed by the Convention. Please indicate the number of such cases as well as any measures taken or envisaged to inform the workers concerned about their rights under section 88 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA.

Lastly, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the legal proceedings against the company Atlantida for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death. According to the Government’s report, a sanction amounting to a fine of 6,200 nuevos soles was imposed on the fishing company for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death in 36 cases. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether there are cases in which workers have lost their rights to medical and cash benefits as a consequence of the company’s failure to pay the relevant contributions. If there are such cases, please provide information on the benefits received by the workers from the insurance institutions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance scheme. The Government reports on the restructuring of the crisis-struck Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP), which has resulted in the medical benefits being transferred to the Social Health Insurance, whereas the payment of cash benefits to fishers affiliated to the CBSSP is directly assumed by the employers. While being aware of the difficulties encountered by the CBSSP, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires that seafarers shall be affiliated to a compulsory sickness insurance scheme, under which, if rendered incapable of work and deprived of wages by reason of sickness, the seafarers shall be entitled to cash benefits, which may be withheld only in the cases enumerated in Article 2, paragraph 4. The Committee therefore hopes that the arrangement, according to which the payment of cash benefits is directly assumed by the employers, is only of a provisional nature, and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compliance with the requirements of the Convention is re-established. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide information on the foreseen duration of the arrangements according to which the cash benefits are paid by the employer; (ii) specify how it ensures that the sickness insurance steps in, if the employer fails to pay the cash benefits; and (iii) indicate by what means it ensures that the payment of cash benefits for the minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity as guaranteed by the Convention is, under all circumstances, maintained in practice. Please provide information on any court rulings concerning the non-payment of cash benefits during the prescribed minimum period of 26 weeks of incapacity.

Article 4, paragraph (1). Payment to the family of cash benefit to which a seafarer would have been entitled if not abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee considered, however, that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, i.e. unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government states that it has requested the relevant information concerning the rights of the family members of seafarers from the General Directorate for Harbour Masters and Coast Guards and from the CBSSP and that it will forward the reply as soon as received. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the unconditional payment to the seafarer’s family of whole or part of the cash benefit to which the seafarer would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad, thus giving effect to this provision of the Convention. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment requesting details on the results of inspections performed pursuant to communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007, and on the penalties applied. It invites the Government to continue supplying information on action taken to supervise and enforce the application of the national legislation implementing the Convention.

The Government further supplies information concerning the Ministerial Conference of OLDEPESCA of June 2008 in Lima, where members pledged to take measures to improve the quality of life of fishers in the region. In this context, the Committee wishes to recall the earlier suggestion made by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners and Skippers of the Region of Puerto Supe to organize a national round table to find solutions to the problems of social security, health and industrial injury for workers in the industrial maritime fishing sector. It asks the Government once again to indicate whether it would envisage convening a round table at national level to address social security issues in maritime fishing.

The Committee raises other matters of a technical nature in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in reply to earlier comments from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. Since the information contains no reply to the previous comments, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the matters raised in the 2006 direct request and for which a report is expected in 2008.

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of the right to sickness insurance after the termination of the last engagement. Replying to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government stated that it would shortly supply statistics concerning the application to seafarers of section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended. The Committee points out that under this provision of the Convention, the right to sickness insurance benefit shall continue during a definite period so as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements. The Committee therefore asks the Government to supply statistical information on the average period of time between two engagements for seafarers, as well as statistics on the average period during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first report. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Seagoing ships. The national legislation classifies ships according to their zone of activity. Accordingly, seagoing ships are ships which are active in the maritime zone. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether publicly owned ships employed for commercial purposes which are active in the maritime zone are also regarded as seagoing ships and are consequently subject to the application of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 4. Small vessels. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any decisions taken by the competent authority, in consultation with the most representative organizations of shipowners and seafarers, to exclude small vessels from the scope of the Convention.

Article 2(a)(i). Safety standards. Hours of work. Peru has not ratified the Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180). Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG of 25 May 2001 does not contain provisions on this subject and the Government has not provided information in its report. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the hours of work of seafarers are regulated.

Article 2(a). (Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by Peru).

–      Convention No. 92. In accordance with paragraphs 120, 174 and 175 of the General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations “Labour standards on merchant ships”, 1990, “the substantive safety standards in Convention No. 92 seem to include those requiring adequate security, protection against weather an insulation in respect of the location, means of access, structure and arrangement in relation to other spaces of crew accommodation, having regard, amongst other things, fire prevention needs (Article 6(1) and (8)); adequate ventilation of sleeping and mess-rooms (Article 7(1)); an adequate system of heating, avoiding the risk of fire or other danger (Article 8(1) and (6)); adequate lighting (Article 9(2)); the normal situation of sleeping rooms amidships or aft above the load line (Article 10(1)); sufficient sanitary accommodation, ventilated and with adequate disposal pipes (Article 13(1), (8) and (10)); an approved medicine chest and, where a crew of 15 or more is carried, separate hospital accommodation (Article 14(1) and (7)). It may be considered that in order to ‘ensure the safety of life on board ship’ further requirements should also be included. The measures laid down in Convention No. 92 to ensure the implementation of those standards are of the kind laid down also in Convention No. 147, especially the enactment of legislation on substantive questions and consultation of shipowners and seafarers in the framing and administration of them (Article 3(2)(e)); and inspection of crew accommodation by the competent authority on registration or re-registration of the ship and when a complaint is received (Article 5) and by the responsible officer and crew members at least once a week (Article 17). In addition, Convention No. 92 provides for the approval of plans in advance (Article 4), as well as detailed requirements relating to the construction, equipment, decoration and furnishing of all aspects of crew accommodation and recreation space”.

Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG only contains general provisions respecting prior approval of plans of ships under construction. With regard to crew accommodation, section 13.1.1 of the resolution of the Directorate No. 562-2003/DCG of 5 September 2003 approving the Code for the Safety of Equipment for Ships and Naval, Maritime, River and Lake Vessels provides that, according to the number of the passengers and crew members, maritime ships and vessels shall provide for each berth a mattress or covering (colchoneta), a pillow, two fitted sheets, two pillow covers and, where appropriate, two blankets. Ships shall also carry a gas cooker (section 13.1.2) and a set of kitchen utensils (section 13.1.3) and each crew member shall have the right to a flat plate, a deep plate, a cup and a set of cutlery (section 13.1.4). The text provides that berths shall be clean and of appropriate dimensions to allow the crew member or passenger to “stretch out in full”. The Resolution also contains provisions on the insulation of mess rooms (in the context of fire prevention), and also provides that an emergency medicine chest shall be carried on board.

In view of their limited content, the provisions of the national legislation cannot be considered as being substantially equivalent to the provisions of Convention No. 92. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the national legislation so as to bring it into substantial equivalence with the provisions of this Convention, and, in particular, to provide for: detailed requirements respecting the construction, equipment, decoration and furnishing of crew accommodation; recreation spaces, as well as adequate ventilation of sleeping and mess-rooms (Article 7, paragraph 1); an adequate heating system, placed so as to avoid the risk of fire or other danger (Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 6); adequate lighting (Article 9, paragraph 2); the normal situation of sleeping rooms amidships or aft above the load line (Article 10, paragraph 1); sufficient sanitary accommodation, ventilated and with adequate soil and waste pipes (Article 13, paragraphs 1, 8 and 10); separate hospital accommodation (Article 14, paragraph 1); the requirement to consult shipowners and seafarers in the framing and administration of such legislation (Article 3, paragraph 2(e)); and inspection of crew accommodation by the responsible officer and crew members at least once a week (Article 17).

Convention No. 134. In paragraph 107 of the above General Survey, the Committee considers that one of the essential features of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, in relation to Convention No. 134, is the requirement that “one or more crew members should be appointed as responsible for accident prevention under Article 7”. As the national legislation does not appear to give effect to this provision, the Committee requests the Government to adopt measures for the appointment, from among the crew of the ship, of a suitable person or suitable persons or of a suitable committee responsible, under the Master, for accident prevention.

Article 2(b). Control over standards other than safety standards. The inspections enumerated in section VII of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG relate essentially to safety. The Committee consequently requests the Government to indicate the manner in which control is organized of standards other than safety standards, as enumerated in this provision of the Convention, and the authority competent for exercising such control.

Article 2(c). Living conditions and arrangements. Existence of collective agreements. In view of the absence of information in the report, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether collective agreements on living conditions and arrangements have been concluded and, if so, requests it to provide detailed information on the measures agreed between shipowners or their organizations and seafarers’ organizations for the effective control of these agreements where the Government has no effective jurisdiction.

Article 2, subparagraph (d)(i). Application of the procedure for the investigation of complaints relating to non-military ships. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the single Text of the Administrative Procedure for Warships (TUPAM 15001), which establishes arrangements for the investigation of complaints by the maritime authority, is applicable to non-military ships.

Article 2, subparagraph (d)(ii). Reporting of complaints made in connection with the recruitment in Peru of seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country. The Government indicates that there is no specific procedure for the reporting of such complaints to the competent authority in the country concerned. In practice, a direct communication is forwarded to the maritime administration of the country in which the ship is registered requesting information or suitable action to resolve the problem that gave rise to the complaint. However, under the terms of the Convention, the Member is under the obligation to ensure that adequate procedures, subject to overall supervision by the competent authority, exist for the investigation of any complaint made in connection with the engagement in Peru of seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country to be “promptly reported … to the competent authority of the country in which the ship is registered, with a copy to the Director-General of the International Labour Office”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that such complaints are reported to the competent authority of the country in which the ship is registered, with a copy to the Director-General of the International Labour Office.

Article 2, subparagraph (f). Inspection services. The Government indicates that there is no specific system to verify compliance with the various provisions of the Convention. The maritime authority controls the application of all the standards in force in the maritime sector and penalizes any violations which may be detected. The Committee requests the Government to describe the inspection or other arrangements which exist to verify compliance with the various standards mentioned in this paragraph and to give details of the functioning of these arrangements (for example: size of inspection staff, numbers and results of inspections, and investigations of complaints, penalties imposed).

Article 2, subparagraph (g). Inquiries into any serious marine accidents. Section A‑030204 of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG provides that the Master, the maritime agent, the shipowner or any person concerned shall be required to notify the port authority of any accident, breakdown or death occurring on board the ship. Under the terms of section A-030205, for an inquiry to be conducted, the port authority must however have received an explicit request in the notification. In contrast, the Convention establishes the requirement that an official inquiry shall be held “into any serious marine casualty” involving ships registered in the territory of the Member and that the final report of such inquiry is to be made public. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures to ensure that an official inquiry is held into any serious marine casualty involving Peruvian ships, particularly those involving injury and/or loss of life, with the final report of such inquiry normally to be made public, even where a formal request to this effect has not been made in the notification of the accident made under the terms of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG.

Article 3. Advice to Peruvian seafarers engaged on board foreign ships. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to advise, in so far as practical, its nationals on the possible problems of signing on a ship registered in a State which has not ratified the present Convention.

Article 4, paragraph 3. Complaints. Sections A-030201 to A-030206 of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG relate to complaints. A complaint is a document by means of which the Master, the shipowner, the maritime agent, the operator of the ship or any person having a legitimate interest notifies in writing the port authority of the occurrence of an infringement of Supreme Decree No. 028‑DE/MPG or of provisions respecting nautical activities. The requirement to make a complain in writing goes beyond the provisions of the Convention, which does not define the manner in which the complaint shall be made. The Convention also provides that the complaint may be submitted by a member of the crew, a professional body, an association or a trade union, whereas the national legislation only refers to “any person having a legitimate interest”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate what is meant in the national legislation by the term “any person having a legitimate interest” and, in particular, to specify whether a member of the crew, a professional body, an association or a trade union may submit a complaint. It also requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the complaint may be submitted orally or in writing.

Part III of the report form. Decisions involving questions of principle. The Committee requests the Government to state whether courts of law or other tribunals have given decisions involving questions of principles relating to the application of the Convention and, if so, requests it to supply the texts of these decisions.

Part IV of the report form and Article 4, paragraph 3. Information on the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the authority or authorities responsible for the application of the Convention, information on the number of seafarers covered by these provisions, the number of complaints made, the measures adopted, etc.

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in response to earlier comments by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. It also notes with interest the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007 and communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007 asking for inspection of the fishing enterprises of Puerto Supe and those in the SUNAT database. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the inspections carried out pursuant to the communication of 23 March 2007 and on any penalties applied.

According to Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007, in order to leave port, large industrial fishing vessels must now show a certificate attesting to payment of social security contributions (“constancia de no adeudo”), which must be delivered to the authority that issues permits for vessels to depart. The certificate is valid for 30 days and must be issued within three working days by the Social Benefits and Social Security Fund for Fishers to all shipowners requesting it.

The Committee notes that, according to Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA issuing the enabling regulations of Act No. 26790 to modernize the health aspect of social security, fishing is considered as an activity liable to risk and must therefore be insured under the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR). The provisions of the Supreme Decree of 2 February 2007 do not, therefore, suffice on their own. The Committee nonetheless hopes that, in practice, the Decree will be an incentive to all shipowners to fulfil their obligations under the Convention and the national legislation. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this area.

The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to other points raised in its 2006 observation for which a report is expected in 2008.

The Committee would be grateful if in its next report the Government would explain why the workers of some enterprises are still denied protection under the law notwithstanding section 82 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which provides that all workers engaged in high-risk activities must have the SCTR supplementary insurance. In the event of failure to take out SCTR supplementary insurance, the Committee points out that the Government has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the protection established by the Convention is properly implemented and that it is fully respected in practice. It also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given in practice to section 88 of these regulations, under which insurance institutions are required to bear the cost of sickness or injury where employers fail to pay insurance contributions, and may subsequently claim back from the employers the amounts they have paid out. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide information on the penalties incurred by employers for failure to meet their obligations under the SCTR supplementary insurance, and on the measures envisaged to secure observance by all maritime fishing companies of their obligations under the law.

With regard to cash benefits due to seafarers in the event of sickness or disease, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how effect is given to the Convention in the event of non-payment by shipowners of insurance contributions. It points out that under Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, where sickness or injury results in incapacity for work the shipowner does not cease to be liable until the sick or injured person becomes entitled to benefits under the compulsory insurance scheme.

Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the outcome of the legal proceedings against the company Atlantida for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death. It hopes in particular that the Government will be in a position to report on how these matters have been settled and that it will provide all the relevant court decisions and any relevant information on: (i) the penalties imposed on the abovementioned enterprise; (ii) the benefits received by the workers of the enterprise from the insurance institutions; and (iii) the latters’ exercise of their right to bring proceedings against the abovementioned enterprise.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in reply to earlier observations from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. It notes, however, that the Government has still not stated whether it is ready to convene a round table to address social security problems in maritime fishing.

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 003‑2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007 and communication No. 0170‑2007‑MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007 requesting inspections of Puerto Supe fishing enterprises and of those appearing in the SUNAT database. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of inspections conducted pursuant to the communication of 23 March 2007, and on any penalties imposed.

Furthermore, it draws the Government’s attention to the points raised in its observation of 2006 for which a report is expected in 2008.

Article 4(1) of the Convention. Payment to the seafarer’s family of the whole or part of the cash benefit to which he or she would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to be represented in order to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee nevertheless considered that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, that is, unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of the whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government refers once again to the procedure for representation set out in the Civil Code without indicating whether measures have been taken or are envisaged to give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and hopes that it will be in a position to inform the Committee in its next report of measures taken in this respect. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

The Committee raises other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG of 25 May 2001, issuing regulations under the Act on the control and surveillance of maritime, river and lake transport, and repealing Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 9 April 1987. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Conditions for granting a certificate of qualification as ship’s cook. The Committee notes that Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG of 25 May 2001, in contrast to Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 9 April 1987, which it repeals, does not contain specific provisions relating to cooks. The conditions for obtaining a certificate of qualification as a ship’s cook are now only governed in the national legislation by Supreme Decree No. 048-DE/MPG of 9 October 1990 on ships’ cooks. Sections 1 and 2 of this Decree establish the requirements concerning age and nationality. Section 5 specifies the types of documents which have to be presented by the seafarer, in addition to obtaining a certificate of vocational qualification, to be registered and issued with a seafarer’s book. In addition, the seafarer has to provide a certificate of physical fitness issued by the Naval Medical Centre and a certificate from the National Merchant Naval School “Amiral Miguel Grau” confirming attendance and the award of a diploma for the completion of the training course as a crew member in the merchant navy. Once all these steps have been completed, the seafarer will receive, with the agreement of the captain of the port, authorization granting a certificate as ship’s cook enabling him to work in the merchant navy (section 6). Such approval may be withdrawn in cases where, within the first three years of obtaining the approval, the seafarer has not sailed for at least eight months on a ship to carry out his occupation (section 13). The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention, “no person shall be granted a certificate of qualification unless: (a) he has reached a minimum age to be prescribed by the competent authority; (b) he has served at sea for a minimum period to be prescribed by the competent authority; and (c) he has passed an examination to be prescribed by the competent authority”. Admittedly, the national legislation has recourse to the concept of a minimum period of service on board to determine whether or not the seafarer retains the authorization, but it does not contain a provision concerning the minimum period at sea to be prescribed to obtain the certificate itself. The seafarer receives authorization, and therefore the certificate, and it is only subsequently that the document may be withdrawn if the seafarer does not complete a minimum period of service at sea. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into conformity with these provisions and to ensure that a minimum period of sea service is required, in order to obtain the certificate as a ship’s cook.

Article 6. Recognition of certificates. The Government indicates in its report that it applies the procedure for the recognition of certificates set out in Regulation I/10 of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), as amended. However, the STCW does not contain specific provisions relating to cooks. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the manner in which foreign certificates of qualification for ships’ cooks are recognized.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes with regret that the report does not contain any information on this point. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and indications on the number of certificates issued.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 4(c), of the Convention. Arrangement for repatriation. Under the terms of section 354 of Supreme Decree No. 002‑79 RE, as amended, issuing consular regulations, “masters of ships shall be obliged to receive, as passengers and for one-third of the normal value of the ticket for the return journey, persons landed by reason of sickness who are referred to them by consular agents”. The Committee recalls that, by virtue of the Convention, any seafarer who is landed during the term of his engagement or on its expiration shall be entitled to be taken back to his own country, or to the port at which he was engaged, or to the port at which the voyage commenced, as shall be determined by national law, which shall, among other matters, determine who shall bear the charge of repatriation. The expenses of repatriation may not be charged to the seafarer if he has been landed by reason of illness and not due to his own wilful act or default (Article 4(c) of the Convention). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the person who is to bear the expenses indicated in this section of the national legislation.

Article 3, paragraph 4. Repatriation of foreign seafarers. Section 361 of Supreme Decree No. 002-79 RE, as amended, provides that, in the case of national vessels abroad, and following authorization by the consular agent, the crew may, in case of a lack of Peruvian personnel, be completed with foreign personnel. However, neither Supreme Decree No. 002-79 RE, as amended, nor Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MPG of 25 May 2001, issuing regulations under the Act on the control and supervision of maritime, river and lake transport, contain provisions on the repatriation of foreign seafarers. The Committee nevertheless recalls that, in accordance with the Convention, the conditions under which a foreign seafarer engaged in his own country or in a country other than his own has the right to be repatriated shall be as provided by national law or, in the absence of such legal provisions, in the articles of agreement. It therefore requests the Government to provide full particulars on the application of this Article of the Convention.

Article 5, paragraph 1. Repatriation expenses. Under the terms of section 355 of Supreme Decree No. 002-79 RE, as amended, in the case of the dismissal of a seafarer for a legitimate reason, the latter shall be repatriated to his port of origin. The amount of the price of the ticket and a sum of money sufficient for his subsistence in the port in which he is to be landed shall be handed over to the consular agent. Section 364 of the Supreme Decree also provides that consular agents shall be responsible for verifying that the articles of agreement concluded for engagement on a foreign vessel and those concluded abroad for engagement on a vessel flying the national flag shall contain a clause guaranteeing, for seafarers landed by reason of sickness or for any other lawful cause, the payment of the price of the voyage completed between the port of debarkation and the port of Callao or the port of engagement. The Committee recalls that the expenses of repatriation shall include the transportation charges, the accommodation and the food of the seafarer during the journey and the maintenance of the seafarer up to the time fixed for his departure. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into conformity with these provisions.

Article 6. Expenses of repatriation of foreign seafarers. The Government indicates in its report that only the public authority of the country in which the vessel is registered, and which is responsible for ensuring the repatriation of all seafarers without distinction as to nationality, decides on cases in which it is necessary to provide repatriation expenses in advance. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the authorities have received instructions to advance repatriation expenses to foreign seafarers.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied including, for instance, information on the number of seafarers repatriated during the course of the year covered by the report, the number and nature of the infringements reported, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of the right to sickness insurance after the termination of the last engagement. Replying to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government states that it will shortly supply statistics concerning the application to seafarers of section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended, providing for an extension of the period of protection (período de latencia) after the end of the last engagement, the duration of the extension varying as a function of the period worked. The Committee notes this information and recalls that, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, the right to sickness insurance benefit shall continue during a definite period so as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will also supply statistical information on the average period of time between two engagements for seafarers, as compared with the average period during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

[The Government is requested to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

In previous comments, the Committee noted certain problems in application of national legislation regarding sickness and accident insurance in the maritime fishing sector and requested the Government to supply information on the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate to supervise application of the national legislation in practice. It also requested the Government to supply statistical information on the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing sector which have taken out the supplementary insurance for high-risk activities (SCTR) instituted by section 19 of the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in regard to health, 1997. In fact, under Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA issuing regulations under the Act, fishing is considered as a high-risk activity and therefore subject to compulsory SCTR insurance. Under this insurance, workers enjoy a specific system in regard to medical treatment, while cash benefits in the event of incapacity for work are financed by the health insurance scheme.

In this regard, in the further communications received between October 2004 and January 2005, the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates once again drew attention to serious and persistent failure to apply in practice the national legislation and regulations, as well as the lack of will by the Government to confront the existing problems. According to the trade union, shipowners persistently fail to comply with their obligation to affiliate their workers to the supplementary insurance for high-risk occupations which results in depriving them of any protection in the event of illness or accident. The trade union therefore urges the Government to convene a round table at national level in order to find a solution to the problems of social security, health and industrial injury for workers in the industrial maritime fishing sector.

In its latest report received by the Office in October 2005, the Government gives no reply to these concerns or to the requests expressed by the trade union. It provides a list of activities already undertaken or planned by the labour inspection services in various regions of the country in order to supervise the manner in which the obligation to affiliate to the SCTR is complied with in practice by fishing enterprises. Furthermore, it provides the statistical information requested earlier regarding the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing sector affiliated to the SCTR special scheme.

The Committee takes due note of this information and hopes that in its next report the Government will provide its observations regarding the concerns expressed by the above trade union. In regard to medical benefits, first, the Committee notes that on the basis of the statistics supplied by the Government, despite the inspection campaign mentioned in the report, only a small number of enterprises in this sector are actually affiliated to the supplementary insurance for high-risk occupations. Indeed, while there are some 2,541 fishing enterprises in the country, at 22 July 2005 only 168 of them had subscribed to high-risk occupation insurance. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply in its next report explanations on this matter, particularly the reasons why workers of certain enterprises are still deprived of this legal protection whereas section 82 of Supreme Decree No. 009‑97-SA issuing regulations under Act No. 26790 provides that all workers performing high-risk activities must be affiliated to the SCTR supplementary insurance. The Committee recalls that it is primarily the duty of the Government to ensure that the protection provided by the Convention is effectively applied and to see that it is fully observed in practice. On this score, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how effect is given in practice to section 88 of Regulation No. 009-97-SA which provides that the insurance institutions must cover sick or injured persons despite failure by employers to make social security payments and may subsequently claim the amounts involved from the employers. Please also provide information on the sanctions imposed on employers who do not comply with their obligations under the SCTR supplementary insurance and on the measures envisaged to oblige all maritime fishing companies to comply with their legal obligations.

With regard to cash benefits due in the event of seafarers’ illness or accident, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the Convention is given effect where shipowners fail to contribute to insurance schemes. The Committee recalls that, under Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the shipowner ceases to be liable for medical assistance or payment of the whole or part of the salary in the event of illness or accident causing temporary incapacity only from the time at which the person concerned becomes entitled to medical benefits under a compulsory insurance scheme.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will shortly provide information on the legal procedures initiated against the Atlántida company for non-payment of social insurance contributions providing cover against invalidity and death. The Committee notes that the new communications from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates show persistent failure by this company to comply with the law. Bearing in mind the extreme vulnerability of persons in the event of illness or accident, the Committee trusts that the Government, in its next report, will be in a position to indicate the manner in which these cases have been resolved and will communicate all the legal decisions handed down on the question as well as, if applicable, the sanctions imposed on the above enterprise. Please supply information on any benefits received by workers in this enterprise from the insurance institutions and on the action taken by these institutions in their right of recourse against the Atlántida company.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the communications transmitted by the trade union of fishing boat owner-masters of Puerto Supe and Associates regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government gives no reply on the concerns expressed by the aforementioned trade union concerning, inter alia, problems concerning fishers’ sickness insurance, which, according to the trade union, leads to enormous difficulties of application in practice. The Government does not indicate whether it intends to reply favourably to the proposal made by the trade union to convene a round table to discuss social security problems in the industrial fishery industry. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will reply as soon as possible to the aforementioned communication and also wishes to draw its attention to the following matter.

Article 4(1) of the Convention. Payment to the seafarer’s family of the whole or part of the cash benefit to which he or she would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to be represented in order to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee nevertheless considered that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, that is, unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of the whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government refers once again to the procedure for representation set out in the Civil Code without indicating whether measures have been taken or are envisaged to give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and hopes that it will be in a position to inform the Committee in its next report of measures taken in this respect. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

The Committee is also raising certain other matters in a request directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee takes the opportunity to draw the Government’s attention to the decision adopted by the Governing Body concerning the Convention following its examination by the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards (document GB.274/LILS/4(Rev.1) of March 1999). The Governing Body decided to invite the States parties to Convention No. 58 to contemplate ratifying the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). The ratification of Convention No. 138 by a State party to Convention No. 58 involves the immediate denunciation of the latter if the State accepts the obligations of Convention No. 138 for maritime employment and either specifies, in pursuance of Article 2 of this Convention, a minimum age of not less than 15 years, or specifies that Article 3 (establishing a higher minimum age for hazardous types of work) of Convention No. 138 applies to maritime employment.

Peru ratified Convention No. 138 on 13 November 2002. It specified a minimum age of 14 years for admission to employment or work and did not specify that Article 3 of the Convention applied to maritime employment. Consequently, the ratification of Convention No. 138 by Peru did not result in the denunciation of Convention No. 58. The Committee therefore draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the formal declaration of the application of Article 3 of Convention No. 138 to maritime employment would involve the denunciation of Convention No. 58 with immediate effect.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

In answer to the comments made in 2001 by the Union of Crew Members of Maritime Vessels for the Protection of CPVSA Workers alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention by Peru, the Government indicates that whenever a problem arises concerning the application of the Convention, suitable remedial measures are taken in accordance with the law; and it therefore considers that the abovementioned comments are unfounded. The Government states that it is nevertheless ready to respond to any requests for information from the Committee. According to the information supplied in the Government’s report, no texts have been enacted recently on food and catering for ships’ crews. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the suitable measures to which it refers, and to indicate in particular the manner in which it has resolved the problem raised by the abovementioned union.

Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 12 of the Convention. Research into and educational information on food supply and catering. A study on the diet of crew members was conducted in 1984 by the Naval Medical Centre. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether other studies, inter alia, on methods of ensuring a proper food supply and catering service, have been conducted in recent years. It also asks the Government to indicate whether recent information on new methods for the purchasing, storing and preservation of food and for waste control have been collected and disseminated in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention.

Article 3. Cooperation with organizations of shipowners and seafarers and with national authorities. According to this provision, the competent authority must carry out its work in close cooperation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers and with national or local authorities concerned with questions of food and health. In this provision, the authority’s work is to be construed broadly. Amongst other things it involves setting up both national regulations and an inspection system. The national legislation only provides, in section 33 of Legislative Decree No. 910 of 16 March 2001 on labour inspection and the protection of workers, for the signing of cooperation agreements regarding inspection with public entities or bodies and with organizations of employers and workers. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the competent authority also cooperates with these entities on matters pertaining to the regulation of food and catering for crews.

Article 5, paragraph 2. Requirement for the provision of suitable food and water supplies. Although sections A-070101 to A-070103 of Supreme Decree No. 047-DE/MGP of 9 October 1990 on food and catering for merchant crews contain, as required by Article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention, provisions on the nutritive value and variety of food, there is no indication as to the quantity and quality of the food. Section E-010705 of Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 9 April 1987 stipulates only that pilots are required to give the ship’s master confirmation that supplies are adequate for the voyage planned. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the requisite quantity of food is calculated. It also asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that provisions governing both the quantity and the quality of food are incorporated in the legislation.

Article 7, paragraph 2. Inspection at sea. According to section A-080104 of Supreme Decree No. 047-DE/MGP of 9 October 1990 on food and catering for crews on merchant ships, the chief pilot is responsible for carrying out a daily inspection in addition to the annual inspection performed by the maritime authority. According to section A-080105, however, only the results of the maritime authority’s inspections are recorded. The Committee points out that, according to the Convention, there must be a written record of the results of each inspection at sea. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the results of each inspection carried out at sea by the ship’s master or an officer are recorded as required by the Convention.

Article 10. Preparation of an annual report. For many years the Committee has been asking the Government to provide the annual report prepared by the competent authority. The Government again indicates that such a report has still not been prepared. It states, however, that the Directorate General of Harbour Offices and Coastguards has sent the model on which the Government plans to base the report; this model being appended to the report. Since the Committee has not received the model, it requests the Government to send it with its next report. It hopes that the Government will be in a position to send the report required by the Convention as soon as possible.

Article 11, paragraph 2. Refresher courses. Sections A-010102 and A-010107 of Supreme Decree No. 047-DE/MGP of 9 October 1990 on food and catering for merchant crews set forth the requirements and qualifications demanded of staff responsible for food. According to the provisions of the Convention, refresher courses, enabling persons already trained to bring their knowledge and skill up to date must be provided. Since the national legislation contains no provisions of this kind, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to establish such courses.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments and asks it to provide additional information in its next report on the following points.

Strengthening of inspections to verify discharge of the obligation to affiliate seafarers to the supplementary insurance scheme for high-risk activities

In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken by the inspection services to promote and enforce the obligation placed on shipowners performing high-risk activities, which include fishing, to take out the supplementary insurance (SCTR) for such risks under Act No. 26790. The reason for the Committee’s request was that the statistics supplied by the Government on visits carried out by the inspection services appeared to account little for seafarers and that according to observations submitted by a trade union, many employers and shipowners had failed to subscribe to the SCTR.

It notes in this connection that the Government’s report does not contain the general information requested, such as the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate to supervise application of the national legislation in the maritime navigation and fishing sector, statistical information on the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing and navigation sectors affiliated to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. The Committee hopes that the Government will do its utmost to gather all this information and trusts that every effort will be made to enable the labour inspectorate to fulfil its duty of informing and supervising the maritime navigation and fishing sectors.

Complaints against the Chapsa and Atlántida fishing enterprises

In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the complaints against the two abovementioned companies, the Government includes in its report the requested extracts of these proceedings. With regard to the Chapsa case, the inspection report finds that the legislation was complied with to the extent that Chapsa did subscribe to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. Listing the Chapsa workers registered with the SCTR, the report goes on to declare the case closed, citing compliance with the legislation. In the Atlántida case, the inspection report sent by the Government establishes, as noted by the Government in its previous report, that the company was fined because, although registered with the SCTR, it had failed to pay by 21 January 2002 the premium for invalidity and survivors’ coverage in the name of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, victim of an occupational accident on 23 June 1998. The report also indicates that thereafter, in June 2002, a further inspection of the enterprise established that the premiums for invalidity and survivors’ coverage had still not been paid. A last visit to the enterprise in January 2003 to verify payment of the bonuses revealed that this worker no longer had an employment relationship with Atlántida, and the case was therefore closed.

The Committee notes this information. As regards the Atlántida case, it notes that the inspection report shows that although ordered to pay a fine, Atlántida had still not paid the contributions for invalidity and survivors’ coverage at the time of the worker’s departure from the enterprise, following which the case was closed. The Government explained earlier that when an enterprise fails to take out supplementary insurance for high-risk activities, or takes out inadequate insurance, it is liable vis-à-vis the social insurance institutions (ESSALUD and the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP)) for payment of benefits in the event of an accident sustained by one of its workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the case of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz was managed, specifying in particular whether this worker actually received the assistance to which he was entitled under the Convention, and stating the body which actually covered the risk. Please also indicate whether Atlántida paid the fine, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 910 and, if not, please specify the penalties imposed on it.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, such as a review of the applicable penalties, to ensure that in practice shipowners do take out accident and sickness insurance for seafarers where this is compulsory, and that where they fail to do so, seafarers may nevertheless be paid all the benefits guaranteed by the Convention. Please provide in this connection information on the number of seafarers who have received assistance pursuant to the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad. Further to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that effect is given to this provision of the Convention through the provisions of the Civil Code authorizing representation between spouses, and those of Presidential Decree No. 002-79-RE issuing the consular regulations of the Republic. The Government indicates, with reference to the provisions of the above Decree relating to notarial functions, that sworn consular officials are empowered, in accordance with the national legislation, to authenticate the acts and contracts submitted to them. It adds that, under the terms of these provisions, a person could, from abroad, authorize another person to represent her or him for purposes such as receiving on her or his behalf the benefits to which she or he would have been entitled. The Committee takes due note of this information. Nevertheless, as the objective of this provision of the Convention is to protect the family of a seafarer who falls sick abroad and has lost his right to wages, it would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility of introducing into the national legislation on sickness insurance a specific provision giving effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the payment is arranged in practice to the family, in whole or in part, of the cash benefit due to a seafarer who is abroad and has lost his right to wages. Furthermore, with reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report the information requested previously with regard to the benefits paid to the family members of insured persons.

Article 7. Continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government that section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 00-97-SA, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 004-2000-TR, is in effect applicable to seafarers. It recalls that this provision establishes that, in the event of unemployment or the total interruption of occupational activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to social coverage, the persons protected by the regular scheme who have a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or interruption of occupational activity, are entitled to medical benefits for a period of two months of coverage for every five months of contribution. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report, including statistics, on the application of this provision of the Convention in practice, with an indication of the time that normally elapses between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It asks the Government to indicate by what methods application of the Convention is supervised and enforced and to supply information on the organization and working of inspection (Part III of the report form).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

In its previous direct request the Committee asked the Government to provide the reply to the comments of the Union of Crew Members of Maritime Vessels for the Protection of C.P.V.S.A. Workers concerning the alleged non-observance by Peru of the Convention, previously transmitted to the Government for response. It notes that the Government’s report does not reply to these comments. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide its reply to these comments.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government with regard to the comments made in May 1999 and January and March 2000 by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) established under the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790. The Committee pointed out the need for the Government to take adequate measures to prevent seafarers who are victims of accidents or who contract a disease from being left without protection and for this purpose to strengthen the inspection system to ensure that employers comply with the obligation to include their workers in the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and to take out the SCTR envisaged by Act No. 26790 for this purpose. The Committee therefore requested information on the application in practice of the SCTR as it relates to seafarers.

On this subject, the Government indicates in its report that during 2001 at the national level a total of 1,184 enterprises were registered under the SCTR, which is a supplementary protection system for persons who are insured normally under the social security system in respect of health and who perform high-risk activities. Furthermore, over the past year, a total of 5,507 technical inspections were undertaken on occupational safety and health related to the supplementary occupational risk insurance, 640 of which were in construction, six in mining, 4,366 in industry and 495 in services. The purpose of these inspections is to verify that employers have complied with the obligation to take out this insurance. The Government adds that the function of inspection activities is not just to inspect, but also to provide guidance with regard to the rights and obligations deriving from labour law. The Committee notes this information with interest. However, it observes that the inspections referred to hardly appear to cover seafarers. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the activities carried out by inspection bodies in this sector, including copies of the relevant reports and, where applicable, examples of the administrative sanctions imposed upon shipowners.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on whether the fishing enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida, which are referred to by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe, have also subscribed to the SCTR and, if not, to provide information on the cases referred to by the above trade union. With regard to the fishing enterprise Chapsa, the Committee notes the inspection carried out by the Sub-directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Inspection. During the inspection, it was verified that the enterprise was included on the register of employers carrying out high-risk activities and that it had paid the premium to take out the insurance policy for its workers, with health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. It also notes that a further inspection on 14 October 2002 determined the number and names of the workers covered by the SCTR with health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage on the date of the programmed inspection. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the final report when it is available.

With regard to the fishing enterprise Atlántida, the Sub-directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Inspection, in accordance with the respective provisions, investigated an employment accident following a complaint by the Federation of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Peru. During the investigation, it verified that the enterprise was included on the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and that it had taken out the SCTR insurance, with health coverage for the accident mentioned in the schedule with the Social Health Insurance Scheme (ESSALUD). However, it found that it had not complied with the obligation to take out the above supplementary insurance for invalidity and survivors’ coverage. Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, a follow-up inspection was carried out, which found that although on the date of the accident (23 June 1998) the enterprise provided justifications that it had taken out the SCTR with health coverage and made the payment of the corresponding premium in the name of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, it could not establish having taken out the SCTR with invalidity and survivors’ coverage, nor the payment of the corresponding premium. In view of the above, a fine was imposed upon the enterprise, in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 910 (approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2001-TR).

With regard to the cases referred to by the Federation of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Peru, the Government states that, at its request, the administrative authority investigated the employment accidents denounced in the enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida. The investigation undertaken found that the above enterprises were duly included in the register of employers carrying out high-risk activities, and that they were registered for the payment of remuneration to injured workers. However, financial penalties were imposed upon the enterprises based on the finding that they had not taken out the SCTR in relation to invalidity and survivors’ coverage, and had not paid the corresponding premium.

Without prejudice to the administrative penalties imposed, employers which do not comply with the obligation to register with the administrative labour authority or to take out supplementary occupational risk insurance for all workers covered by this obligation, or take out inadequate coverage, are liable for the cost of the benefits provided by ESSALUD and the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP) in the event of injury to workers, irrespective of their civil responsibility to the worker and his dependants for the damage and injury caused. In the event of an employment accident or occupational disease occurring as a direct consequence of failure to comply with occupational health and industrial safety standards, or serious negligence attributable to the employer or failure to comply with protection or prevention measures, the injury is covered by ESSALUD, the health care provider, the ONP or the insurer, although they may exercise the right to claim the cost of the benefits provided from the employer.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with interest. It recalls that, under the terms of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, a shipowner may cease to be liable for the grant of medical benefits and for the payment of wages in whole or in part in respect of the seafarer in the case of injury resulting in incapacity for work from the time at which such seafarer becomes entitled to cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance, compulsory accident insurance or workmen’s compensation for accidents in force for seafarers in the territory in which the vessel is registered. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the case of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, with an indication on whether the corresponding premium has been paid to the SCTR for invalidity and survivors’ coverage and, if so, on the manner in which the institution has covered the accident. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida have paid the corresponding premium to SCTR for invalidity and survivors’ coverage. It also requests it to indicate the negative effects that failure to pay the above premium has had on the workers in the above enterprises.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report, and in particular the information regarding the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

Article 4 (Payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and once again requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the legislation under the terms of which, in the event that the insured person is abroadand would have been entitled to cash benefit in respect of sickness, family members or other persons can receive the benefit when duly accredited to do so. The Committee recalls that the cash benefit payable under this provision of the Convention must be paid to the family members of the insured person without restriction. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on benefits paid to the family members of insured persons.

Article 7 (Continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement). In its previous comments the Committee had noted that, under section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 004-2000-TR, in the event of unemployment or the full suspension of activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to coverage, regular insured persons with a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or full suspension of activity, are entitled to the medical benefits envisaged in sections 11 and 12 of the above Decree to the level of two months of coverage for every five months of contributions. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the period of coverage covers the normal interval between successive engagements. In its report, the Government indicates that this provision of the Convention is reflected in current legislation only in respect of medical benefits, and is applicable to persons who remain unemployed or have their contracts of employment fully suspended. The system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) applies during the period in which the worker is actually in employment, its purpose being to provide protection for persons employed in high-risk activities. The Committee notes the Government’s statement. Since the Government does not refer in its report to Supreme Decree No. 004-2000-TR, the Committee requests that it indicates whether section 37 of that Decree is applicable to seafarers and, if that is not the case, to indicate the measures which it intends to take with a view to maintaining, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, the continuity of medical benefits in the period after the termination of the last engagement, which period should be fixed in such a way as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]

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

The Committee notes the comments of the Union of Crew Members of Maritime Vessels for the Protection of CPVSA Workers concerning the alleged non-observance by Peru of the Convention, previously transmitted to the Government for response. Referring also to its 1998 direct request the Committee asks the Government to provide its reply to these comments.

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

The Committee notes the additional information provided by the Government concerning the comments made in May 1999 and January and March 2000 by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) established by the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in the area of health, which had been noted by the Committee in its observation in 2000.

With regard to the application in practice of the SCTR, and particularly the alleged cases of failure to pay the benefit for temporary incapacity and the survivors’ pension and funeral expenses, the Government once again provides information on the legal provisions which set out these benefits. With regard to the provision of the benefit for temporary incapacity, the Government indicates that the payment of this benefit to fishermen is envisaged in section 35 of Supreme Decree No. 03 98 SA, approving the Technical Standards for Supplementary Occupational Risk Insurance. In this respect, the Government indicates that the provision of the benefit for temporary incapacity is the responsibility of the Fishermen’s Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP), and not of the employer. The Government also supplies a report on enterprises affiliated to the SCTR submitted by the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP). On the subject of the survivors’ pension and funeral expenses, it indicates that provision of the pension for total permanent invalidity and the survivors’ pension can be required of the ONP, provided that the employer is included in the register of enterprises carrying out the activities envisaged in Annex 5 to the Regulations issued under Act No. 26790. In this connection, sanctions are envisaged in the event of failure by the employer to register, in which event workers can take legal action under section 88 of the Regulations issued under Act No. 26790.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the Government will take adequate measures to prevent seafarers who are victims of accidents or who contract a disease being left without protection and will strengthen its inspection system for this purpose to ensure that employers comply with the obligation to include their workers in the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and take out the SCTR for this purpose. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, a shipowner may cease to be liable for the expense of medical care and for the payment of wages in whole or in part due to the seafarer in the event of injury which results in incapacity for work provided that the injured seafarer is entitled to benefits under a compulsory sickness insurance scheme, a compulsory accident insurance scheme or a scheme of workmen’s compensation for accidents that is in force for seafarers in the territory in which the vessel is registered. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report on the application in practice of the supplementary occupational risks insurance scheme (SCTR) as it relates to seafarers. It also requests the Government to provide information (statistics, reports of inspection bodies and, if any, administrative sanctions imposed on shipowners, etc.) concerning the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that in practice, on the one hand, shipowners subscribe to this insurance scheme and, on the other hand, where they do not subscribe to this scheme, seafarers benefit as a minimum from the benefits guaranteed by this Convention in the event of sickness or injury. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the fishing enterprises CHAPSA and ATLANTIDA, which are referred to by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe, have also subscribed to the supplementary occupational risks insurance scheme and, if they have not, to provide information on the cases mentioned by the trade union.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

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

The Committee notes the additional information supplied by the Government concerning the comments transmitted by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe in May 1999 and January and March 2000 concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risks insurance (SCTR) envisaged under the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in the area of health. The Committee refers in this respect to its observation under Convention No. 55.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

Article 1 of the Convention (scope of application). The Committee notes that seafarers are covered by Act No. 26790, and the pertinent regulations. In accordance with section 3 of the above Act, and of section 4(b) of Act No. 27056 establishing the Social Security Health System (ESSALUD), persons considered to be seafarers are regularly insured. Furthermore, under Act No. 27177 of 25 September 1999, fishermen are included in ESSALUD. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of persons considered to be seafarers, and on the number of persons in this sector covered and affiliated to ESSALUD.

Article 4 (payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad). In addition to the legislative provisions respecting the subsidy for temporary incapacity, the Government indicates that in the event that the insured person is abroad and would have been entitled to cash benefit in respect of sickness, Peruvian legislation provides for the possibility of family members or other persons to receive the benefit when duly accredited to do so. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that the cash benefit envisaged by this provision of the Convention has to be provided without any restriction to the family of the insured person. It requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the legislation to which it is referring. It also requests the Government to provide information on the cash benefits paid to the families of insured persons.

Article 6 (funeral benefit). The Committee notes that section 18 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA establishes that the funeral benefit covers the funeral services for the death of a regular insured person, whether active or retired.

Article 7 (continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement). The Committee notes that, under section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended by Supreme Decree No. 004 2000 TR, in the event of unemployment or the full suspension of activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to coverage, regular insured persons with a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or full suspension of activity, are entitled to the medical benefits envisaged in sections 11 and 12 of the above Decree to the level of two months of coverage for every five months of contributions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the period of coverage covers the normal interval between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report. It also notes that the Sindicato de Capitanes Potrones de Pesca de Puerto Supe y Anexos has supplied further information on the operating difficulties of the system of supplementary insurance against hazardous risks established by the Social Security Modernization Act on the Health Scheme (No. 26790). The Committee has already noted these difficulties in its comments on the application of Convention No. 56. The Committee also takes note of the information supplied by the Government in reply to the trade union’s comments.

The union states that the adoption of the Social Security Modernization Act on the Health Scheme (No. 26790) has resulted in the repeal of Act No. 18846 which granted compensation to fishermen and also to workers subject to special employment regimes in the event of temporary incapacity for work resulting from an occupational disease or industrial accident. The new regime established by Act No. 26790 affords less protection in this regard, despite the establishment of supplementary insurance for hazardous work. It seems that the provisions relating to this supplementary insurance are not sufficiently clear and 95 per cent of industrial employers and fishing boat owners have not subscribed to it. The supplementary information provided by the union refers to the case of several seafarers who are incapacitated for employment and have received no compensation from their employers who have referred the victims to the social security body.

In reply to these comments, the Government states that seafarers enjoy protection equivalent to that provided by Act No. 18846. In fact, in general, Act No. 27056 establishing a social security health scheme includes seafarers in its scope (section 4). Furthermore, in 1999, hired fishermen and self-employed fishermen were included as regular members of the social insurance health scheme, ESSALUD (Act No. 27177). Seafarers, fishermen and their dependants are thus entitled to benefits for prevention, promotion, recovery and rehabilitation, as well as cash benefits provided by ESSALUD. In addition, the regular members of ESSALUD may in certain cases be covered by a supplementary insurance for hazardous work (section 19 of Act No. 26790). This compulsory insurance is borne by employers who conduct high-risk activities, which include fishing. Employers who have not subscribed to this insurance are liable to the relevant administrative penalties and are responsible for the cost of benefits granted by the social security institute to workers in the event of accident. The Government considers, in these circumstances, that the provisions which govern this supplementary insurance are sufficiently clear and that, if the percentage of non-compliance with the obligation to contract this insurance is as high as that cited by the union, the inspection bodies will have to adopt the necessary measures.

The Committee notes all this information. It notes that the protection of seafarers in the event of sickness or accident is insured, on the one hand, by the 1987 regulations on harbour masters’ offices and maritime, river and lake activities, under which shipowners are responsible for medical assistance and maintenance of wages for seafarers in a situation of incapacity for work on board and, on the other hand, by the Social Security Modernization Act on the health scheme and its implementing regulations (social insurance regime in regard to health and supplementary insurance for hazardous work). The Committee notes, nevertheless, according to the information supplied by the trade union, that the system for protection of seafarers described above encounters difficulties of application in practice in that certain seafarers who are the victims of an accident or suffering from illness have no protection because neither the shipowner nor the general or supplementary health insurance system provides them with compensation for incapacity to work. In this regard, the Committee recalls that by virtue of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the shipowner may cease to be liable for medical assistance and payment of the whole or part of the wages due to a seafarer in the event of illness or accident resulting in incapacity for work, from the time at which the victim becomes entitled to medical benefits under a compulsory sickness insurance, compulsory accident insurance or workmen’s compensation for accidents in force for seafarers in the territory where the ship is registered. In these circumstances, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate in its next report information on the application in practice of the supplementary insurance system for hazardous work in regard to seafarers. Please also supply information (including statistics, inspection body reports, administrative sanctions for shipowners, if any, etc.) on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that in practice, on the one hand, employers subscribe to this insurance and that, on the other hand, notwithstanding failure to conclude such insurance, seafarers are entitled to the benefits guaranteed to them by this Convention in the event of sickness or accident.

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

The Committee has noted the observations of the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates, in connection with the operating difficulties, in the fisheries sector, of the system of supplementary insurance against employment risks established by the Social Security Modernization Act (No. 26790). These comments were transmitted on 30 July 1999 to the Government which, to date, has made no comment on them. The Committee has therefore decided to defer their examination to its next session in order to examine these observations in the light of, first, information to be communicated by the Government in this respect and, secondly, information contained in the Government's report on application of the Convention, due in 2000. In this context, the Committee recalls the matters to which it drew the Government's attention in its previous observation.

The Committee notes certain information provided by the Government on the application in practice of the Convention. It also notes the adoption in 1997 of the Social Security Health Care Modernization Act (No. 26790), which repeals Legislative Decree No. 22482 on which the Committee had commented previously. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's information, the new legislation provides for the involvement of the private sector in health care. The social health insurance system is now complemented by health plans and programmes provided by Health Care Providers (EPS). These may be public or private companies or institutions distinct from the Peruvian Institute of Social Security and their sole purpose is to provide health care, using their own or third-party facilities, under the supervision of the EPS supervisory body.

The Committee notes that Act No. 26790 introduces fundamental changes into the health care system. Furthermore, it is the Committee's understanding that the new legislation also applies to persons employed on Peruvian ships. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information, in accordance with the report form, on the effect of the new legislation and national practice on the application of each of the Articles of the Convention and, in particular, Article 1 (scope), Article 4 (payment to the seafarer's family of the sickness cash benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad), Article 6 (funeral expenses) and Article 7 (continuation of insurance benefit after the termination of engagement).

The Government is also requested to consider the Committee's comments concerning Convention No. 24 made in 1998.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the special standing commission set up by Ministerial Resolution No. 060-96-PCM. The Committee notes that this commission is responsible for advising on the signing, accession to and ratification of international conventions. Its terms of reference do not appear to cover the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention, which concerns cooperation between the competent authority and the organizations of shipowners and seafarers and the coordination of different authorities in relation to aspects covered by the Convention once it has been ratified. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the manner in which such collaboration and coordination is ensured.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the information in the Government's last report concerning the scope of Ministerial Resolution 0726-92-SA/DM and section 83, subparagraph (f), of the General Customs Duties Act. The Committee notes that the content of the Act in question bears no relation to the provisions of this Article of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate if it has adopted legislation providing for specific penalties for the infringements referred to in this provision of the Convention, and, if it has done so, to provide the Office with a copy of the relevant text.

Article 10. The Committee notes that the General Directorate of Harbours and Coastguards of the Peruvian Navy is in the process of drawing up its annual report. The Committee hopes that this report will be published once it is completed and made available to organizations and persons who may be interested and that a copy will be provided for the ILO.

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

The Committee notes certain information provided by the Government on the application in practice of the Convention. It also notes the adoption in 1997 of the Social Security Modernization Act (No. 26790), which repeals Legislative Decree No. 22482 on which the Committee had commented previously. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's information, the new legislation provides for the involvement of the private sector in health care. The social health insurance system is now complemented by health plans and programmes provided by Health Care Providers (EPS). These may be public or private companies or institutions distinct from the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) and their sole purpose is to provide health care, using their own or third-party facilities, under the supervision of the EPS supervisory body.

The Committee notes that Act No. 26790 introduces fundamental changes into the health-care system. Furthermore, it is the Committee's understanding that the new legislation also applies to persons employed on Peruvian ships. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information, in accordance with the report form, on the effect of the new legislation and national practice on the application of each of the Articles of the Convention and in particular Article 1 (scope), Article 4 (payment to the seafarer's family of the sickness cash benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad), Article 6 (funeral expenses) and Article 7 (continuation of insurance benefit after the termination of engagement).

The Government is also requested to consider the Committee's comments concerning Convention No. 24.

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

Point V of the report form. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report covering the period 1991-96 in relation to the issuing of certificates of qualification and cook's duties as prescribed by legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information or official reports in order to evaluate the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice (inspection reports, the number of certificates issued, etc.).

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the samples of the seafarers' discharge book. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee hopes the Government will take the necessary measures with a view to ensuring that articles of agreement include a reference to the 30 calendar days of annual leave with pay which seafarers are entitled to by virtue of section 10 of Legislative Decree No. 713 of 1991 (Article 6, paragraph 3(11), of the Convention).

Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of each of the versions currently in force of the Regulations on Ports and Activities at Sea and on Inland Waterways (Presidential Decree No. 002-87-MA of 9 April 1987), as well as of Presidential Decree No. 0002-RE which was indicated as having been attached to the Government's report but not received at the ILO.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's reply that section 34 of Decree Law No. 22-482 of 1979 and section 93 of Supreme Decree No. 08-80-TR both authorize the payment of benefit to compulsorily insured workers and their families even when the employer has not paid contributions. The Committee requests further information on the application of these provisions in practice, in particular on the number of cases in which benefit, including medical care, has been provided to workers whose employers have failed to pay contributions.

Article 8. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's statement that inspections will be carried out to verify the employers' fulfilment of their obligation to pay contributions. The Committee would appreciate being kept informed of the number and results of these inspections, and of the actions taken against those employers which such inspections reveal are not paying contributions. See also the Committee's comments under Convention No. 24, as follows:

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the regulations for implementing Decree No. 718 of 8 November 1991 are still under development. It hopes that when these regulations are adopted they will not fail to take into account the points raised by the Committee in its observation formulated in March 1995.

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

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

Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that the seafarers' discharge book has been amended so that it makes no mention of the quality of the seafarers' work. It would be grateful if the Government would provide a specimen of the amended discharge book.

Article 6, paragraph 3(8). The Committee notes with interest that, since there is no legal obligation to indicate in the articles of agreement the provisions to be supplied to seafarers, they are regulated by the Regulations on Food and Catering On Board Merchant Ships (Presidential Decree No. 04-90-DG/MGP).

Article 6, paragraph 3(11). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no legal provision covering the right to paid annual leave applying specifically to seafarers, which is why the grant of such leave is not provided for in the seafarers' articles of agreement. However, in the Government's previous report, for the period ending 30 June 1990, it was stated that the Peruvian law establishing the right to 30 days' paid annual leave of all workers in the country, also applied to seafarers. The Committee refers to the 1979 Political Constitution which provides that all workers are entitled to paid annual leave (article 44, third paragraph), and Legislative Decree No. 713 of 1991, which provides that workers are entitled to 30 calendar days of vacational rest for each full year of service (section 10). Consequently, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether seafarers are actually entitled to vacational rest. If so, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention.

Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that the Regulations on Ports and Activities at Sea and on Inland Waterways (Presidential Decree No. 002-87-MA of 9 April 1987) has not yet been amended as indicated previously. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the most recent version of the above Regulations and of Presidential Decree No. 0002-RE to which it refers in its report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply additional information on the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its report in 1990, the Government referred to the existence of a special standing commission which is responsible for examining and evaluating international labour Conventions and Recommendations on matters relating to the work of seafarers (CECMAL-OIT), in cooperation with shipowners and seafarers. In its latest report, the Government no longer refers to the special commission nor supplies any other information relating to the application of this Article of the Convention concerning cooperation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers and with the various authorities concerned, apart from indicating that this provision is still not applied. Please clarify this point.

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the information that the new national legislation is still being formulated with regard to specific penalties for the violations referred to by this provision of the Convention. The Government is asked to state whether this legislation has been adopted and, if so, to supply a copy of it.

Article 10. Please provide an copy of the most recent annual report published by the competent authority.

Point V of the report form. Please supply general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, including, for example, copies of collective agreements relating to food and the catering service on board vessels.

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

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

The Committee notes the communication of the Trade Union of Crews of Petroleum Transoceanica S.A. in which the Union states that section 070105 of the Regulations concerning food and catering on board ship, approved by Supreme Decree No. 047 DE/MGP of 1990, provides a cash equivalent of the food ration for crew who have, for any reason, to feed themselves ashore which is inferior to the protection required under the Convention. In its view the Convention is binding and under article 57 of the Peruvian Constitution cannot be renounced, so that all contrary provisions or agreements such as sections 070105 and 070106 of the above Regulations are void. It adds that in cases of any doubts as to the scope and contents of any such provisions the interpretation should be in favour of workers. The Government has replied that the provisions in question do not relate to the obligation in respect of food and catering on board ship, which is fulfilled by the company. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires the promotion by the ILO member State for which it is in force of a proper standard of food and catering for the crews of vessels (Article 1(1)). Legislation on food and catering arrangements should be designed to secure the health and well-being of crews, with food and water supplies which are suitable in respect of quantity, nutritive value, quality and variety (Article 5). The Committee notes also that the competent authority should work in close cooperation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers in regard to these matters (Article 3). It would be grateful if in its next report the Government would indicate the nature of the difficulties met with and the results of any consultations undertaken. Please also indicate what steps might be taken in this light.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes with interest the text of the Regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and maritime, fluvial and lacustrian activities of 1987. It notes, however, that these Regulations do not contain express provisions concerning the shipowner's liability to provide, at his own expense, board and lodging to sick or injured seamen, as required by Article 3(b) of the Convention and as was provided for in the previous Regulations of 1951 (section 664(b)). The Committee therefore would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, how effect is given in the national legislation to this provision of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the Convention supplying, in particular, the texts of any amendments to the above Regulations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Article 3 of the Convention. See the request sent directly to the Government under Convention No. 24 (Article 4, paragraph 1), as follow:

Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention. By virtue of section 18 of Legislative Decree No. 22-482 of 27 March 1979, as amended by Act No. 24-620 of 24 December 1986, workers are no longer required by law to have made three consecutive monthly contributions or four non-consecutive monthly contributions to be entitled to the provision of medical care, as the new provision empowers the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) to determine the qualifying periods for insured persons to be entitled to the provision of medical care, in accordance with the characteristics of their work. In this connection, the Committee notes Directive No. 005-PE-IPSS-87 whereby the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has fixed a four-week qualifying period for entitlement to medical care for casual workers, it being understood that no qualifying period is required in the event of accident. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its future reports whether the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has issued other directives fixing a qualifying period for entitlement to medical care for categories of workers other than casual workers. If so, please provide a copy of them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, according to the Government's report it is planned to amend the Regulations on Harbourmasters and Maritime, River and Lake Activity, so that the seaman's record book which is provided for in the said Regulations, contains no statement as to the quality of his work. It hopes that, with its next report, the Government will be able to provide a specimen of the record book thus amended.

Article 6, paragraph 3(8) and (11). The Committee notes that the Government has not indicated in its report the measures taken to ensure that the articles of agreement specify the list of provisions supplied to the seaman and the annual leave with pay granted him, in accordance with national law. It reiterates the hope that, in its next report, the Government will provide a copy of a contract so modified.

Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that it is planned to amend the Regulations on Harbourmasters so that a seafarer who has concluded an agreement for an indefinite period may disembark in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, after an agreed notice period, as required by the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report that the above-mentioned amendments have been introduced and that they will take account of the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article (notice to be given in writing and national law to specify the manner of giving notice to preclude any subsequent dispute between the parties).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

With reference to its previous comments and to the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañia Peruana de Vapores SA", the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Directive No. 001-DNPS-IPSS-91 of 4 January 1991 which facilitates the provision of medical treatment in cases of emergency, providing in Point V.2 that the insured person is only required to present his latest pay slip in order to check his labour relationship and the fact that social security deductions have been made by the employer. In addition, point VI.1 of the above Directive contains a provision similar to that of section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which all the costs incurred by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) in case of non-payment of the financial contributions by the employer shall be recovered from the employer by legal action. In view of the fact that said Directive No. 001-DNPS-IPSS-91 of 1991, and in particular its points II and V.2, is limited to "cases of emergency", the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the full application in practice of Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention in all cases where the employer has not paid his financial contribution to the sickness insurance institution.

In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the communication of the Trade Union of Crews of Petroleum Transoceanica S.A. in which the Union states that Supreme Decree No. 047 DE/MGP of 1990 concerning food and catering on board ship provides a cash equivalent of the food ration for crew who have, for any reason, to feed themselves ashore which is inferior to the protection required under the Convention. In its view the Convention is binding and under article 57 of the Peruvian Constitution cannot be renounced, so that all contrary provisions or agreements such as sections 07105 and 07106 of the Decree are void. It adds that in cases of any doubts as to the scope and contents of any such provisions the interpretation should be in favour of workers.

The Government has replied that the provisions in question do not relate to the obligation in respect of food and catering on board ship, which is fulfilled by the company.

The Committee notes that the Convention requires the promotion by the ILO member State for which it is in force of a proper standard of food and catering for the crews of vessels (Article 1(1)). Legislation on food and catering arrangements should be designed to secure the health and well-being of crews, with food and water supplies which are suitable in respect of quantity, nutritive value, quality and variety (Article 5). The Committee notes also that the competent authority should work in close cooperation with the organisations of shipowners and seafarers in regard to these matters (Article 3). It would be grateful if in its next report the Government would indicate the nature of the difficulties met with and the results of any consultations undertaken. Please also indicate what steps might be taken in this light.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of the Supreme Decree No. 048-90-DE/MGP of 9 October 1990 approving the Regulations on Ships' Cooks which meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. It hopes that in future reports the Government will include available information on the practical application of the Regulations (Part V of the report form).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning Article 7 of the Convention. Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the report does not refer to this provision and trusts that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures adopted to ensure that the document given to the seafarer containing a record of his employment on board the vessel, contains no statement as to the quality of his work or as to his wages. Article 6, paragraph 3(8) and (11). The Government has indicated in its report that national legislation provides for a list of provisions and for annual leave with pay for seafarers. The Committee hopes therefore that the necessary measures will be taken so that these matters appear in the articles of agreement as provided for in these provisions of the Convention, and that the Government will provide a copy in its next report of a contract modified in this way. Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that under sections B-040.111, B-040.113 and B.040-115 of the Regulations on Harbour-Masters and Maritime, River and Lake Activity, it does not appear to be provided that a seafarer who has concluded an agreement for an indefinite period may disembark in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, after an agreed notice period, as required by the Convention. Section B-040.113 provides in particular that an agreement for a definite or an indefinite period implies an obligation on the seafearer to make round trips of crossings or of coastal voyages to any national or foreign port as decided by the shipowner. The Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures which are contemplated to establish a clear distinction in this regard between agreements concluded for a definite and for an indefinite period.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

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

In reply to the Committee's previous comments concerning Article 4, paragraph 1 (liability of the shipowner to provide medical care until the sick or injured seaman has been cured) and Article 8 of the Convention (obligation of the shipowner to safeguard property left on board by sick, injured or deceased persons), the Government states that the study prepared by the subcommittee set up by the Permanent Committee of the Ministry of Shipping for the Evaluation of International Conventions and Recommendations (CECMAL-OIT) and containing recommendations for the amendment and supplementing of sections 691, 723 and 689 of the regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and the merchant marine will again be revised by the Permanent Committee. The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that the revision of the study will take place soon and that the amendments in question will be adopted in the near future so as to lay down more precisely the obligations of the shipowner in accordance with the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

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

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañía Peruana de Vapores SA". In its report, the Government refers to section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which the insurance benefits shall be granted by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) even if the employer has not paid its financial contributions, in which case all the costs incurred by the Institute shall be recovered by legal action from the employer. While noting this information, the Committee would be glad if the Government would supply in its next report information on the practical implementation of this provision of the legislation regarding medical benefits, in particular with regard to the observations made by the above-mentioned organisation, so as to give full effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. 2. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in the report to the effect that there has been no modification of the national legislation, but that the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has taken note of the Committee's previous comments in respect of Article 3 of the Convention which does not authorise the provision of medical treatment to be subject to any qualifying period. It can but reiterate its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to abolish any qualifying periods regarding medical benefit so as to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point.

TEXT

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Further to its observation and its previous direct request, the Committee has noted with interest the indications as to co-ordination and co-operation between the various authorities and shipowners' and seafarers' organisations in relation to the Convention (Article 3), with a view to, amongst other things, new regulations relating to the Convention. It hopes such regulations will take account of the following matters and that the Government will supply full details.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's statement that inspectors are duly qualified. Please give particulars of their qualifications, as requested in the report form approved by the Governing Body.

Article 5(2)(a). The Committee notes that Supreme Decree No. 012-77-SA contains no requirement as to the nutritive value and variety of food and water supplies. Please indicate any measures proposed in this respect. Please also supply a copy of any legislation relating to the registers referred to in the report as specifying the quantities of provisions on board each ship or a model register.

Articles 6, 9 and 10 (and Parts III and V of the report form). The Committee notes from the report that there are annual inspections of the catering department, including the registers which indicate the quantities of food which should be on board. It hopes that the Government will supply copies of the annual inspection reports, which it indicates are being processed, together with information on the powers of inspectors to make recommendations to shipowners and on the practical working of inspection, as requested in the report form.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee refers to its observation concerning the draft regulation relating to the certification of ships' cooks, the text of which the Government appended to its 1983 report.

The Committee notes that this draft does not contain any provisions prescribing a minimum period of service at sea, as required by Article 4, paragraph 2(b), of the Convention. Moreover, the draft does not give full effect to paragraphs 2(c), 3 and 4 of Article 4, which provide that examinations prescribed or controlled by the competent authority should include certain specific tests. The Committee would be much obliged to the Government if it would indicate the manner in which these provisions of the Convention will be applied in the organisation of examinations and the grant of certificates of qualification by the "Centro de Instrucción Técnica y Entrenamiento Naval" (CITEN).

Finally, the Committee wishes to point out that section 17 of the draft, which will permit the grant of certificates of qualification to cooks having more than two years of service at the date of the adoption of the regulations concerned, subject only to their passing a medical examination, is not in conformity with Article 5 of the Convention. This Article of the Convention permits a certificate of equivalence to be granted to seafarers having served two years as cooks before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of entry into force of the Convention for the country concerned. In the case of Peru, this period expired on 24 August 1965.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañía Peruana de Vapores SA".

In its report, the Government refers to section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which the insurance benefits shall be granted by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) even if the employer has not paid its financial contributions, in which case all the costs incurred by the Institute shall be recovered by legal action from the employer.

While noting this information, the Committee would be glad if the Government would supply in its next report information on the practical implementation of this provision of the legislation regarding medical benefits, in particular with regard to the observations made by the above-mentioned organisation, so as to give full effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention.

2. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in the report to the effect that there has been no modification of the national legislation, but that the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has taken note of the Committee's previous comments in respect of Article 3 of the Convention which does not authorise the provision of medical treatment to be subject to any qualifying period. It can but reiterate its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to abolish any qualifying periods regarding medical benefit so as to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government's reply to the earlier communication of the Maritime Trade Union of Crews in the Service of the Peruvian Steamship Company, referring to certain problems in the hygiene of food and water supplies. The Union had stated in its comments in December 1987 that drinking water tanks were rusty and in a poor condition, not being properly maintained, so that 90 per cent of crews suffered stomach complaints; they also referred to generally poor conditions of hygiene and infestation by vermin. The Government states in its report received February 1990 that the comments of the Union are unfounded. The Government states that appropriate action is always taken under the law - requiring corrective measures and if necessary imposing fines - when such questions arise.

2. The Committee has noted with interest the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 012-77-SA of 1977 concerning the quality and handling of food and water supplies (Article 5(1) of the Convention), and the arrangement of the catering department (Article 5(2)(b)). It is again referring to certain matters in a direct request.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Further to its previous observations, the Committee notes the Government's indication that its comments will be taken into account in the current revision of legislation. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been referring to the absence of provisions to apply the Convention. It hopes the next report will indicate the measures taken to give effect to the Convention.

The Committee is again referring to certain aspects of the Government's earlier draft legislation in a direct request.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning Article 7 of the Convention.

Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the report does not refer to this provision and trusts that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures adopted to ensure that the document given to the seafarer containing a record of his employment on board the vessel, contains no statement as to the quality of his work or as to his wages.

Article 6, paragraph 3(8) and (11). The Government has indicated in its report that national legislation provides for a list of provisions and for annual leave with pay for seafarers. The Committee hopes therefore that the necessary measures will be taken so that these matters appear in the articles of agreement as provided for in these provisions of the Convention, and that the Government will provide a copy in its next report of a contract modified in this way.

Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that under sections B-040.111, B-040.113 and B.040-115 of the Regulations on Harbour-Masters and Maritime, River and Lake Activity, it does not appear to be provided that a seafarer who has concluded an agreement for an indefinite period may disembark in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, after an agreed notice period, as required by the Convention. Section B-040.113 provides in particular that an agreement for a definite or an indefinite period implies an obligation on the seafearer to make round trips of crossings or of coastal voyages to any national or foreign port as decided by the shipowner. The Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures which are contemplated to establish a clear distinction in this regard between agreements concluded for a definite and for an indefinite period.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1988, published 75th ILC session (1988)

In reply to the Committee's previous comments concerning Article 4, paragraph 1 (liability of the shipowner to provide medical care until the sick or injured seaman has been cured) and Article 8 of the Convention (obligation of the shipowner to safeguard property left on board by sick, injured or deceased persons), the Government states that the study prepared by the subcommittee set up by the Permanent Committee of the Ministry of Shipping for the Evaluation of International Conventions and Recommendations (CECMAL-OIT) and containing recommendations for the amendment and supplementing of sections 691, 723 and 689 of the regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and the merchant marine will again be revised by the Permanent Committee.

The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that the revision of the study will take place soon and that the amendments in question will be adopted in the near future so as to lay down more precisely the obligations of the shipowner in accordance with the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.