Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8) - Estonia (Ratification: 1923)

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there are no specific provisions in its national legislation concerning the payment of unemployment indemnity in case of a shipwreck.

The Committee recalls that, in previous reports, the Government has referred to certain provisions of the Seafarers Act of 2001, the Employment Contract Act of 1992 and the Unemployment Insurance Act of 2001. In the Committee’s view, however, none of these provisions gives full effect to the requirement of this Article of the Convention. More concretely, section 55 of the Seafarers Act provides for the possibility of the shipowner to terminate the seafarer’s contract of employment if the ship ceases to be seaworthy or in the event of a shipwreck, but makes no provision for a compensation equal to two months’ wages for unemployment resulting from the ship’s loss. Section 90 of the Employment Contracts Act provides for the payment of compensation to employees upon termination of their employment contracts, but only upon condition that they had been continuously employed by the employer for a specified number of years. Likewise, section 8 of the Unemployment Insurance Act conditions the payment of unemployment insurance benefit upon a minimum qualifying insurance period of the insured person.

Moreover, in its last report, the Government referred to the new Employment Contracts Act of 2008. The Committee observes, in this regard, that section 100(1) refers to compensation equal to one month’s wages in case of lay off; however, a shipwreck cannot qualify as a lay-off as this term is currently defined in section 89(2) of the Act. The Committee also observes that, under section 100(3) of the same Act, no compensation is payable if the employment contract is terminated owing to force majeure – in most cases, however, a shipwreck may well be the result of a situation of force majeure. Finally, the Government has previously referred to a collective agreement between the Estonian Shipping Company and the Estonian Seafarers’ Union as containing clauses governing the payment of unemployment benefits to crew members in case of shipwreck, but no such provisions were found in the text of the collective agreement provided by the Government.

In light of the foregoing observations, and also in view of the Government’s statement that it is preparing for the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), which essentially reproduces in its Title 2 the provisions of Convention No. 8, the Committee requests the Government to take all appropriate measures in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, information concerning the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation and the number of maritime casualties involving Estonian-registered vessels and the payment of indemnity to the seafarers covered.

Finally, the Committee recalls that most of the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated in Regulation 2.6, Standard A2.6 and Guideline B2.6 of the MLC, 2006, and therefore ensuring compliance with Convention No. 8 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.

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

In its first report, the Government indicated that, under section 20(2) of the Wage Law of 1994, where the employee is not responsible for the stoppage of work, the employer shall compensate him or her for the time of the stoppage to the extent envisaged in the collective agreement or the labour contract. In this regard, it also specified that questions of compensation were regulated by the collective agreement in force between the Estonian Shipping Company and its trade union. The Committee, in consequence, requested the Government to communicate a copy of the relevant provisions of this collective agreement and to indicate whether all ships sailing under the Estonian flag were covered by it.

In its last report the Government indicates that the abovementioned collective agreement applies only to sailors employed by the Estonian Shipping Company, and that other, larger shipping companies have similar collective agreements. Moreover, all sailors employed on vessels sailing under the Estonian flag are protected by Estonian labour law, which guarantees every seaman compensation equal to at least two months' salary on termination of employment. In this connection, the Government refers to the 1992 Employment Contracts Act, of which section 90(1), read together with section 86(3), provides in cases of termination of employment due to lay-off of employees payment by the employer of compensation equal to two months' salary to workers who have held regular employment for at least five years.

The Committee takes note of this information. It notes that the provisions of the Employment Contracts Act cited by the Government render the right to unemployment compensation subject to a certain length of service (at least five years), thus running contrary to full application of the Convention, which provides for compensation for seamen in cases of shipwreck without providing for any qualifying period of prior employment. The Committee further notes that the Office has not received the Estonian Shipping Company's collective agreement, mentioned as annexed to the report.

In so far as collective agreements govern the question of compensation as indicated by the Government, the Committee again requests the Government to transmit a copy of the collective agreement mentioned above, giving effect to the Convention, as well as copies of other relevant collective agreements. Finally, the Committee draws the Government's attention to, and wishes to receive information on, the situation of seamen who might not be covered by any collective agreement, since the provisions of the 1992 Employment Contracts Act do not guarantee them the unemployment compensation specified in the Convention in cases of loss or foundering of the vessel.

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

The Committee notes that, due to internal circumstances, the Government was not able to prepare a detailed report on the application of the Convention. It therefore hopes that the Government's next report would contain full information requested in the report form adopted by the Governing Body.

The Committee notes however, from the Government's report, that, according to the opinion of the Association of Trade Unions of Estonia, in case of shipwreck, the seamen concerned would continue to receive their wages by virtue of section 20(2) of the Wage Law of 1994, according to which, if the employee is not to blame for the stoppage of work, the employer shall compensate him or her for the time of the stoppage to the extent foreseen in the collective agreement or a labour contract, but not less than the rate of wage stipulated in the labour contract. It further notes that the questions of compensation are regulated in the collective agreement now in force between the Estonian Shipping Company and its trade union. The Committee would like the Government to provide a copy of the relevant provisions of the said collective agreement, indicating the duration and the amount of the compensation paid. Please also indicate whether the above-mentioned agreement covers all ships sailing under the national flag and whether it is in conformity with the Convention.