Maritime Labour Convention, Title 1. Minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship Regulation – Minimum age. ISBN (print). ISBN (web pdf). Maritime Labour Convention, Frequently asked questions. Revised Edition, ISBN (web pdf). Maritime Labour Convention, Frequently Asked Questions. Fourth edition, Also available in French: Convention.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Download the Maritime Labour Convention and other relevant information as PDF. Read all the information you need to know for your DMLC Part II. THE MARITIME LABOUR CONVENTION. Incorporating amendments in and An ITF Guide for Seafarers to the ILO. Maritime Labour. PDF | This paper presents the requirements of International Labour This labour code is titled ILO-MLC more commonly spoken as.
It is an important step towards promoting quality shipping globally and, thus, an advantage to Danish shipping, which is already today operated at a high level in terms of both occupational health and social security. The MLC ensures a level playing field globally and reasonable working conditions for seafarers.
Key elements of the MLC Title 1: Minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship The purpose of Title 1 is to ensure that: Title 2: Conditions of employment The purpose of Title 2 is to ensure that seafarers: Title 2 also promotes career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers.
Title 3: Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering The purpose of Title 3 is to ensure that seafarers: Title 4: Title 5: Compliance and enforcement The purpose of Title 5 is to: Advantage of MLC Although there is pros and cons in the apllication of MLC , commonly if we observe from long term point of view MLC give every stakeholders some advantages.
The reason is, not every ship owner like to upgrade the facility of their property to comply MLC , for them upgrade means extra cost. But in common, the advantage is more valuable to be considered than the disadvantage.
Expectation and Reality Although the MLC is already popular and ratified by many countries, but still on the implementation MLC is not fully implemented.
Sometime violation of seafarers human rights is happens. These human rights violations still occur, even though the ship owner to know the serious consequences, ostracized. Some examples of seafarer rights violations are as follows: Their salaries are not being paid. Dozens of Cambodian seafarers are suspected to be victims of slavery. The Cambodian seafarers given salary per month, which is much lower than the crew from other countries, especially Thailand.
They also received an improper treatment and instruction such as drink dirty water and worked 22 hours non-stop without a holidays.
Not only that, they also often receive physical punishment such as whipped or beaten with stingray tails when they've seen exhausted. There's little crew who could no longer bear the torment until eventually died on board. Beyond these two cases, there are still many cases of seafarer human rights violations which have not been revealed and reported.
From this case we can see that the role of government in protecting the rights of seafarers and the implementation of the MLC is needed. Government should be more vigilant and alert to anticipate and eradicate this kind of human slavery. Conclusion To achieve the overall implementation of the MLC required the cooperation of all stakeholders, in this case the sailors, ship owner and flag state.
Ship owner should be aware, a violation of the MLC will bring a bad climate for their business, and will bring them to the exclusion of the international world. For the sailors themselves, they can participate by contributing to report to the flag states in the event of human rights violations to the sailors.
As for flag state, they should be more responsive and more reactive, in seeking human rights violations in the sea, and take action against them.
Flag state that is capable of doing this will certainly get a good reputation in the international community, because of their attention to the protection of human rights and the application of the MLC, Basically, if all parties get involved, both sailors, owner, and the government, MLC will run by the expectation, the flow of business and the economic growth increased rapidly. There are also important obligations relating to adopting policies to promote employment opportunities, again a labour-supplying responsibility.
Other obligations, which could be considered as coastal or port State concerns, such as encouraging the establishment of seafarer welfare centres and the provision of access to shore-based onshore medical advice and services to passing ships and ships entering the territory are also important and possibly difficult for some countries.
There are also, potentially, some implementation issues in connection with elements of port State responsibilities, particularly where the procedures under the MLC, vary somewhat from those that are well established under the various PSC Memorandum of Understandings MOUs , e. These challenges, which are endogenous to the Convention, overlap to some extent but for purposes of this paper are divided into two categories 3. For flag States with a high level of registered tonnage, the need to inspect and certify, if required, a large number of ships will be a challenge.
As noted above in Section 1 of this article, the MLC, is comprehensive. It applies to existing ships except for the construction and equipment aspects of accommodation and, although there is some flexibility with respect to ships less than GT, it does not have a tonnage limit.
To a large extent, the problem of capacity to inspect and certify, at least for ships engaged in international voyages, may already be addressed through the services provided by the ROs which have moved forward rapidly to make sure that they have staff that are competent to inspect and certify ships for MLC, compliance.
It should be noted that the MLC, differs from the IMO conventions because of its emphasis on national flexibility and the specifics of the documentation on board ship, particularly the requirement for a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance, Part I to be filled out by governments.
This is part of the problem regarding the need to build national capacity to both carry out and oversee inspections.
Numerous regional and national level courses delivered by the ILO or trainers who have taken the ILO course have also taken place in addition to many other industry or national activities.
There have also been many industry reports of ships and seafarer recruitment and placement services already being inspected and certified, either on a trial basis or under voluntary certification, as well as initiatives to include MLC, compatible terms in various industry collective agreements and other tools such as courses and training offered by ROs and others.
But these inspection challenges for governments should not be overstated. It is important to keep in mind the fact that the MLC, builds upon obligations that have been in place for many countries since the adoption of the ILO Convention No.
In fact, Convention No. There is then a further period before a country would have to report to the ILO supervisory system on its implementation. One of the main difficulties for implementation is that the MLC, is both a labour convention and a maritime convention.
Interaction with the ILO including implementation of labour conventions is usually a matter dealt with by the labour departments or ministries in each country. For some countries, the question of which department should handle the implementation of the MLC, has been difficult as this is a labour matter, usually involving labour inspectors; however, the Convention is obviously predicated, from a systemic perspective, on implementation by the competent authority or authorities that are already working with ship inspection and certification and with PSC.
On the other hand, many of the topics such as social security or occupational safety and health and the possibility of implementation through collective bargaining agreements are not within the usual practice or jurisdiction of most maritime administrations.
This is especially important since some topics may be matters on which the maritime administration cannot develop legislation.
To use the example of Canada, the majority of the MLC, provisions are addressed in a regulation under the Canada Shipping Act, , 38 a statute dealt with by Transport Canada. These institutional and legal issues are complex to work out, particularly in countries where departments have not previously worked together to develop MOUs or other cooperative arrangements to address issues and legislation that straddles departmental boundaries.
The MLC, requires an integrated approach in order to achieve implementation. Aside from ship inspection questions, the comprehensive coverage under the Convention also provides a challenge because the subject matter may span more than these two departments or in some cases even levels of governments e. This means that other ministries, particularly where financial or border security matters may be involved, need also to understand and support the Convention.
These are all matters that can be difficult and take time to negotiate.
There are very few models for some requirements, e. MOSH regulations and risk assessments, or the form of financial security required of ships in connection with repatriation or shipowners in connection with death or long-term disability or recruitment and placement services for a failure by the service or a shipowner to meet their respective obligations.
For some flag States that breadth of the Convention has also provided difficulties in connection with specific sectors, most notably the domestic fleet, commercial yacht owners and the cruise ship industry, where the accommodation on ships and other workplace practices have not easily meshed with the MLC, requirements, even for future build ships.
Another difficulty that has been encountered by some flag States relates to the exercise of the national flexibility that exists under the Convention.
However, a number of countries either do not have these organizations or, if they do exist, may not represent the seafarers on the ships or the shipowners concerned. This problem was, however, foreseen.