Contents 1. General.............................................................................................................................. 2 2. ILO Guidelines for port State control officers carrying out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (PSCO guidelines) .......................................... 4 3. Key concepts in the MLC, 2006 .................................................................................... 5 4. Example PORT STATE CONTROL GUIDANCE for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 ...................................................................................................... 6
Port State Control Provisions under the Maritime Labour Convention,
1. General A key feature of the MLC, 2006, is that it builds on the strengths of the ILO approach to making sure that, in each country, international labour standards are effectively implemented at the “ground level” and enforced. The MLC, 2006, emphasizes on effective flag State inspection and certification of ships, supported by international cooperation, particularly with respect to the inspection of foreign ships that is carried out in port States (port State control). Each country or region may have its own practices relating to port State control. Port State This is the term used to describe the authority under international law for a country to exercise regulatory control over foreign ships that come into its port. Mainly this takes the form of inspecting (often called “port State control”) the ship and conditions on board the ship. It can be regarded as a form of international cooperation whereby the port State role supports the efforts of flag States by inspecting ships to ensure that they remain compliant between inspections by the flag State. A country can be and often is simultaneously a flag State, for purposes of regulating the ships that fly its flag, and a port State with respect to ships of other countries. Port State Control Memorandum of Understanding (PSC MOU) Port State control is a practice that is already well developed under many regional cooperation agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOUs). These are arrangements among countries in region to work together and cooperate with respect to carrying out port State control to ensure ship coming into their ports meet international standards. For example the first one of these regional arrangements, the Paris MOU, is an administrative agreement between the maritime authorities of twenty-four European countries and Canada. Initially the ‘Hague Memorandum’ between a number of maritime authorities in Western Europe was developed in 1978. It dealt mainly with enforcement of shipboard living and working conditions, as required by ILO Convention no. 147. However, just as the Memorandum was about to come into effect, in March 1978, a massive oil spill occurred off the coast of Brittany (France), as a result of the grounding of the supertanker ‘Amoco Cadiz’. This incident caused a strong political and public outcry in Europe for far more stringent regulations with regard to the safety of shipping. This pressure resulted in a more comprehensive memorandum which covered: — safety of life at sea — prevention of pollution by ships, and — living and working conditions on board ships. Subsequently, a new, effective instrument known as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control was adopted in January 1982 and entered into operation on 1 July 1982. Since then, the Paris MOU has expanded to 27 maritime Administrations.” As noted by the IMO “ these inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag
State implementation, but experience has shown that they can be extremely effective, especially if organized on a regional basis. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region before embarking on its return voyage and it is to everybody's advantage if inspections can be closely co-ordinated. This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected but at the same time prevents ships being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships' standards rests with the flag State - but port State control provides a "safety net" to catch substandard ships. IMO has encouraged the establishment of regional port State control organizations and agreements on port State control - Memoranda of Understanding or MOUs - have been signed covering all of the world's oceans: -
Europe and the north Atlantic (Paris MOU);
Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MOU);
Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar);
Caribbean (Caribbean MOU);
West and Central Africa (Abuja MOU);
the Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU);
the Mediterranean (Mediterranean MOU);
the Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MOU); and
the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC MoU (Riyadh MoU)).”
Out of these eight only the Latin America MOU does not contain provisions related to inspection of living and working conditions on board ships as required by the ILO C147. Most probably once the MLC comes in force there might be a need to revise the regional MOU’s and replace ILO C147 with and/or add the MLC.
2. ILO Guidelines for port State control officers carrying out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (PSCO guidelines) In addition to the MLC the ILO has adopted Guidelines for port State control officers carrying out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (PSCO guidelines), in September 2008. The guidelines for port State control officers (PSCOs) have been developed to:
assist port State administrations to effectively implement their responsibilities under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006); and
promote harmonization in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention concerning port State responsibilities.
Chapter 1 of these guidelines provides general information on the MLC, 2006, regarding its structure, key concepts and terminology. Chapter 2 provides background information on port State control inspection responsibilities in connection with the MLC, 2006. Chapters 3 and 4 address the procedures for carrying out port State control inspections under the MLC, 2006. The procedures describe the various stages or steps that an inspection might go through, depending on the circumstances that the PSCO finds when going on board a ship. Chapter 3 covers matters such as preparing for an inspection and the beginning part of a PSCO inspection, which is the on-board review of the ship’s MLC-related documents that provide prima facie evidence that the ship is in compliance. Chapter 4 addresses the next stage, the more detailed on-board inspection of conditions on a ship in cases where the PSCO has concluded that there are grounds under the MLC, 2006, to carry out this level of inspection. Chapter 5 provides guidance on action to be taken by PSCOs on finding, after a more detailed inspection, that there are deficiencies or non-conformities on a ship. Chapter 6 outlines the steps to be taken in connection with the handling of onshore complaints that are made by seafarers.
Key concepts in the MLC, 2006
Compliance and enforcement The flag State must verify, through an effective and coordinated system of regular inspection, monitoring and other control measures that ships comply with the requirements of the Convention as implemented in national laws or regulations, or collective bargaining agreements or other measures or practices implementing the requirements of the MLC, 2006. Generally, in addition to being inspected, ships must also be certified for compliance with the requirements for the 14 areas of seafarers’ working and living conditions set out in Title 5, Appendix A5-I. For ships that do not have to be certified (under 500 gross tonnage (gt), or ships that are not engaged in international voyages and that do not operate from a port or between ports in another country) the flag State must still verify compliance for all the same requirements as a certified ship. The MLC, 2006, recognizes that states need some flexibility to address particular national situations, especially with respect to smaller ships and ships that do not go on international voyages or specific kinds of ships. It also recognizes that flag States may not always be in a position to implement the requirements of the MLC, 2006, in the manner set out in Part A of the Code and allows them to adopt measures which are “substantially equivalent”. The MLC, 2006, provides guidance primarily directed to national law-making bodies in flag States as to the ways in which this national flexibility can be exercised. For ships that are engaged in international voyages or operate from a port or between ports in another country, these matters will be stated on the MLC, 2006, documents carried on ships for the information of flag State inspectors and authorized officers carrying out port State control inspections (PSCOs). Certified ships For ships of 500 gt or over that are engaged in international voyages or ships of 500 gt or over that fly the flag of one country and operate from a port or between ports in another country, the MLC, 2006, contains a list of 14 areas that are subject to a mandatory certification system (see MLC, 2006, Title 5, Appendix A5-I). Certification is mandatory only for some ships that are covered by the MLC, 2006. The documents that are issued by the flag State, or by an RO on its behalf, if so authorized, are the Maritime Labour Certificate and a DMLC. The DMLC has two parts. Part I is filled out by the flag State and refers to the relevant national requirements that are to be certified as having been complied with. Part II is prepared by the shipowner and outlines the measures that the shipowner has put in place to ensure ongoing compliance on the ship with these flag State requirements. These two documents and also the conditions that they certify may be the subject of an inspection in foreign ports (port State control inspection). Models for the documents that must be carried on ships can be found in Appendix A5-II which is located at the end of Title 5 of the MLC, 2006. The Maritime Labour Certificate and DMLC constitute prima facie evidence that the ship meets the requirements of the MLC, 2006, and will facilitate the process of inspection when the ship visits foreign ports. The MLC, 2006, was expressly designed to harmonize with the existing arrangements in the maritime sector for ship inspections (by flag and port States) in connection with an earlier maritime labour Convention – the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)) and the major ship safety and security and pollution protection conventions developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It also seeks to take account
of the arrangements currently in place under the various regional Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or Agreements on port State control. To help ensure decent conditions of work for seafarers and a level playing field for shipowners, all ships covered by the MLC, 2006, irrespective of size, visiting foreign ports in ratifying States are potentially subject to an inspection (Article V, paragraph 4). States that ratify the MLC, 2006, are given the responsibility to carry out port State control inspections of foreign ships that come into their ports. Ships that are not certified Inspection in a foreign port applies even if the ship is flying the flag of a country that has not ratified the MLC, 2006, because the MLC, 2006, obliges the States that ratify it to give no more favourable treatment to ships of States that have not ratified it (Article V, paragraph 7). This means that these ships may be the subject of a more detailed inspection as provided under the MLC, 2006. 4. Example PORT STATE CONTROL GUIDANCE for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 Further in this document you can see an example how eventually port State control procedures might be eventually implemented in practice by some administrations.
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC For training purposes only EXAMPLE
PORT STATE CONTROL GUIDANCE for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.
1.2. Goals and purpose 1.3.
1.4. Relevant documentation 1.5. Definitions and abbreviations 2. INSPECTION OF SHIP 2.1 Pre-boarding preparation 2.2 Initial Inspection 2.3 Clear grounds 2.4 More Detailed Inspection 2.5 Complaints 2.6 Expanded inspection 3. FOLLOW-UP ACTION 3.1 Possible deficiencies 3.2 Deficiencies warranting detention 3.3 Actions to be considered 4.
REPORTING 4.1 Reports Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5
List of the 14 areas Details of a complaint to be recorded List of example deficiencies in the 14 areas List of example deficiencies warranting detention Standard letter to report
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The MLC, 2006 consolidates and updates international labour standards related to seafarers and is complementing the key Conventions of the IMO. The relevant parts of the MLC, 2006 are the articles, regulations and part A of the code. Part B of the code cannot be verified by the PSCO. 1.2. Goals and purpose These guidelines are intended to assist PSCOs to check Flag State compliance with the MLC, 2006 requirements as stated in the Convention. 1.3. Application This Convention applies: •
to all ships, whether publicly or privately owned, ordinarily engaged in commercial activities,
and does not apply to : - to ships engaged in fishing or in similar pursuits and - ships of traditional build such as dhows and junks, - warships or naval auxiliaries (Art. II, paragraph 4)
1.3.1 Ships of non-Parties Ships from countries that have not ratified the MLC, 2006 should not receive any more favourable treatment than ships from ratifying countries. Under these circumstances the PSCO may carry out a more detailed inspection to evaluate compliance with the MLC, 2006 1.4. Relevant documentation -
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006;
Guidelines for Port State Control Officers carrying out inspections under the MLC, 2006;
Guidelines for flag State Inspections under the MLC, 2006;
Resolution XVII concerning the practical implementation of the issue of certificates on entry into force;
Resolution VII concerning information on occupational group;
PSCO’s should carry the reference documentation during inspection. 1.5. Definitions and abbreviations PSCO should be aware that there is a number of important definitions specific to the MLC, 2006, (such as seafarer, seafarers’ employment agreement) contained within the MLC, 2006. For the purpose of these guidelines "Seafarer" means any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the MLC, 2006 applies. In case of doubt the DMLC part 1 shall be checked.
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC 2. INSPECTION OF SHIP 2.1 Pre-boarding preparation The PSCO should verify if the ship is flying the flag of a country that has not ratified the MLC, 2006 or if the ship is not required to carry a MLC and a DMLC (ship below 500 GT for which certification is not mandatory). The PSCO should also pay attention to any ship related messages and previously reported deficiencies. The building date of the ship may be relevant for the accommodation requirements. 2.2 Initial Inspection 2.2.1 Certificates and documents During an initial inspection, including the tour of the ship, the PSCO should check that the ship has: -
a valid Maritime Labour Certificate (MLC) and
a declaration of maritime Labour compliance (DMLC) on board (Parts I and II). . Part I is filled out by the flag State and refers to the relevant national requirements that are to be certified as having been complied with. . Part II is prepared by the shipowner and outlines the measures that the shipowner has put in place to ensure ongoing compliance on the ship with these flag State requirements.
A valid MLC and DMLC (part I and II) should be accepted as prima facie evidence of compliance with the requirements of the convention (regulation 5.2.1 para 2). If the ship has a valid interim certificate, there are no requirements for a DMLC to be charged on board. Further documentation, such as flag State inspection reports, crew list, safe manning document, shipboard working arrangements, should be checked during an initial inspection, with regard to compliance with the requirements of the MLC, 2006. 2.2.2. Ships under 500 GT Ships under 500 GT are not required to have a Maritime Labour Certificate but they are required to comply with the MLC, 2006. The PSCO should take into account any flag State inspection reports relating to compliance with the MLC, 2006 when considering whether to conduct a more detailed inspection. 2.2.3. Substantial equivalences, exemptions and variations When carrying out an initial inspection, the PSCO should take into account any substantial equivalent provisions, exemptions, variations, indicated in Part 1 of the DMLC. 2.3. Clear grounds A more detailed inspection shall be carried out if there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment or crew does not meet the relevant requirements of the MLC (Standard A 5.2.1). Clear grounds which lead to a more detailed inspection include: 1) the required documents are not produced or maintained or are falsely maintained or that the documents produced do not contain the information required by the MLC or are otherwise invalid or 2) there is clear evidence that the working and living conditions on the ship do not conform to the requirements of the MLC (see paragraph 3.1 below) 3) there is evidence to believe that the ship has changed flag for the purpose of avoiding compliance with the MLC or -3-
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC 4) there is a complaint alleging that specific working and living conditions on the ship do not conform to the requirements of the MLC,2006 5) a onshore complaint has been received alleging a breach of the requirements of MLC, 2006, 6) there is no evidence in the ship’s documentation to show that previously reported deficiencies or non-conformities have been rectified or completed; 7) the ship flies the flag of a State that has not ratified the MLC,2006, 8) there is evidence of non compliances with the requirements of SOLAS, STCW or any of the other MoU “relevant instruments” which could be noted as nonconformities with the MLC, 2006. A m ore detailed inspe ction shall be carried out where th e work ing a nd liv ing co nditions could constitute a clear hazard to the safety, health or security of se afarers or wh ere the PSCO has reasons to believe that any deficiencies constitute a serious breach of the requirements of the MLC,2006 requirements (including seafarers’ rights). 2.4 More Detailed Inspection When c arrying out a more detailed ins pection the PSCO sho uld take account of the provision(s) Stated in the DMLC, part 1, to check compliance with the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The 14 areas subject to inspection are listed in annex 1. If during the inspe ction deficiencies are fo und in these areas, the PS CO m ay e xtend the inspection to more or all of the 14 areas of Annex 1. 2.5 Complaints 2.5.1. General 18.104.22.168. An onboard complaint is a method whereby a seafarer or seafarers can complain using the i nternal p rocedure as d efined in ML C, 200 6 Regul ation 5. 1.5. to the sh ips on board management. This complaint remains an internal procedure and shall not have to be handled by the PSCO. Nevertheless, the procedure can be checked during a m ore detailed inspection (see Annex 1 nr. 13). 22.214.171.124. An on-s hore complaint is a meth od whereby a seafarer or s eafarers can make a complaint to the rele vant auth ority in wh ose port the sh ip is, ab out working an d liv ing conditions including se afarers’ ri ghts as defi ned in M LC, 2006 Re gulation 5 .2.2. On-shore complaint handling procedure is detailed in paragraph 2.5.3). Note : In case there are alternative procedures established for the handling of such cases or when incorrect or lacking pay ment of wages can not be confi rmed by the PS CO on- board, then, recognizing that it might be difficult to find evidence on-board, the PSCO may provide information about local trade union re presentatives or other p ersons who may a ssist in p ursuing a m aritime claim. The PSCO cou ld also collect information a nd pass th e ca se on to a competent authority ashore.
126.96.36.199. A complaint means information submitted by a se afarer, a pr ofessional body, an association or, g enerally, any pe rson with an in terest in the safety or health h azards to seafarers on board as defined in MLC, 2006, standard A.5.2.1, paragraph 1(d) and 3. Regardless of t he source of complaints (as defined in 188.8.131.52. and 2 .5.1.3.), app ropriate steps shall be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of complaints made by seafarers. 2.5.2. On Shore Complaint and Complaint handling procedures 184.108.40.206. An on-shore complaint or a complaint (as defined in 2.5 .1.2. and 2.5.1 .3.) are unexpected factors. When receiving a compl aint, the authority or PS CO assesses the complaint, and based on profess ional jud gment, decides whethe r or not the ship will be inspected or further inspected.
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Then, at least, a more detailed inspection is warranted (cf. 2.3 and 2.4 above). The PSCO should keep details of an on-shore complaint or a complaint (see annex 2). Action taken should also be kept. Details should be recorded in the information system if follow-up action is required as specified in 3.1.2. 220.127.116.11. Specific on-shore seafarer complaint-handling procedure Depending upon the result of a first assessment, a more detailed inspection may be carried out. In all cases the PSCO should; - seek to resolve the complaint at ship board level, - ascertain whether the on board complaints procedure has been used. If the PSCO finds that the on board complaints procedure has not been used without good reason, the PSCO should advise that the on board complaints procedure should be used. If this advice is acted upon no further action is required by the PSCO. During the assessment the master, shipowner and any other party with legal interest shall be permitted to express their views. If a complaint cannot be resolved at ship board level the flag state should be notified and requested, within a prescribed deadline, to give advice and to provide a corrective plan of action. In the event of the flag State advising that they will resolve the matter, then the PSCO does not have any further involvement. However, if the complaint is not resolved by the flag State within the prescribed deadline then the PSCOs inspection report must be transmitted to the ILO with the recognized shipowners and seafarers’ organizations in the port State being similarly informed. 2.6. Expanded inspection (for all ship types) When carrying out an expanded inspection according to annex 8 and 9 of the Paris MoU, the PSCO shall verify, -
compliance with the seafarers’ employment agreement,
compliance with the requirements for hours of work/rest,
that the standard of accommodation in sufficient (including catering and sanitary facilities),
that food and catering facilities are sufficient for the intended voyage (sufficient food, quality and quantity of food, drinking water and cleanliness),
the facilities for on board medical care are as required (medicine chest or medical equipment, hospital facilities),
that the arrangements for the health and safety of seafarers and for accident prevention on board are adequate (e.g., conditions of the mooring equipment, including foundations, electrical safety, guarding of dangerous machinery….).
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC 3. FOLLOW-UP ACTION 3.1 Possible deficiencies For practical purposes, Annex 3 contains a non exhaustive list of example deficiencies. 3.1.2 Deficiencies to be notified In case of deficiency (ies) resulting from an on-shore complaint or a complaint, deficiencies shall be brought to the attention of the appropriate shipowners' and seafarers' organizations and be notified to the Flag State. The competent authority of the next port of call may also be provided with relevant information (Standard A 5.2.1. paragraph. 4) according to port State procedures. In the event that such deficiencies are considered by the PSCO to be significant, or if they relate to a complaint made in accordance with paragraph 3 of Standard A 5.2.1., the PSCO shall bring the deficiencies to the attention of the appropriate seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations in the port in which the inspection is carried out, and may: 1
notify a representative of the flag State;
2 provide the competent authorities of the next port of call with the relevant information. A significant deficiency would be considered to be one that is not serious enough to warrant detention but one that is considered by the PSCO to require follow-up action, for example at the next port. According to port state procedures, a copy of the PSCO’s inspection report and any reply received from the flag State within the period specified by the PSCO (before departure, rectification at next port, within 14 days) may be transmitted to the Director General of the International Labour Office. 3.2. Deficiencies warranting detention 3.2.1. Before considering detention, the PSCO may refer to MoU text, Section X. For practical purposes, Annex 4 contains a non exhaustive list of deficiencies which may warrant detention. If following an inspection, the PSCO finds that the ship does not comply with the requirements of the convention and, 1) the conditions on board are clearly hazardous to the safety, health or security of seafarers, or 2) the deficiency/ies constitute(s) a serious or repeated breach of the requirements of the convention (including seafarers’ rights, whose violation is relevant for the consideration of the seriousness of a deficiency Art. III). the PSCO shall ensure that the ship shall not proceed to sea until the deficiencies are rectified or until the PSCO has accepted a plan of action to rectify the deficiencies and is satisfied that the plan will be implemented in an expeditious manner. When a ship is detained, the port State shall inform the flag State responsible for issuing the MLC and DMLC or the Recognized Organisation if appropriate and in addition the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organisation in the port State (Standard A. 5.2.1, paragraph 6). Every effort shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly delayed or detained. 3.3.
Actions to be considered
3.3.1 Non detainable deficiencies
Non detainable deficiencies relating to the MLC, 2006 should be treated in the same manner as any other deficiencies and the usual action taken codes and deadline -6-
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC should be specified (Standard A.5.2.1 paragraph 4). 3.3.2 Detainable deficiencies The ship may be released when: •
either the detainable deficiencies have been rectified to the satisfaction of the PSCO and/ or
the PSCO has accepted a rectification action plan and is satisfied that the plan will be implemented in an expeditious manner and in an appropriate time schedule.
Rectification action plan When deciding whether or not to accept a rectification action plan the following elements should be considered: -
the length and nature of the intended voyage or service;
the nature of the hazard to seafarers’ safety, health or security;
the seriousness of the breach of the requirements of the MLC, 2006 (including seafarers’ rights);
any previous history of deficiencies or repeated deficiencies;
whether or not the appropriate work or rest periods for seafarers are being observed;
the safe manning requirements of the flag State;
any deficiencies which have been reported in previous ports of call;
the number and nature of deficiencies found during the particular inspection.
It is the shipowners responsibility to implement a rectification plan. When the rectification plan is being considered the PSCO may be consulted by other parties. The rectification action plan should specify the required action(s) and the related time frame. It should be accepted by the port State, the flag state (flag State responsibilities under Standard A5.1.4. paragraph 5 and GUIDELINES ON ACCEPTING FLAG STATE EXEMPTIONS AND FLAG STATE CONDITIONS (Flag State conditions under 1. b & 1.c) and by the master on behalf of the shipowner accordingly. The port State should inform the master that the rectification action plan shall be properly implemented and carried out in the time frame agreed. The Master should also be informed that the ship may be prevented from further sailing if rectification does not take place as proposed. 4. REPORTING 4.1 Reports Notifications : Shipowners’ and seafarers’ organisations should be notified when the rectification action plan has been agreed. A copy of the PSCO’s inspection report and any reply received from the flag State within the period specified by the PSCO (according to the rectification plan) may be transmitted to the Director General of the International Labour Office. The rectification plan shall be attached to the inspection report and a copy of it should be attached to the electronic inspection report on information system.
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC
Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - Annex 1 General are as that are subject to a detailed inspection by a PSCO in a port of a Member carrying out a port State inspection pursuant to paragraph 2.4.: 1
Minimum age of seafarers
Medical certification of seafarers
Qualifications of seafarers
Seafarersâ€™ employment agreements
Use of any licensed or certified or regulated private recruitment and placement service for seafarers
Hours of work or rest
Manning levels for the ship
On-board recreational facilities
10 Food and catering 11 Health and safety and accident prevention 12
On-board medical care
13 On-board complaint procedures 14 Payment of wages
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - Annex 2 Details to be recorded of a complaint Date of the complaint: Name of the complainant : Address of the complainant : Position/Rank : Relation to the ship : Confidentiality necessary : Ship’s particulars: Ship’s name, IMO-number : Shipowner’s address : Particulars of the complaint: Date/time, local time of receipt of the complaint : Nature of the complaint : Relevant Article, Regulation or Standard : Attached file : • Action Taken : Follow-up action :
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - Annex 3 Example deficiencies in the 14 areas listed in annex 1 include, but are not limited to Minimum age Person under the age of 16 working as a seafarer on board ship Seafarer on board under the age of 18 regularly working at night (except exemption in case of training program.) Seafarer on board under the age of 18 carrying out tasks liable to jeopardize his/her health or safety
Art III.c, Regulation 1.1
Medical certificate Seafarers on board without a valid medical certificate
Art IV.4, Regulation 1.2
Medical certificates not provided in English language Evidence that the medical certificate was not issued by a duly qualified medical practitioner Seafarer working on the ship or performing tasks contrary to a restriction on a medical certificate Qualifications of seafarers Seafarers on board not trained and certified according to STCW 78 as amended Seafarer’s qualifications not in accordance with the minimum requirements specified in the Safe Manning Document Seafarer working on the ship who is not trained or certified or otherwise qualified to perform required duties Certificates or endorsements are not up to date or have expired Absence of a valid dispensation issued under STCW, where needed Seafarer working on the ship who has not completed on board training for personal safety Seafarer’s employment agreements SEA Seafarers on board do not have a written employment agreement signed both by the seafarer and the ship owner or their representative A seafarer, with a SEA that does not contain all the required items A seafarer with a SEA that is inconsistent with the national requirements of the flag State No system or provisions for seafarers to have their employment recorded Seafarers are not given a record of their employment on the ship on completion of engagement A collective bargaining agreement that forms all or part of the SEA is either not on board or, if on board, not in English The SEA contains clauses that violate seafarers’ rights
- 10 -
Standard A 1.1. para.1 Standards A 1.1. para. 2 and A 1.1. para. 3 Standard A 1.1. para. 4
Standards A 1.2. para. 1, A 1.2. para. 8 and A 1.2.para. 9 Standard A 1.2. para. 10 Standard A 1.2. para. 4 Standard A 1.2. para. 5
Art IV.1, Regulation 1.3 Guidelines for the PSCO on the STCW 78 as amended annex X Standard 2.7 Regulation A 1.3. para. 1 Regulation 1.3. para. 1 Regulation A 1.3. para. 2 Regulation A1.3. para 2
Art IV.2, Regulation 2.1 Standard A 2.1. para 1 (a)
Standard A2.1, para 4(a) (k). Standard A 2.1.para. 1 Standard A 2.1. para. 1 (d) Standard A 2.1.para. 1 (e). Standard A 2.1. para. 2 Regulation 2.1.
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC
Recruitment and placement service Seafarers on board recruited by unlicensed, uncertified or unregulated private recruitment and placement service(s) operating in the territory of a State which is party to the Convention Seafarers on board recruited by private recruitment and placement service(s) operating in a country which is not party to the Convention, in cases where the ship owner cannot support the conclusion of consistency with the MLC, 2006 No documentary evidence available to indicate that the service or agency is operated in accordance with the MLC, 2006 Use of a private recruitment and placement service requiring the seafarer to pay a fee or other charge for employment services Hours of work or rest The standardized table in the working language and in English with shipboard working arrangements is not available, not posted (not easily accessible to the crew) or does not contain the required information Records of hours of work or rest are not available, not reasonably up to date, not properly maintained for all seafarers, incorrect, deliberately forged, not signed by the master or his representative and by the seafarer The maximum hours of work are exceeded (Standard A 2.3. Para. 5a., 13 and 14), or the minimum hours of rest are not reached, or are split into more than 2 periods, one of them less than 6 hours, or interval between rest periods exceeds 14 hours Evidence of exceeding the limits of work and a record of suspension of the schedule, in accordance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 14, has not been noted in a logbook or other document Exception to maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest permitted by the competent authority or registered in a collective agreement which does not guarantee countervailing measures (more frequent or longer leave period, compensatory leave for watch keeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ship on short voyages Copies of relevant laws, regulations or collective agreements concerning maximums hours of work/minimum rest not kept on board and/or not easily accessible to the crew A seafarerâ€™s work schedule does not conform to the applicable standards Manning levels for the ship The manning level for the ship is not in accordance with the Minimum Safe Manning Document
- 11 -
Art IV.2, Regulation 1.4 Regulation 1.4 para 2
Regulation 1.4 para. 3
Standard A 1.4.para. 2
Art IV.3, Regulation 2.3 Standard A 2.3. para. 10 and 11
Standard A 2.3.para.12
Standard A 2.3. para. 5b. 6, 7, 13 (exception) and 14
Standard A2.3, paragraph 14
Standard A 2.3. para.13
Standard A 2.3 para 13 Standard A 2.3.para.12).
Art IV.4, Regulation 2.7 Standard A 2.7.1.
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Numbers and/or categories of seafarers working on board do not comply with at least the minimum specified in the safe manning document, or comply with a SMD which has been clearly issued without regard to principles of safe manning adopted by the IMO by res. A.890(21) as amended No SMD or equivalent on board Seafarers are found to have been working excessive hours or have not received sufficient rest Accommodation (see note) The minimum standards to ensure that any accommodation for seafarers, working or living on board, or both are not safe, or decent Location of sleeping rooms on the ship does not conform to national standards1 implementing the MLC, 2006 Number and/or size (including height) of sleeping rooms do not conform to national standards1 standards implementing the MLC, 2006 There is more than one seafarer per berth Recreational facilities do not conform to national standards1 implementing the MLC, 2006 Heating, lighting or ventilation is inadequate or not functioning correctly Fittings and fixtures within seafarer accommodation areas, including the hospital, mess rooms and recreational rooms, do not conform to national standards1 implementing the MLC, 2006, Separate sleeping rooms are not provided for males and females Separate sanitation facilities are not provided for males and females Sanitary facilities are inadequate or not functioning correctly, Hospital is being used to accommodate persons who are not sick Seafarer accommodation or recreational facilities are not being maintained in a clean and tidy condition, Regular inspections of seafarer accommodation are not being carried out by the master or another designated person Laundry facilities are inadequate or not functioning correctly Exposure to hazardous levels of noise and vibration and other ambient factors and chemicals in the seafarer accommodation or recreational or catering facilities
Standard A 2.7. para.2.),
Standard A 2.7.para.2 Standard A 2.7.para.2
Art IV.3, Regulation 3.1 Standard A 3.1. para. 1a
Standard A 3.1. para. 6 c,d,e), Standard A 3.1. para. 9
Standard A 3.1. para. 9d Standard A 3.1. para. 17 Standard A 3.1. para. 7, 8 Standard A 3.1.
Standard A 3.1. para. 9b Standard A 3.1. para. 11a Standard A 3.1. para. 11 Standard A 3.1. para. 12 Standard A 3.1. para. 9c, 17 Standard A 3.1. para. 18
Standard A 3.1. para. 13 Standard A 3.1. para 6h. and IMO code on noise level on board ships resolution A 468(XII)) Note : The requirements in the MLC, 2006 which relate to ship construction and equipment apply only to ships constructed on or after the date when this Convention comes into force for the Member concerned. For ships constructed before that date, the requirements relating to ship construction and equipment that are set out in the ILO Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92), and the ILO Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133), shall continue to apply to the extent that they were applicable, prior to that date, under the law or practice of the Party to the MLC, 2006. A ship shall be deemed to have been constructed on the date when its keel is laid or when it is at a similar stage of construction (Regulation 3.1 para. 2)
- 12 -
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC On-board recreational facilities Appropriate seafarers’ recreational facilities, amenities and services are not provided on board taking account Regulation 4.3 and standard A.4.3
Art IV.3 Regulation 3.1 Standard A 3.1. para 17
Food and catering
Art IV.3, Regulation 3.2
Quality and quantity of food, drinking water and nutritional value are not appropriate for the intended voyage taking also the cultural and religious background into account The areas and equipment associated with the catering department, such as galleys and store rooms, are not fit for purpose The ship’s cook is under the age of 18 and/or there is no evidence of his/her training Food and drinking water are not of appropriate quality, nutritional value and quantity, for the seafarers on the ship Refrigeration temperatures are not satisfactory, not checked and not recorded, Seafarer is charged for food and/or is not provided with drinking water Seafarer who has responsibility for preparing food is not trained or not instructed as required Ship’s cook is not trained and qualified, Frequent and documented inspections of the food or water, or of the Preparation,storage or handling areas, are not being carried out Catering facilities are not hygienic, Ship with prescribed manning of 10 or more does not have a certified cook
Standard A 3. para. 2.a Standard A 3.2 para. 2b Standard A 3.2. para. 3, para. 4, para. 6 and para. 8 Standard A 3.2 para. 2a Standard A 3.2 para. 2b Regulation 3.2, 2 Standard A 3.2 para. 5 Standard A 3.2 para. 3 Standard A 3.2 para. 7 Standard A 3.2 para. 2b Standard A 3.2 para 5
Health and safety protection and accident prevention
Art IV.1, Regulation 4.3
Conditions exist on board which may directly impair efforts to prevent accidents and exposure to harmful levels of ambient factors and chemicals No evidence of on-board programs for the prevention of occupational accidents, injuries and diseases meeting the standards of MLC, 2006 No ships safety committee has been established on board a ship on which there are five or more seafarers Personal protective equipment is in poor condition or being incorrectly used or not being used Risk assessments are missing, Seafarers are unaware of the measures adopted by the management to provide occupational safety and health and to prevent accidents Risks posed to seafarers under the age of 18 have not been addressed Occupational accidents are not being investigated or reported in accordance with the ship’s procedures
Standard A.4.3 para 1b Standard A 4.3. para. 1c), Standard A 4.3. para. 2D, para 5 Standard A 4.3 para. 1b Standard A 4.3. para. 8 Standard A 4.3. para. 1c Standard A 4.3. para. 2b Standard A 4.3. para. 5
On board medical care
Art IV.4, Regulation 4.1
No qualified person in charge of medical care Medical guide or medicine chest or medical equipment not in conformity with the DMLC
Standard A.4.1. para. 4c Standard A.4.1. para. 4a
- 13 -
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC No medical doctor on-board ships engaged in international voyages of more than three days duration and carrying one hundred persons or more A seafarer working on the ship is denied, without justification, shore leave by the master and/or shipowner to go ashore for medical or dental care A seafarer is not provided with appropriate health protection and medical care on board ship Medical personnel, with appropriate qualifications, as required by national laws or regulations, are not on board Medical chest or equipment does not meet national standards and/or no medical guide on board No medical report forms on board There is evidence that a seafarer is being charged for medical or dental care contrary to national law or practice
Standard A.4.1. para. 4b Standard A.4.1. para. 1c Standard A.4.1. para. 1d Standard A.4.1. para. 1 and 4 Standard A.4.1. para. 4a Standard A.4.1. para. 2 Regulation 4.1 para 2
On-board complaint procedures
Art III, IV, Regulation 5.1.5
No evidence of an on board complaint procedure A copy of the on-board complaint procedures applicable on the ship has not been provided to seafarers, or the copy provided is not in the working language of the ship Ship’s on-board complaint procedures are not operating Victimization of a seafarer for making a complaint
Standard A 5.1.5 para. 2 Standard A 5.1.5 para.4 Standard A 5.1.5 para. 2 Standard A 5.1.5 para. 3
Art III.d, IV.2, Regulation 2.2
Payment of wages A seafarer has not been paid at no greater than monthly intervals in full for his/her work in accordance with the employment agreement (a seafarer is being paid in full at intervals of more than one month in accordance whith the employment agreement) A seafarer has not been given a monthly account (such as a wage slip) of wages Seafarers are not provided with a means transmit their earnings to their family, allotments are not being paid or are not being paid in accordance with the seafarer’s instructions Charge for converting and transmitting currencies are excessive and do not correspond to exchange rates in accordance with national requirements More than one set of wage accounts is in use 1”
Standard A2.2, para. 1
Standard A2.2, para. 2 Standard A2.2, para. 3 and 4 Standard A2.2, para. 5 Standard A2.2, para. 2
Note a bout “national standards : national s tandard are l isted in DMLC part 1 an d part 2 identifies the measures ado pted to e nsure on-going compliance with the national requirements between inspections and the measures proposed to ensure there is continuous improvement.
- 14 -
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - Annex 4 The following non exhaustive list contains examples of deficiencies (including seafarers right) which may justify the detention of the ship: Deficiencies
No follow up action listed in section 3.3 has been taken (i.e. no deficiency has been rectified before the ship departed the last port),
Art IV.1 Standard A 5.2.1. para 6.b
Minimum safe manning document or equivalent not presented or available
Art IV para 1 Standard A.2.7.
Confirmation that seafarers are trained and certified as competent or otherwise qualified to perform their duties (in accordance with the mandatory instruments adopt by IMO) is missing.
Art IV para 1 Regulation 1.3.
Persons working on board under the age of 16 years on board
Art III para c Standard A.1.1. para.1
Seafarers on board under the age of 18 years (except training program) are regularly working at night, or work likely to jeopardise their health or safety.
Art IV para 3 Standard A 1.1. para. 2 and 4
Several seafarers not holding valid certificate(s) attesting medical fitness
Art IV para 4 Regulation 1.2.1
Seafarers on board the same ship repeatedly not in possession of valid employment agreement or seafarers with SEAs containing clause containing denial of seafarersâ€™ rights.
Art IV para 2 Regulation 2.1. para. 1 and para. 3 Standard A.2.1 para 1
Evidence that maximum hours of work have been repeatedly exceeded or evidence that minimum hours of rest have repeatedly not been kept. Note : Excessive fatigue may occur and constitute immediate danger for the safety of the ship, the crew and/for the environment.
Art IV para 3 Reg 2.3 and Standard A 2.3. para. 5a or Reg 2.3 and Standard A 2.3. para. 5b
No record of work or rest hours or evidence that records have been falsified to hide excessive working hours of the crew.
Art IV para 3 Standard A 2.3. para 12
Manning not in accordance with minimum safe manning document
Art IV para 3 Regulation 2.7
Attribution of substandard accommodation based on the race or gender or trade union activity of the seafarers concerned, freedom of association
Art III para a and d Standard A.5.2.1 para 6 a)
Ventilation, air conditioning and/or heating not working satisfactorily (art IV, para 3)
Art IV para 3 Standard A3.1.para.7(d)
Accommodation, including catering and sanitary facilities, are unhygienic and equipment is missing or not functioning
Art IV para 3 Standard A3.1 para 11 and A.3.2 para 2, Reg 4.3, para 1
- 15 -
For training purposes only
EXAMPLE PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES ON MLC Quality and quantity of food and drinking water not sufficient for the intended voyage
Art IV para 3 Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2.para. 2
Required medical guide repeatedly missing or medicine chest or medical equipment, not on board, and not updated (art IV, para 4).
Art IV, para 4 Standard A4.1. para. 4, (a)
No seafarer with training in medical care (STCW 78 as amended) in charge of medical care on board for ship not carrying a medical doctor (art IV, para 4)
Art IV para 4 Standard A.4.1. para. 4 (c)
No medical doctor for ships engaged in international voyages of more than three days, carrying one hundred persons or more (art IV, para 4).
Art IV para 4 Standard A.4.1. para. 4 (b)
Repeated cases of non-payment of wages or the non-payment of wages over a significant period
Art IV para 2 Standard A2.2, para 1 and 2
Note : In case there are alternative procedures established for the handling of such cases or when incorrect or lacking payment of wages can not be confirmed by the PSCO on-board, then, recognizing that it might be difficult to find evidence on-board, the PSCO may provide information about local trade union representatives or other persons who may assist in pursuing a maritime claim. The PSCO could also collect information and pass the case on to a competent authority ashore.
- 16 -
Published on Jul 1, 2013