The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU) has published its report on the 2024 Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Crew Wages and Seafarer Employment Agreements (SEAs).
The Questionnaire
These questions are typical of a checklist or audit used during a Port State Control (PSC) inspection focused on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). They cover key aspects of seafarer employment rights, working and living conditions, and financial security as stipulated by the MLC.
Here’s a breakdown of what each question aims to verify:
- Is the seafarer given a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner?
- Purpose: To ensure a legally binding employment contract exists between the seafarer and the employer, as required by MLC Standard A2.1.
- Is the seafarer able to access information regarding their employment conditions on board?
- Purpose: To ensure transparency and that seafarers are fully aware of their rights, duties, and terms of employment while on the vessel (MLC Standard A2.1).
- Are standard form of seafarers’ employment agreements and parts of any applicable collective bargaining agreements subject to port State control under Reg.5.2, available in English?
- Purpose: To ensure that the critical employment documents are accessible and understandable to inspectors and potentially to seafarers of various nationalities, given English is the common maritime language (MLC Standard A2.1, Guideline B5.2.1.1).
- Does the seafarers’ employment agreement include all the required elements specified in the MLC, 2006?
- Purpose: To check if the SEA contains all the mandatory particulars, such as seafarer’s name, shipowner’s name, place and date of birth, capacity in which the seafarer is employed, wages, hours of work, etc. (MLC Standard A2.1.4).
- Do particulars included in the seafarers’ employment agreement comply with the MLC, 2006 requirements?
- Purpose: This goes beyond just inclusion; it checks if the content of the particulars (e.g., wage amounts, notice periods) meets the minimum standards of the MLC (MLC Standard A2.1).
- Are wage or salary payments made to the seafarer at no greater than monthly intervals?
- Purpose: To ensure timely payment of wages, protecting seafarers from undue financial hardship (MLC Standard A2.2).
- Have seafarers been given a status of accounts and wages paid on at least a monthly basis?
- Purpose: To ensure transparency in wage calculations and payments, allowing seafarers to verify their earnings and deductions (MLC Standard A2.2).
- Are wage or salary payments by any applicable CBA or SEA?
- Purpose: To verify that the actual wages paid match the agreed-upon terms in either the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or the individual Seafarers’ Employment Agreement (SEA) (MLC Standard A2.2).
- If payments made to a seafarer include deductions, are they in accordance to the MLC, 2006?
- Purpose: To ensure that any deductions from wages are lawful, transparent, and do not exploit the seafarer (MLC Standard A2.2).
- Is a certificate or documentary evidence of financial security, issued by the financial security provider, available on board in the event of compensation for death and long-term disability?
Key Points
Recent Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) data reveal varying levels of compliance with maritime labor regulations, leading to specific detention trends across different aspects of vessel operations and characteristics.
High Compliance Areas: The highest compliance rates were observed in areas directly related to seafarer remuneration and transparency:
Question 6 (Wage/Salary Payment Intervals): 99.7% of vessels confirmed that wage or salary payments were made to seafarers at no greater than monthly intervals.
Question 7 (Status of Accounts and Wages): 99.3% responded that seafarers received a status of accounts and wages paid on at least a monthly basis. Despite these high compliance rates, it’s notable that even minor non-compliance in these critical areas still resulted in 7 detentions. Overall, the average compliance rate across the board was a high 98.7%.
Areas with Least Compliance: Conversely, specific areas showed lower adherence to regulations:
Question 4 (Seafarers’ Employment Agreement Elements): 2.8% of responses indicated that the seafarers’ employment agreement did not include all the required elements specified in the MLC, 2006. This was the least compliant area.
Question 2 (Access to Employment Condition Information): 2.7% of responses indicated that seafarers were unable to access information regarding their employment conditions on board, making it the second least compliant area.
Detention Statistics:
The overall detention rate based on total CIC inspections was 0.78%.
30 vessels with deficiencies marked as grounds for detention were classified under the Standard Risk category.
Detention Rates by Ship Type and Age:
By ship type, General cargo/multipurpose ships had the highest CIC-topic detention rate at 57.1%. This was followed by bulk carriers (19%) and oil tankers (9.5%).
Similar to previous CICs, ships under 6 years of age had a 0% detention rate for CIC-topic detentions. The highest detention rate was observed for ships aged 25-30 years, at 26.8%.
Flag State Performance:
The flag State with the highest number of CIC-related deficiencies was Liberia, with 81 deficiencies (14.9% of the total). It was followed by the Marshall Islands (74 deficiencies / 13.6%), Panama (68 deficiencies / 12.5%), and Malta (54 deficiencies / 9.9%).
For ships with CIC-related grounds for detention, Panama recorded the highest number of detentions with 7 (23.3% of the total). This was closely followed by Tanzania, United Republic of, with 6 detentions (20%), and Liberia and Malta, each with 5 detentions (16.7%).
Increase In Deficiencies
The report indicates that specific deficiencies related to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code were not explicitly detailed within the data extract.
However, the focused nature of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) has directly led to a recorded increase in the number of deficiencies against MLC, 2006 requirements across all areas covered by the questionnaire. This increase is observed when comparing the results to the same period in 2023.
One potential reason for this rise in recorded MLC deficiencies is the differentiation in inspection requirements for Seafarers’ Employment Agreements (SEAs) compliance with MLC, 2006 provisions. Specifically:
Initial inspections do not mandate the verification of SEA compliance. Verification becomes a requirement during a more detailed inspection if clear grounds are established.
It is performed systematically during an expanded inspection. This suggests that the increased focus during CICs, potentially involving more detailed or expanded inspections, is effectively uncovering deficiencies that might be missed during routine initial inspections, thereby contributing to the higher reported numbers.
Did you subscribe to our Daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: Safety4sea
