Enforcing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - DiVA...

Enforcing the Maritime Labour Convention,

2006

A study of the early results of implementation and

enforcementoftheMaritimeLabourConvention,2006

CarlAntonMeitmann

2016-02-21

Program:NauDcalScience

Degree:DiplomaThesis

Level:15ETC

Coursecode:2SJO1E

�

NauDcalScience

Bachelor’sDiplomaThesis

LinnaeusUniversity

KalmarMaritimeAcademy

Abstract

The objecDves of the MariDme Labour ConvenDon 2006 (hereaRer: MLC 2006) have long

been familiar tomany states,but for some ithasbroughtwith it increasedexpectaDons in

improving working condiDons for seafarers. This study aims to analyse the early figures

providedbyParisMemorandumofUnderstanding’s(hereaRer:ParisMoU)onthenumberof

deficienciesanddetenDonsinbeforeandaRertheimplementaDonoftheMLC2006,aswell

as the ILOCommiZeeof Experts 2014Report,whichmarks thefirst full year ofMLC2006

compliance in the first raDfying states. The purposewas to provide an early report on the

progressof theMLC2006 todate aswell as how it has adapted to concerns expressedby

expertsinmariDmelawpriortoitsimplementaDon.Evenifithasnotbeenlongenoughsince

theentryintoforcetoproperlyidenDfyatrend,itisinteresDngtoseeaposiDvestarttothe

MLC 2006, which has received rapidly increasing aZenDon, and that awareness of labour

rightshasincreasedinthemariDmeindustry.Figuresalsorevealedthattheearlyresultisat

least not a decrease in the number of reported deficiencies. In addiDon, the fact that a

numberofdetenDonshavebeenissuedisworthyofnote,astheywereveryrareinthelabour

contextbeforetheMLC2006.

Keywords:MLC2006;MariDmeLabourConvenDon;Enforcement;ImplementaDon;Shipping;

Labour;PortState;FlagState

Degreecourse: NauDcalScience

Level: DiplomaThesis,15ETC

Title: EnforcingtheMariDmeLabourConvenDon,2006

Author: CarlAntonMeitmann

Supervisor: GöranStöth

� i

Linnéuniversitetet

SjöfartshögskolaniKalmar

Abstract

ImångaländerärinnehålletIMLC2006inganyheter,menförvisahardetburitmedsigstora

förväntningar på ökade levnads och arbetsförhållanden för sjömän. Denna studie har varit

avsedd aZ analysera de Ddiga siffror som kunnat erhållas från Paris MoU, gällande antal

brister och fall av kvarstad före och eRer implementeringen av MLC 2006. Även 2014 års

rapportav ILO:sCommiZeeofExperts,haranalyseratsdådenmarkerardetförstahelaåret

medMLC2006ikraR,ideraDficerandestaterna.SyRetvaraZDllhandahållaenDdigrapport

påframstegenhifllsmedMLC2006,samthurvissaorosmomentdärDllsomidenDfieratsav

experterpåmariDmlaginnanimplementeringen..ÄvenomdetintehargåZsålångDdsedan

denträddeikraR,vardetintressantaZseenposiDvstartförkonvenDonen,somharfåZen

hasDgtökandeuppmärksamhet,ochaZmedvetenhetengällandearbetsräZhartagiteZstort

steg framåt i denmariDma industrin. Siffrorna visade också aZ det Ddiga resultatet inte är

någon minskning gällande antal rapporterade brister. Dessutom, aZ eZ antal beslut om

kvarstadhardelatsutunderdesenasteårenärvärtaZnotera,eRersomdessavarsällsyntai

arbetsräZssammanhanginnanMLC2006.

Utbildningsprogram: NauDcalScience

Nivå: DiplomaThesis,15ETC

Titel: EnforcingtheMariDmeLabourConvenDon,2006

FörfaZare: CarlAntonMeitmann

Handledare: GöranStöth

�ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my graDtude to those that have assisted in any way with the

compleDon of this thesis. A special thanks tomy supervisor Göran Stöth andmy external

supervisorCeciliaÖstermanofLinnaeusUniversity,Kalmar,Sweden.Theyhavebothprovided

invaluablehelpthankstotheirextensiveknowledgeaboutmariDmelawandthefuncDonof

themariDme industry. Iwouldalso like todirect a thanks to JohnOhlson, alsoof Linnaeus

UniversityinKalmar,forhisvaluableassistancewithlanguageandgrammaraswellashelpful

ideas.

InaddiDonIamgratefultohaveallthepaDentindividualsaroundmesuchasmygirlfriend,

familyandfriendswhohaveallassistedintheirownwaybyengagingindiscussionswithme

regardingthesubjectofmythesis,somethingthatasaloneauthorIhavevaluedhighly.

Kalmar

December2015.

� iii

Definitionsandabbreviations

CIC ConcentratedInspecDonCampaign

DMLC DeclaraDonofMariDmeLabourCompliance

FlagState TheStateinwhichavesselisregistered.

FOC FlagsofConvenience

ILC InternaDonalLabourConference

ILO InternaDonalLabourOrganisaDon

ILO147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)

ConvenDon

ILO180 Seafarers' Hours ofWork and theManning

ofShipsConvenDon

MARPOL InternaDonal ConvenDon for the prevenDon

of PolluDon from Ships (MariDme PolluDon

Act)

MLC MariDmeLabourCerDficate

MLC2006 MariDmeLabourConvenDon2006

ParisMoU ParisMemorandumofUnderstanding

Primafacie ThestatusofadocumentindicaDngthatthe

informaDon indicated in the document is

true

PSC PortStateControl

PSCO PortStateContolOfficer

SOLAS InternaDonal ConvenDon for the Safety

ofLifeatSea(SafetyOfLifeAtSea)

STA SwedishTransportAgency

�iv

STCW Standards of Training, CerDficaDon and

WatchkeepingforSeafarers

UN UnitedNaDons

� v

Tableofcontents

Acknowledgements iii.............................................................................................................

Defini3onsandabbrevia3ons iv..............................................................................................

Tableofcontents vi.................................................................................................................

Tableoffigures viii..................................................................................................................

1.Introduc3on 1.....................................................................................................................

1.1Background 1..............................................................................................................................

1.2Purposeofresearch 2.................................................................................................................

1.3Delimita3ons 2...........................................................................................................................

2.Methodology 4....................................................................................................................

2.1Qualita3veliteraturestudy 4......................................................................................................

2.1.1QuanDtaDvedatafromParisMoU 5............................................................................................

2.1.2ILO,CommiZeeofExpertsreport(ILO,2015) 5...........................................................................

3.Theory 6..............................................................................................................................

3.1TheMari3meLabourConven3on2006 6....................................................................................

3.1.1EncouragingawarenessanddiscouragingFlagsOfConvenience 7.............................................

3.1.2GuidelinesforportstatecontrolofficerscarryingoutinspecDonsundertheMariDmeLabour

ConvenDon,2006 7..............................................................................................................................

3.1.3MLC2006ondetenDonofships 8...............................................................................................

3.2Previousresearch 9.....................................................................................................................

3.2.1ExpectaDonsontheMLC2006 9.................................................................................................

3.2.2ConcernsidenDfiedpriortoraDficaDon 9...................................................................................

3.2.3Variousapproachestoenforcement 11.......................................................................................

4.Result 13.............................................................................................................................

4.1AnnualreportsfromParisMoU,deficienciesanddeten3ons 13..................................................

4.1.1Datafromtheannualreportof2010 13.....................................................................................





4.2Generalindica3onsofthedeficiencytrend 18............................................................................

4.2.1ExplanaDonofTable8 18.............................................................................................................

�vi

4.3SummaryofanalyseoftheReportoftheCommiReeofExpertsontheApplica3onof

Conven3onsandRecommenda3ons,2014(ILO,2015) 18.................................................................

5.Discussion 22.......................................................................................................................

5.1Thedeficiencytrendandtheimportanceofcorrectdata 22........................................................

5.3Increasedawarenessoflabourrights. 24....................................................................................

5.4AnswerstoafewpreviousconcernsabouttheMLC2006 24.......................................................

5.4.1Thehumanfactor 24...................................................................................................................

5.4.2Theeconomicfactor 25...............................................................................................................

5.4.3ImplementaDonconcerns 26.......................................................................................................

5.5Futureresearch 27......................................................................................................................

5.5.1UsingresearchtoimprovetheConvenDon 27............................................................................

5.5.2LabourregulaDonsintheserviceofmariDmesafety 28.............................................................

5.5.3MoDvaDonaffecDngthefigures 28.............................................................................................

References 29..........................................................................................................................

AppendixI i.............................................................................................................................

AppendixII ii...........................................................................................................................

AppendixIII v..........................................................................................................................

AppendixIV vi.........................................................................................................................

� vii

Tableoffigures

Table1-Labourrelateddeficiencies2010,maingroups 13......................................................




Table5-MLC2006deten3ons,2013 15...................................................................................


Table7-MLC2006deficienciesanddeten3ons,2014 17.........................................................

Table8-Deficiencytrend2010-2014 18..................................................................................

�viii

1.Introduction

1.1BackgroundIn2006theUnitedNaDonsagency;InternaDonalLabourOrganisaDon(hereaRer:ILO)tooka

majorsteptowardsprevenDngunfairtreatmentofseafarersbynotonlyensuringdecentand

safe living and working condiDons but also ensuring fair terms of employment, health

protecDonandinsuranceregulaDons.ThisresultedintheMLC2006.In2013theconvenDon

wasenforcedin30memberstatesinwhichitbecamebindinglaw(Ilo.org,2015a).

Since the implementaDon of the MLC 2006, the number of states that have raDfied the

convenDon has reached 70, which corresponds to over 80 percent of the world’s gross

tonnageofships.ThenumberofcountriespresentlyundergoingraDficaDonoftheMLC2006

is sDll growingand labour rights isan increasinglydiscussed topic in themariDme industry.

(Ilo.org,2015b)

Being a convergence between labour law and mariDme law, the MLC 2006 has faced a

challenge being accepted by some seafarers and mariDme employees (McConnell, M,

Doumbia-Henry, C, & Devlin, D, 2011). The key feature of the MLC 2006 is that it brings

togetherandupdatesallexisDnglabourregulaDonsforallshipsoftheparDcipaDngmember

statesinoneplace,ensuringthatminimumrequirementsarethesameforallseafarers(ILO,

2013).FormanystatesandespeciallyseafarerstheMLC2006isaveryimportantstepforward

as living and working condiDons, as well as employment condiDons have been of varying

standardindifferentmemberstates.

TheMLC 2006, is considered by some seafarers as just another addiDon to the increasing

amount of paperwork that is becoming a growing concern within the mariDme forums

(Knudsen,2009).ManyscienDstsalsopointedoutsomeconcernsandweaknessespriortothe

implementaDonoftheconvenDon(Bauer,2008;Cameron,2013;Lillie,2008;Piniella,F.,Silos,

J. and Bernal, F., 2013 and Adăscăliţei, 2014). The ILO on the other hand, having finally

broughttogethermariDmelabourlawshascreatedwhatiswidelyknownasthefourthpillar

in the world of mariDme law, together with MARPOL, SOLAS and STCW. The concept of

collated,crossborder labour legislaDon indicatesa“great improvement formariDme labour

� 1

protecDon”(Christodoulou-Varotsi,2012).ThetrueeffectsoftheMLC2006cannowundergo

analysis.

1.2Purposeofresearch

With the MLC 2006 now having been raDfied and in force for just over two years, the

intenDon of this study is to look at the early results of the convenDon. The idea is to

invesDgate the result of Port State Control inspecDons and see howwell these have been

adapted to the new convenDon. Also, whether or not the means at hand to enforce the

convenDonaresuitableforitspurpose,willbeinvesDgated.Thiswillalsoservetoanalyseif

concernsexpressedbythescienDficcommunitypriortoimplementaDonhavebeentakeninto

consideraDon.ThequesDonsposedarethefollowing:

• WhataretheearlyresultsofPortStateControlinspecDonsonlabourissuessincethe

raDficaDonoftheMLC2006,comparedtobeforeraDficaDon?

• How have previous concerns regarding the implementaDon of the new ConvenDon

beendealtwith?

1.3DelimitaDons

Whilst theflag statesalsoplayamajor role in the implementaDonofMLC2006, this study

focusesontheresultsfromPortStateControlandtheimplementaDonthroughenforcement

andinspecDon,merelytouchingonthesubjectofcomplianceandadapDonofflagstatesto

comprehendtheimportanceofcooperaDonbetweenflagandportstates.

Althoughsomeresearchcited in this thesis isolder than theconvenDon,dueconsideraDon

has been taken to ensure the relevance of the data in its conjuncDonwith theMLC 2006,

whetherithasbeentosupportadescripDonofthegeneralfuncDonofsocietyorreferringto

labourrights.

ThetrendofdeficienciesanddetenDonswillonlybeobservedfrom2010andonwards.Note

thattheParisMoUsAnnualReportfrom2015hassDllnotbeenpublished.Onthesubjectof

detenDons it should also be noted that before 2013, no data on detainable labour-related

deficiencieswasfound.

�2

TheParisMoUisanorganisaDonconsisDngof27countrieslistedbelow.Therearecurrently

nineMoUsintheworldallworkingtowardsthesameobjecDve(Hjorth,2015).Theirdefined

maingoal“istoeliminatetheoperaDonofsub-standardshipsthroughaharmonizedsystem

ofportStatecontrol”(Parismou.org,2015),meaningthatthememberstatesworktogether

ensuringthatthemainfourconvenDons inthemariDmeindustry(aspreviouslymenDoned;

MARPOL, SOLAS, STCW and MLC 2006) are implemented and followed correctly. All

inspecDonresultsarecompiledinacommondatabasetermed:The.swhereall informaDon

on PSC within the region of Paris MoU is collected to act as a base of informaDon for

upcominginspecDons.(Parismou.org,2015)

ThedatausedfromParisMoUstemfrominspecDonsperformedinitsmemberstates,which

are:Belgium,Bulgaria,Canada,CroaDa,Cyprus,Denmark,Estonia,Finland,France,Germany,

Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,

Portugal,Romania,theRussianFederaDon,Slovenia,Spain,SwedenandtheUnitedKingdom

(Parismou.org,2015).OutofthesestatesEstonia,PortugalandSloveniahavenotraDfiedthe

MLC2006at theDmeofwriDng (Ilo.org, 2015b). In those states inspecDons follow theold

system of labour rights enforcement of with the ILO 147 [Merchant Shipping (Minimum

Standards) ConvenDon] instead,which is predecessor to theMLC2006 (ParisMoU,Annual

report,2014).TheexempDonisRomania,whichonlyjustraDfiedtheMLC2006inNovember

2015. The ILO 147 figures are sDll included in the annual reports from ParisMoU and for

comparisonthosenumberswillalsobepresentedinthisstudy.

� 3

2.Methodology

2.1QualitaDveliteraturestudy

DespitebeingafairlynewconvenDon,theactualprocessofcreaDngtheMLC2006datesback

to2001 (ILO,2001). Thisprolongedprocessenabled research tobeperformedprior to the

entry intoforcepredicDngwhatwouldhappenwhentheconvenDonwasfinallyraDfiedand

becamebinding law in the involvedstates.This studywas focusedpartlyonanalysing such

research,aswellasmorerecentreportsontheMLC2006.

ThenatureofthisstudywasexploraDve,asitintendedtodescribethecurrentsituaDonbased

onwhathashappenedsince the implementaDonofanewconvenDon.Toensureadequate

coverage,thestudywasfocusedmainlyonqualitaDvemethodsbutquanDtaDvedata inthe

form of staDsDc summaries of inspecDon results was also analysed. The main qualitaDve

natureoftheresearchconsistedofaliteraturestudyofvariousarDclesandlawtextssuchas

theMLC2006.AqualitaDvestudyisfocusedonanalysinga largeamountofvaryingdata; it

canbetheresultsoflargenumbersofinterviewsorverbalinterpretaDveanalysesofvarious

texts. It is a favourable approach to figure out reasons why the trend described in a

quanDtaDve analysis is developing in a certain way, based on addiDonal, surrounding

literature.(PatelandDavidson,2011)

In thisstudythequanDtaDveelement (furtherexplainedbelow)consistedofstaDsDcaldata

which was obtained through qualitaDve methods and further explained by analysing the

literaturemoreindepth,usingqualitaDvemethods.TheintenDonwastoperformastudyof

peer reviewed arDcles, theses, reports and various publicaDons. To relate to the ILO’s

intenDons, theMLC 2006 and publicaDons concerning it was used. The convenDon and its

guidelineswerethetoolsprovidedtothemariDmeindustryinordertoconsDtuterealchange

(Ilo.org, 2013). Thus it provided a base, togetherwith the 2014 ILO, CommiZee of Experts

report(ILO,2015),fortheanalysisoftheintendedpurposeoftheconvenDon.

In termsof direcDves and rules, only official documents, issuedby either IMOor ILOwere

invesDgated. The literature was mainly obtained online and through Linnaeus University

Library,unlessotherwisenecessary.

�4

ThearDcles,thesesandreportswereanalysedtolocateconnecDonsbetweenolderpredicDve

research andmore recent data. If a common link could be established, itwas intended to

showanindicaDonoftheactualimpacttheMLC2006hadonthemariDmeindustrysofar.

2.1.1QuanDtaDvedatafromParisMoU

The data included collecDve quanDtaDve staDsDcal informaDon from the inspecDon result

databasefromthewebsiteofParisMoU(Parismou.org,2015a).Thiswasusedasareference

to establish an indicaDon of certain trends in the results of PSC inspecDons. Only data on

labourrelateddeficienciesanddetenDonswasconsidered.TheintenDonwasforthisdatato

provideaninsighttotheresultsoftheenforcementoftheConvenDon.

Annual reports fromParisMoUwereused in addiDon to thedeficiencydata, to clarify the

trend in labourrelateddeficienciesprior toandaRertheentry into forceof theMLC2006.

Prior to the MLC 2006, Paris MoU PSC only presented two categories of labour related

deficiencies based on the ILO convenDons 147 (Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)

Conven.on)and180(Seafarers'HoursofWorkandtheManningofShipsConven.on).These

categorieswereLivingcondi.ons,andWorkingcondi.ons.Datapriortotheentryintoforce

of the MLC 2006 derived from these categories, to demonstrate a collated number of

deficienciesconcerninglabourrights.

2.1.2ILO,CommiZeeofExpertsreport(ILO,2015)

EachyearTheCommiBeeofExpertsontheApplica.onofConven.onsandRecommenda.ons

gathers to discuss those convenDons currently in force. The meeDng results in an annual

report, indicaDng the current progress with each convenDon (see Appendix IV). This study

analysedthereportfrom2014totryandidenDfythecurrentprogressoftheMLC2006from

theviewpointofthe ILO.Notethatthereportwaspublished in2015whilethesessionwas

held November-December 2014. The report did not include extensive informaDon on PSC

specifically,butthecontentsprovidedawiderviewofsomeofthe issuesthathadcometo

lightregardingimplementaDonaRerthefirstfullyearoftheMLC2006beinginforce.

� 5

3.Theory

3.1TheMariDmeLabourConvenDon2006

TheMLC2006consistsofthe5followingmainsecDons:

Title1:Minimumrequirementsforseafarerstoworkonaship

Title2:CondiDonsofemployment

Title3:AccommodaDon,recreaDonalfaciliDes,foodandcatering

Title4:HealthprotecDon,medicalcare,welfareandsocialsecurityprotecDon

Title5:Complianceandenforcement

(ilo.org,2015c)

IneachDtletheregulaDonsarepresented.Thesecontainthe“corerightsandprinciplesand

the basic obligaDons ofMembers raDfying the ConvenDon”. Each regulaDon is divided into

two parts; A and B. Part A contains the Standards which are mandatory and part B are

GuidelineswhicharerecommendaDonsforimplementaDonandenforcement.HereaRerthese

willbeidenDfiedasStandardA#.#andGuidelineB#.#.(ILO,2006)

In order to be in compliancewith theMLC 2006 a commercially operated vessel over 500

grosstonnes,ifoperaDngonaninternaDonalvoyage,mustcarrytwocerDficates;aMariDme

Labour CerDficate (hereaRer: MLC) and a DeclaraDon of MariDme Labour Compliance

(hereaRer:DMLC).ThesecerDficatesaresubjectforinspecDonwhenavesselenterstheport

ofacountrythathasalsoadoptedtheMLC2006.

If during such an inspecDon it is found that a vessel in some aspect is in violaDon of the

convenDon, the authorised officer carrying out the inspecDon can call for amore detailed

inspecDon.IftheviolaDonisofaveryseriousnature,thevesselinquesDonmaybedetained

and prevented from leaving port unDl the issue has been resolved as stated in Title 5

RegulaDon5.1FlagStateresponsibili.es,StandardA5.1.4§7(ILO,2006a).

SecDon2inAr.cleVoftheMLC2006statesthat“EachMembershalleffecDvelyexerciseits

jurisdicDon and control over ships that fly its flag by establishing a system for ensuring

compliance with the requirements of this ConvenDon, including regular inspecDons,

reporDng,monitoringandlegalproceedingsundertheapplicablelaws.”(ILO,2006a).

�6

3.1.1EncouragingawarenessanddiscouragingFlagsOfConvenience

VesselssailingunderaflagthathasnotyetraDfiedtheMLC2006,whenenteringaportina

statewheretheconvenDonisinforce,arealsosubjecttoaninspecDonofworkingandliving

condiDonsinaccordancewiththeMLC2006.ThisisanimportantfeatureoftheMLC2006as

it helps to ensure the wellbeing and fair treatment of a higher number of seafarers by

demandingmorewidespreadcompliance,notonlylimiDngtherulestothoseflagswhichhave

raDfiedtheconvenDon.ItalsohelpstopreventtheconfusionwhichsomeDmesariseswhen

determiningwhichstate’slawsapplytoaspecificsituaDonwhenavesselwithseafarersfrom

allovertheworlddocksinaforeignport(Cameron,2013).Theideaofallthisistodiscourage

FlagsOfConvenience(hereaRer:FOC).TheconceptofFOCiswhencompaniesregistertheir

ships under a FOCor open register not only because it ismore economically beneficial for

them due to lower taxes, but also because FOC has much lower labour standards and

regulaDons(Ibid.).

3.1.2GuidelinesforportstatecontrolofficerscarryingoutinspecDonsundertheMariDme

LabourConvenDon,2006

ChapterfiveoftheseGuidelinesaddressesacDonstobetakenupondetecDonofdeficiencies

andnon-conformiDes.Thefirststeptobetaken,inanycaseofadeficiency,istoinformthe

master and provide a deadline for recDfying the issue. The second step if the deficiency is

considered significant, is to report it to “the appropriate seafarers’ and ship-owners’

organizaDonsintheportStateinwhichtheinspecDonwascarriedout.”(MLC,2006,Standard

A5.2.1,§4).(ILO,2009).

When determining the severity of a deficiency, the PSCO must try to determine, what is

referred to in the PSC guidelines as, the significance of the deficiency. It is stated that in

determining the significance, a PSCO should rely on their own professional judgment. A

deficiencyshouldbedeemedsignificantifitduetoitsamplitudeandlevelofrepeDDonisnot

expectedtobefoundona“well-runship”.(ILO,2009)

TheMLC2006describesunderStandardA5.2.1 theprerequisites foraPSCO tocarryouta

moredetailedinspec.on.Theseare:anyconspicuousnessregardingtheMLCorDMLC,clear

groundsthatlivingorworkingcondiDonsdonotcomplywiththeMLC2006,suspicionofthe

� 7

vessel changing flag with the intenDon to avoid compliance with the convenDon, or if a

specificcomplainthasbeenmadethatthevesselisinviolaDonoftheMLC2006withregards

tolivingandworkingcondiDons(ILO,2006a).

Amoredetailed inspec.on issimplywherethePSCO looksdeeper intoamaZerofconcern

thathaseitherbeenreportedordiscoveredonscene.APSCOcanalsochoosetonoDfythe

flagstateandthenextPSCinthenextportofcallforthevesselinquesDon.Inacasewhere

thePSCinthenextportcarriesoutafollowupinspecDontoensurethedeficiencyfoundby

the previous PSCO has been recDfied. If it has not, there is a ground for amore detailed

inspec.on. Such inspecDon should, according to Standard 5.2.1 §6 of the MLC 2006,

invesDgatewhetherthedeficiencyis“hazardoustothesafety,healthorsecurityofseafarers;

or thenon-conformity consDtutesa seriousor repeatedbreachof the requirementsof this

convenDon (including seafarers rights)”. Those criteria are grounds for detenDon in

accordancewithStandard5.2.1§6.(ILO,2006a)

3.1.3MLC2006ondetenDonofships

DetenDon is themost stringent acDon that a PSCO can take to ensure adeficiency is dealt

withonavessel.Itmeansthatthevesselwillbepreventedfromleavingtheportinwhichitis

dockedunDlthedeficiencyhasbeenrecDfied.Whenithasbeendeterminedthatgroundsfor

detenDonapply,therearedifferentwaystoproceed.ThevesselmaysDllbeabletoembark,if

itcanprovideaplanonhowtorecDfythenon-conformity,whichthePSCOapproves. Ifthe

non-conformityisofsuchseriousnaturethatthePSCOdetainsthevesselthenthiswillbethe

case,unDlthedeficiencyisrecDfied.InthiscasetheflagstateofthevesselmustbenoDfied.

AnoDficaDonmustalsobemadeto“theappropriateshipowners’andseafarers’organizaDons

intheportStateinwhichtheinspecDonwascarriedout”.(ILO,2006aandILO,2009)

Chapter5,secDon5.2ofthePSCGuidelines,providesa listwithexamplesofcircumstances

thataredeemedtobecleargroundsfordetenDon(seeAppendixI).Theydonotnecessarily

havetoberepeated,astheseriousnessofaninstancemayalsomakeitdetainable.Standard

5.2.1,§8menDonsthat“allpossibleefforts”shallbemadetoensureavesselisnot“unduly

detainedordelayed”. This is an important feature for shipowners and shipping companies

whomaybe compensated if necessary, for any lossordamage causedby anundulydelay.

(ILO,2006a)

�8

3.2Previousresearch

3.2.1ExpectaDonsontheMLC2006

PriortotheentryintoforceoftheMLC2006,theexpectaDonsontheconvenDonwerehigh.

It was expected to enter into force in 2012, but in reality it did not unDl August 2013

(McConnell et.al, 2011). Despite that all the requirements for entry into force wasmet in

2012, it takesanother12monthsaRer raDficaDon for a convenDon tobecomebinding law

(Ilo.org,2015).

TheMLC2006wasrequiredtohaveregisteredaminimumof30raDficaDonsfromstatesthat

together represented aminimum of 33% of the gross shipping tonnage in theworld, the

laZer of which was reached in 2009 (Ilo.org, 2015). The ILO intenDonally set these

requirementsinordertoavoidtheMLC2006frombecoming,whattheyrefertoas,a“paper

Dger”(Ilo.org,2013).Meaningthatitwasintendedtomakerealchangeinsteadofjustbeing

justanothersetofrules.

Despite theMLC 2006 containing instrucDons for the enforcement of the convenDon, it is

imperaDve that PSCOs have the ability to properly enforce the MLC 2006, in means of

experienceandguidance(Piniellaet.al.2013).TheMLC2006bringsinplaceavarietyoftools

toensureproperenforcement,suchasamongstothers,cerDficatesandcomplaintprocedures

for seafarers etc. yet the actual effecDveness of these procedures has sDll not been fully

confirmed(Adăscăliţei,2014).

3.2.2ConcernsidenDfiedpriortoraDficaDon

As with all convenDons, raDficaDon and entry into force, is not enough. A lot of effort is

necessaryintermsofimplementaDonandcontrol.Historically,anissuehasbeenthatdespite

signingconvenDons,manyflagstates failed toproperly implement them.Themain reasons

seemedtobetheeitherpoliDcal,orthelackofresourcesforflagstatestocontroltheirown

vessels,especiallythosesailingmainlyinotherstates.(Piniella,SilosandBernal,2013)

Piniellaet.al.(2013)predictedthatthe2013portstatecontrolsystemwouldnotkeepupwith

thenewconvenDon,andhighlighted theneed foraZenDon to thiswhile implemenDng the

MLC 2006. Lillie also idenDfies an issue of PSCOs being under-trained in the inspecDon of

labourcondiDons(Lillie,2008).Therehasalsobeenaconcernamong,atleast,SwedishPSCOs� 9

regardingtheMLC2006addinganotherdimensionofinspecDons,thatduetoitssociallevelit

ismoredifficulttoassessthanacaseofforexamplepoormaintenance(Hjorth,2015).

The first internaDonal agreement to unify the criterior for PSC to conduct inspecDons on

foreignshipswastheParisMoUonPortStateControl.PSCnowplaysanecessaryroleinthe

implementaDonoftheMLC2006.Piniellaet.al.(2013)statesthattheeffecDvenessofanon-

board inspecDon would be more important than the actual implementaDon of a new

convenDon.Theywereconcernedthatopenregisters,orFOCswouldbeabletobenefitfrom

“private control over the public rights” when appoinDng a “recognized organizaDon” to

operatethesystemofregulaDons(Piniellaet.al.,2013).TheproblemwithFOChasbeenand

remains to be a central issue in the mariDme industry (Bauer, 2008; Piniella et.al. 2013;

Cameron,2013andLillie,2008).

CameronalsopointsouttheriskofshippingcompaniesencouragingFOCbyhavingtheability

to easily change flag, without implicaDons, thus forcing FOC to maintain low costs and

substandard labour law in order to avoid compeDDon (Cameron, 2013). As a result of this

vesselssailingunderanFOCcanhirecrewwithsubstanDally lowersalarydemands(Sharife,

2011).Wages (as it is referred to as in the reports from Paris MoU) is also an area of

deficiencythathasbeenoverrepresentedinportstateinspecDonsbyParisMoU,intermsof

detenDon, since theMLC 2006 came into force. To this date ParisMoUhas registered 101

deficiencies under the category wages since 2013. Out of these, 75 were detainable.

(Parismou.org,2015b)

Being the PSC’s most austere tool of enforcement, the concept of detaining ships due to

labour rights deficiencies, was primarily not welcomed by ship-owners and some

governments. PracDcal difficulDes and financial consequences were the some of the main

reasonsforprotest,towhichLillieinteresDnglynotes:“although,apparently,theseobjecDons

didnotapplytodetenDonsrelaDngtothephysicalcondiDonoftheship”.Theopinionsofship

ownersandgovernments,however,shiRedlaterandbecamemorerelatedtothefuncDonof

enforcementandtheimprovementofsuch.(Lillie,p.209,2008)

Prior to theMLC 2006 labour deficiencieswere rarely considered detainable. According to

ParisMoUdetenDonson labourdeficienciesweremainly issued toprovideextraweight to

casesofSOLASorMARPOLdetenDons,whichwerechallengedincourtbytheshipowner.The

ILO147isinfactnotstrongonconsequencesfollowingaseriousdeficiencyonlabourrights.

(SeeAppendixIII)

�10

3.2.3Variousapproachestoenforcement

DuringtheconstrucDonoftheMLC2006,theneedforguidanceforinspecDonwasidenDfied,

andremarksweremadesuggesDngafuturecodeofprac.ceinordertoensureanimproved

level of inspecDon (ILO, 2006b, §1041). The discussions later resulted in two resoluDons;

Resolu.onVI:Resolu.onconcerningthedevelopmentofguidelinesforportstatecontroland

Resolu.onXIII:Resolu.onconcerningthedevelopmentofguidelinesforflagstateinspec.on

(ILO, 2009). These resoluDons in turn developed into two publicaDons;Guidelines for port

state control officers carrying out inspec.ons under theMari.me Labour Conven.on, 2006

(hereaRer: thePSCguidelines)andGuidelines forflag state inspec.onsunder theMari.me

LabourConven.on,2006(ILO,2009).

Lackof,orissueswith,enforcementarenottheonlythreatstoaconvenDon.Aswithalllaw

textstherewillbeactorstryingtoidenDfy loopholesandwaystoavoidcomplianceonareas

difficult for them to complywith.Ar.cle XIII of theMLC 2006 appoints a special tripar.te

commiBee, with the purpose to ensure the convenDon stays up to date with the current

mariDme situaDon and to “oversee compliance”. This is one step to ensure the proper

implementaDonof theMLC2006; somethingnecessary to ensure the convenDondoesnot

remainan“emptypromise”.(Bauer,p.647,2008)

Bauer (2008) addresses the risk of PSC and FOC allowing economic gain affect their

enforcement of theMLC 2006. He points out that if it is in the economic interest of two

states, theymaybothbenefitfromignoringcompliancewiththeconvenDon.Thiswouldbe

becauseflagstateandportstatehaveajointresponsibilityinenforcingtheMLC2006,ifthey

bothchoosetoignoreittobenefiteachother,thisputstheinvolvedseafarersinaprecarious

situaDonwithoutanenforcingbodytohelpthem.

The discussion of including a third party in enforcement of a convenDon or similar

“internaDonal agreements” is not something that has been concludedwith theMLC 2006.

The effect and importance of a third party as a complement to self-enforcement has been

researchedfora longDme,ScoZandStephan(2004)pointoutthatenforcementshouldbe

seenasvitaltoimprovethewelfareinastatewhentradingwithseveralotherstates.Thisis

ensurethatagreementsetceteraarenotbroken.

Whatspeaksforself-enforcementisthatamaincontributoryfactortoitsproperfuncDonis

reputaDon(ScoZandStephan,2004).AppliedtothemariDmeindustrythereputaDonofflag� 11

states isconDnuouslymonitoredbyPSCandformostcountries inEuropepresentedonthe

“black,greyandwhitelists”,updatedyearlybytheParisMoU(Parismou.org,2015b).

IfthetheoryofScoZandStephanisappliedontheaboveexampleoftwostatesignoringthe

convenDon for their own benefit, self-enforcement is no longer efficient as their gain lies

beyondtheirinterestofreputaDon.ThevicDm(s)inthissituaDonwouldtheseafarersofthe

flag state. In a case like this, third party enforcement could be a soluDon where through

coercionandnon-interestinthestatesinvolved,therigh�ulimplementaDonof-inthiscase-

theMLC2006couldbeensured.(ScoZandStephan,2004)

Moreover,Bauer(2008)highlightsthatapossiblecandidateforthirdpartyinvolvementcould

betheInternaDonalTransportWorkers’FederaDon(hereaRer:ITF).TheITFhas,sincebefore

theMLC 2006, workedwith labour related quesDons for seafarers. They have the right to

board vessels with an ITF agreement and since the MLC 2006, most of their work in the

mariDme industry consist of ensuring compliance with the ConvenDon to ensure the safe

workingandlivingcondiDonsforseafarers.However,intermsofenforcementtheyarelimited

contacDngtheflagstateorPSC,requesDngfurtherinspecDon.(ITF,2015)

Christodoulou-Varotsi (2012) states that the enforcement mechanisms are included in the

MLC2006.HepointsoutthatonepurposeoftheconvenDonwastoenhancecomplianceand

enforcement, not only by cerDficaDon, but also the cooperaDon of themain actors in the

mariDme industry.He also highlights the role of PSC as the “most important tool”when it

comes to enforcing internaDonalmariDme standards (p. 486, 2012). He concludes that the

MLC2006willnotonlyenhance“faircompeDDon”betweenstates,butalsoimprovesafetyby

spreading awareness and knowledge to states and seafarers with a previously limited

experiencewith labour rights (p. 489, 2012). Christodolou-Varotsi (2012) also idenDfies the

convenDon as being effecDve for stateswith less experience ofmariDme labour standards,

especiallybytheimplementaDonbeinganeffecDvemeantoactuallyimproveissuesandnot

justbeingapaperworkexercise(p.489,2012).

�12

4.Result

4.1AnnualreportsfromParisMoU,deficienciesanddetenDons

4.1.1Datafromtheannualreportof2010

As previously menDoned, prior to 2013, labour deficiencies were only categorised under

Working-andLivingCondi.ons.In2010,thecategoriesalsoincludedAccidentpreven.on(ILO

147), ILO 180, Accommoda.on, Food and cateringandWorking spaces. In 2010, a total of

7,223 labour-related deficiencies were recorded. They were divided between the above

categoriesasshowninTable1.

Table1-Labourrelateddeficiencies2010,maingroups


In 2011 the categories on labour deficiencies in the annual reports were reduced to only

disDnguish betweenWorking Condi.ons and Living Condi.ons. In the annual report from

2011 a discrepancy was noted; the Facts and figures chapter states that 2010 had 7,057

deficiencies inWorking condi.ons and 2,932 deficiencies in Living condi.ons. This would

Labourrelateddeficiencies2010,maingroupsCategory: No.ofdeficiencies:

AccidentprevenDon(ILO147) 154

ILO180 1,275

AccommodaDon 1,550

Foodandcatering 1,359

Workingspaces 2,885

Total: 7,223

� 13

resultinatotalof9,989deficiencies.ThereasonforthisdifferenceisduetotheintroducDon

ofanewinspecDonregimein2011includinganewdatabase.Thisresultedintwodatabases

beingusedsimultaneouslyforsomeDmeinthisperiod.Theannualreportdoesstatethatthe

numbers“from2011onwardsshouldnotbecomparedtotheones from2010andbefore”.

ThereasonbeingthattherelaDonbetweeninspecDons,deficienciesanddetenDonsdoesnot

matchthenumberofindividualinspectedshipsanddetenDonrate.However,forthepurpose

ofthisstudy,accordingtoParisMoU,thenumberbestindicaDngtheannualresultfrom2010

is the one presented in the table above; 7,223 (See appendix II). The result from 2011 is

shownintable2.



In2012weseeasinTable3adecreaseoflabourdeficiencies



BeforeAugust20,2013,PSCinspecDonswereconDnuedunderILO147.ARertheMLC2006

entered into force inAugust, vesselswitha raDficaDondateprior toAugust20, 2012were

subjectto inspecDonsunderthenewconvenDon.Thedatafromthisyearwaspresentedas


WorkingcondiDons 5,252

LivingcondiDons 2,313

Total: 7,565


WorkingcondiDons 5,067

LivingcondiDons 2,182

Total: 7,249

�14

previously on ILO147 and adding Titles 1-4of theMLC2006, seen in Table 4. For obvious

reasonsdeficienciesunderILO147decreasedsignificantly,howeverwhenincludingMLC2006

inthecalculaDon,aslightincreaseisevident(seeTable4).

For thefirstDmewealso seedataon thenumberofdetenDonsdue to labourdeficiencies

(seeTable5).AsdetenDonsweremadeonMLC2006relateddeficiencies, thesefiguresare

notveryhigh,duetothelimitedDmewiththeconvenDoninforceduring2013.


Table5-MLC2006deten3ons,2013

Labourrelateddeficiencies2013,maingroups

Category: No.ofdeficiencies:

WorkingcondiDons(ILO147) 4,579

LivingcondiDons(ILO147) 1,946

MLC2006Title1 14

MLC2006Title2 88

MLC2006Title3 258

MLC2006Title4 390

Total: 7,275

MLC2006detenDons,2013

Category: No.ofdeten3ons:

Wages 10

CalculaDonofpaymentandwages 7

Fitnessforduty,workandresthours 5

ProvisionsquanDty 4

SanitaryfaciliDes 2

Others 7(basedononlineinspecDontool)

Total: 35

� 15


Thefirst full year ofMLC2006 in force resulted in a clearly conDnueddecrease in ILO147

deficienciesandanincreaseinMLC2006relateddeficiencies,howeveradecreaseinthetotal

number of labour-related deficiencies is also evident (see Table 6). An increase in MLC

detenDonsaRerthefirstfullyearinforceisapparent(seeTable7).Moredetaileddataonthe

impact of the MLC 2006 is also evident in the 2014 annual report. The overview of

deficiencies relaDng to ILO 147 contraMLC 2006 will be presented first followed bymore

detaileddatainTables6and7respecDvely.



WorkingcondiDons(ILO147) 2,195

LivingcondiDons(ILO147) 759

MLC2006Title1 57

MLC2006Title2 324

MLC2006Title3 1,352

MLC2006Title4 2,218

Total: 6,904

�16

Table7-MLC2006deficienciesanddeten3ons,2014

NotethatthetotalamountofdeficienciesinTable6doesnotmatchthetotalinTable7.The

reasonforthisisthatParisMoUdecidedtocreateaseparatetablehighlighDngmorespecific

details regarding MLC deficiencies. The number to be considered for MLC 2006 related

deficiencies,istheoneinTable7;5,502(SeeappendixII).

MLC2006deficienciesanddetenDons,2014Category: Deficiencies: Deten3ons:

MLC2006,cerDficatesanddocuments 137 5

Area1Minimumageofseafarers 3 0

Area2MedicalcerDficaDonofseafarers 160 4

Area3QualificaDonsofseafarers 17 0

Area4Seafarersemploymentagreements 238 22

Area 5Use of any private recruitment andplacementservice

15 0

Area6Hoursofworkorrest 1,152 28

Area7Manninglevelsfortheship 81 24

Area8AccommodaDon 436 26

Area9On-boardrecreaDonalfaciliDes 6 0

Area10Foodandcatering 792 27

Area 11 Health and safety and accidentprevenDon

2,059 50

Area12On-boardmedicalcare 191 8

Area13On-boardcomplaintprocedure 94 5

Area14Paymentofwages 121 60

Total: 5,502 259

� 17

4.2GeneralindicaDonsofthedeficiencytrend

4.2.1ExplanaDonofTable8

AsitcanbeseeninTable8,thebluestacksshowdeficienciesundertheILO147convenDon.

TheredstacksshowMLCdeficienciesonly.ThegreenstacksindicatethetotalofMLCandILO

147deficienciestogetherusingthenumbersfromTable6.ThepurplestackalsoshowsMLC

and ILO147deficiencies together,butusing thenumber forMLCdeficiencies fromTable7.

For the year 2013 and 2014 they have been separated to highlight the importance of

consistencyandclarityintheannualreportsfromtheMoUs.

Table8-Deficiencytrend2010-2014

�

4.3SummaryofanalyseoftheReportoftheCommiZeeofExpertsontheApplicaDonofConvenDonsandRecommendaDons,2014(ILO,2015)

The analysis in this secDon is based upon the 2014 Report of the CommiZee of Experts,

furtherexplainedinSecDon2.1.2ofthisthesis(seealsoAppendixIV).Hereitissummarised

bytheauthor.TheCommiZeeofExpertsconsistsof20juristsselectedbytheGoverningBody

of the ILO. The parDcipants are chosen from all over the world to ensure a difference in

Deficiency trend 2010-2014

0

2250

4500

6750

9000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ILO 147MLC MLC+ILO 147 AMLC+ILO 147 B

�18

knowledge,cultureandinterest.ThepurposeoftheCommiZeeistoevaluatetheapplicaDon

oflabourrelatedstandardsandconvenDons.

The report represents the resultofanexaminaDonof thefirstnaDonal reportson theMLC

2006performedbytheCommiZeeofExperts.TheCommiZee“notedwithinterest”areport

issued by a regional PSCMoU containing lists of deficiencies and detenDons as presented

abovefromParisMoU.ThisinformaDon,inaddiDontothenaDonalreportswereperceivedas

agoodindicaDonofahighlevelofimplementaDoninpracDce,“wellbeyondtheadopDonof

legislaDon inmanycases” indicaDng thatenforcementseemtobemoresuccessful in some

instancesthanimplementaDononastatelevel.

ThecommiZeealsopointedoutthe importanceofsuch listsandthison-goingcollecDonof

data from inspecDons to support the supervision of implementaDon of not only the MLC

2006,butalsootherILOconvenDons.Initsreport,thecommiZeenotedthatthehighlevelof

engagement and implementaDon shows an interest for “consistency of applicaDon” among

governments,ship-ownersandseafarers.

WithregardstonaDonalimplementaDon,theCommiZeesawindicaDonofahighconsultaDon

level, as well as social dialogue regarding naDonal implementaDon of the convenDon. A

negaDve notewasmade, however, concerning somemember states expressing issueswith

not yet having “representaDve organizaDons established for consultaDon to assist with

naDonal implementaDon.” In answer to this, the commiZee pointed out that the Special

Tripar.te CommiBee as presented inAr.cle XIII of theMLC 2006, had been established in

April2014.TheSpecialTriparDteCommiZeehadalsosince,adoptedarrangementsforsuch

consultaDoninaccordancewithAr.cleVIIoftheMLC2006,forcaseswhereamemberstate

doesnothavearepresentaDveorganisaDon.

TheCommiZeeofExpertsdirectedsomecriDcismtowards theconstrucDonof theDMLC in

some states. A number of governments provided theDMLC as a source of informaDon for

theirnaDonalreportofimplementaDon.Thiswasnotonlynotedasaninsufficientamountof

informaDon for the report, but the quality of the informaDon contained in the naDonal

sampleDMLCwasinmanycasessubstandard.Inseveralcases,thesampleDMLCwasonlya

list of references to “naDonal implemenDng legislaDon”. These references were oRen

inconclusiveorincorrect.

If aDMLC refers toanotherdocument in regards toanaDonal requirement, thisdocument

should also be available on-board. This to simplify the process of PSC and seafarers’

understandingofthenaDonallegislaDonreferredtointheDMLC.TheCommiZeeconcluded� 19

that this issue seems to indicate that the DMLC does not enDrely provide assistance with

ensuring naDonal requirements on the MLC 2006 maZers are implemented correctly.

SomethingitshoulddoundertheconvenDon,forpersonsinvolvedsuchasPSCOs,flagstate

andseafarers.

One issue was idenDfied concerning the use of the term “substanDal equivalence” when

determining if “a category of persons or ships” is covered by the MLC 2006. The term

“substanDal equivalence” stems from paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ar.cle VI. It implies that a

memberstatemayincertaincircumstancesdeviatefromaprovisionintheconvenDon,ifthe

naDonallawsandregulaDonsofthestateinquesDonareof“substanDalequivalence”tothat

of the convenDon.Meaning that they fulfill the purpose of the part of theMLC 2006 that

couldnotbeactualisedforanyreasonsspecifiedinAr.cleVI.

TheCommiZeeconcluded thatflexibilityprovidedby the term“substanDalequivalence” is

nottobeusedwhenindoubtregardingtheapplicaDonoftheconvenDon,toa“categoryof

personsorships”.TheonlycaseonecanexcludeworkersfromtheconvenDonisif:theycan

notbedefinedasseafarers,thevesseltheyworkonisnotashipasdefinedintheconvenDon,

anydoubtregardingthepreviouspointsfollowedbyadeterminaDonmadeaccordingtothe

MLC 2006 that theworkers do not fall under any of those categories, or the legislaDon in

quesDonrelatestoitemsthatisnotconcludedintheconvenDon.

OnthemaZerofexcludingashiporacategoryofsuchfrom“certaindetails”oftheMLC2006

as provided in paragraph 6 of Ar.cle II, the CommiZee specifically expressed that this

exclusioncanonlybedonefromthestandardsandguidelines(PartAandBoftheMLC2006).

The relevant regula.on must sDll apply. In addiDon, this is only to be decided by the

competent authority (inmost cases PSC), as defined in the convenDon. It must also be in

consultaDonwiththerelevant“shipowners’andseafarers’organizaDons”.

AnobservaDonwasmadebytheCommiZee,regardinganumberofcaseswherethenaDonal

regulaDons of a state allows the competent authority tomake exempDons from the state’s

own requirements specified to implement theMLC 2006. The CommiZee highlighted that

exempDons are only allowedwhere specifically permiZed by the convenDon and only to a

“limitedextent”.

TheCommiZeemadeanotethatseveralgovernmentsreportedthat theyarecurrentlynot

flagstatesasdefinedbytheconvenDon,duetothefactthattheyhavenoshipsregistered,to

whichtheMLC2006wouldapply.Theyhaveonthatnotedecidedtonotyetimplementany

detailed legislaDon to complywith the convenDon. In thismaZer, theCommiZee indicated

�20

that certain items in theMLC 2006 would sDll need to be implemented, such as “private

recruitment and placement services, shore-based welfare faciliDes and fulfilling port State

responsibiliDes”.Therewasalsoevidencethatanumberofthesememberstates,couldneed

assistanceandcooperaDontofurtheradvanceonthesemaZers.

� 21

5.Discussion

ThepurposeofthisthesiswastoanswertwoquesDons:

• WhataretheearlyresultsofPortStateControlinspecDonsonlabourissuessincethe

raDficaDonoftheMLC2006,comparedtobeforeraDficaDon?

• How have previous concerns regarding the implementaDon of the new ConvenDon

beendealtwith?

The following Dtles will present an analysis of the result and a detailed answer to these

quesDons, but in short, the results show that while the number of deficiencies seem to

remainfairlyunchangedit isclearthatthenumberofdetenDonshaveincreased.Thiscould

serveasanindicatorthatlabourrightshasaclearneedforinvesDgaDononboardmanyships

andalsothatthesomeofthedeficienciesfoundareinfactquiteserious,asadetenDonisan

austerepenaltyforavessel.

Previous concerns have to a certain degree been included in the convenDon, however

concerns of FOC states using loopholes to their own gain is sDll something that deserves

aZenDon.NoindicaDonsofanymisusewasfoundinthisstudybutitisclearthatitremainsa

possibility.FurthermoreitisclearthatconDnuousworktoimprovetheConvenDoniscarried

out,toagreatextentbytheCommiZeeofExperts,asistheirappointeddutybytheILO.

5.1Thedeficiencytrendandtheimportanceofcorrectdata

WiththeentryintoforceofaconvenDonakintoMLC2006, itwouldbeexpectedtoseean

increaseinthenumberofdeficienciesinlabourrelatedareas.This,becauseoftheincreased

awareness into such condiDons. Before the ConvenDon entered into force the amount of

deficienciesinthecategories living-andworkingcondi.onswasfairlyconsistent,apartfrom

thesmall increasein2011,whichcouldperhapsbeexplainedbythenewinspecDonregime

(seeAppendix II).Even in2013thenumberof totaldeficiencies remainsconsistent,butwe

noteanaddedcategory;detenDons.

Theconceptofmakinglabourdeficienciesdetainableisanimportantsteptowardsimproving

working and living condiDons for seafarers. The MLC 2006 encourages ship owners and

�22

management companies to treat their employees fairly as detenDon as a penance affects

allegedlyunfairemployersnegaDvely,sincedelaysarefinanciallyunbeneficial.

TheMLC2006issDllaverynewconvenDonandthetrueresultsofits’impactremainstobe

seeninthecomingyearswhenalargerquanDtyofdata,spreadovermoreDmeisavailable.

IniDally, aRer being in force for one year a small increase in deficiencies canbenoted and

morenotablythepresenceofdetenDons.Thisconclusionisbasedonthenumbersfromthe

purple stack inTable8, inaccordancewithAppendix II.AlsoconsideringTable7, it ismore

accurateasittakesintoaccountallareasoftheconvenDon,includinge.g.cerDficaDon,which

hasitsowncategoryinthemaingroupoverviewoftheactual2014report(ParisMoU,2014).

Inthereportsanalysedforthepurposeofthisstudyitwasnotalwaysclearwhichnumbersto

considerasdifferent tables includeddata fromdifferent categories. Table8 showshow the

MLC2006startstotakeaffect,however,dependingonwhichvaluesareconsidered,thetotal

numberofdeficiencies iseitherconsistentor increasing. In futurereports it is important to

ensureclarity in thesefigures soamoreadequate indicaDonof the trendcanbeproduced

(seealsoAppendixII).

Another factor in the issueofvaryingfigures in the reports, is theConcentrated InspecDon

Campaigns (hereaRer: CIC), which each year are performed by the different MoUs in the

world.ACICiswhenaMoUfocusesonacertainareacompliancewithdifferentregulaDonsin

ordertoimproveenforcementofsuchareas.In2014,theCICwasfocusedonSTCWhoursof

rest.Itresultedin912deficienciesand16detenDons.Whetherthisnumberisincludedinthe

staDsDcsfortheMLC2006isunclear,althoughthepresenceandnumberofdetenDonsinthe

staDsDcsimplythattheConvenDonwasatplayintheseinstances.ItwouldbeinteresDngto

clarify this issue, as a CIC could affect the total trend of the number of deficiencies and

detenDonsfromoneyeartoanother.(ParisMoU,2014)

The categoryHealth and Safety andAccident Preven.on consDtutes the largest number of

MLCdeficienciesin2014with2,059deficiencies.Itisalsothesecondlargestgroupasregards

todetenDonswith50detenDons.AnexplanaDon for this couldbe that itmaybe regarded

“theeasiestcategory”torelateto, foraPSCO, indeterminingwhetheran issue isaserious

breachof safetyornot.Notwithstanding this viewpoint the issueofHealthandSafetyand

AccidentPreven.onisofcentralimportancetothemariDmeindustry.

� 23

5.3Increasedawarenessoflabourrights.

Addingthenumbersfromthemorespecifiedtableofdeficienciesfrom2014tothenumbers

undertheILO147categoryfromthesameyearasubstanDal increaseindeficienciescanbe

noted.ThismaybearesultofanelevatedawarenessofmariDmelabourrightsbroughtbythe

MLC2006.The fact thatvesselsandmanagementcompaniesmaynowsuffermoreserious

and direct consequences as a result poor labour compliance could have increased crews’

knowledgeoftheirownlabourrights.ThissurgeinawarenesscouldbeacontribuDngfactor

to the use of the onboard complaint procedure as specified in Regularion 5.1.5 of the

ConvenDon(ILO,2006a).

TheonboardcomplaintprocedureisavitalpartoftheMLC2006asitmaybetheonlywayin

somecasesforanissuetobenoDced.IfavesselhasitsMLCandDMLCinorder,thereisno

reason for aPSCO to look furtherunlessheor shenoDces anythingoutof theordinary as

specifiedinStandardA5.2.1oftheconvenDon(Ibid.).

AstheMLC2006conDnuestoexistasapartofmariDmeregulaDonsandbecomesraDfiedin

an increasingamountofcountries,awarenessof labourrightsseemtobecome increasingly

common. With this awareness, experience among PSCOs could be seen to increase,

somethingthatshouldnotonlyresultinafairerinspecDonregimebutalsoawayoffurther

educaDngcrewsfromcountrieswithlesshistoricalexperienceinlabourrightsatthelevelof

theMLC2006.

5.4AnswerstoafewpreviousconcernsabouttheMLC2006

5.4.1Thehumanfactor

ThetrueeffectsoftheMLC2006areatthisearlystagedifficulttopinpoint.However,thefirst

resultsofPSCinspecDonsunderthenewConvenDondoindicatethatPSCisnotfallingbehind

in enforcement. Remarks regarding PSCOs being undertrained has not showed in the

inspecDon resultsand this couldperhapsbedue to the steps takenby ILO inproviding the

guidelinesforPSCOsandalsoforflagstates(ILO,2009).Itshouldbetakenintoaccountthat

�24

labourregulaDonisnotanewconceptforPSC,astheMLC2006isinitsfoundaDonsarevision

of37previousconvenDonsonthesubjectoflabourrights(ILO,2006a).

InresponsetoexpressionsintheresearchofHjort,2015andLillie,2008,staDngthatPSCOs

are under-trained in Labour rights and that theMLC 2006 is adding a social dimension to

inspecDons the first numbers we see in deficiencies and detenDons do not show a huge

increase,whichcouldimplythatPSCOsaresDllgefngusedtothenewconvenDonhowever

the lack of a decrease in deficiencies and detenDons might imply that the enforcement

guidelinesputinplacethroughtheMLC2006andtheGuidelinesforportstatecontrolofficers

carryingout inspec.onsunder theMari.meLabourConven.on,2006are in factefficient in

theirconstrucDonbutarenowdependingonpracDcalexperienceamongPSCOs.

The introducDonof increased labourstandards inatechnical industryrequiresan increased

understanding of the human being itself. Perhaps cooperaDon between PSC and social

authoriDesisasuitablepathforincreasedknowledgeamongPSCOs.

5.4.2Theeconomicfactor

An example case, referring to research by Bauer (2008), of a port state and a flag state

cooperaDng tobenefit from incorrect compliancewithMLC2006,despitehaving raDfied it,

wasbroughtupintheTheorychapterofthisthesis.Inanswertothisconcern,itmayfirstbe

weightedwhetheraraDficaDonoftheconvenDonintheaffectedstatesisappropriateornot.

However,theirvesselswouldsDllneedtocomplyiftheysendshipstoathirdstateinwhich

theconvenDonisraDfied.

Inacaselikethis,PSCinthethirdstatewouldbecomecrucialfortheproperenforcementof

theconvenDonanditwouldhavepayspecificaZenDontodetectissuesofsubstandardasthe

primafaciestatusoftheMLCandDMLCmeansnofurthereffortwouldnormallybeputinto

assuringcompliance.

While the issue above could theoreDcally become reality, the benefit for the involved

countriesmustbequesDoned.Althoughsomestatesandcompanieshavenointerestinusing

high standards as a means of obtaining good reputaDon for a higher compeDDve status

(Sampsonetal.,2014).Withtheincreasedawarenessoflabourrights,thereputaDonofthe

states when trading with other countries should be consideredmore important. The data

analysedinthisstudycouldnevershowanyindicaDonofsuchcooperaDonbutitdoesraise

� 25

quesDons such as; does the MLC and DMLC providing evidence that all is well onboard?

Despite further means for the detecDon of deficiencies in place, such as the onboard

complaint system of the MLC 2006, this could indicate the need for an improved way to

detectsubstandardlabourcondiDonsevenifnoevidenceofasituaDonlikeabovehavebeen

foundsofar.

Insummary,theabovemenDonedconcerndoesnotseemtohavebecomeanissue(asyet),

however, it is important for the different MoUs in the world to keep providing detailed

staDsDcsonlabourdeficienciesanddetenDons.Thistoassistfurtherresearchersinbeingable

to detect and determine if such cooperaDon is taking place somewhere in the world. The

needforgoodreputaDonintheshipping industrymustbepreservedandencouragedbyall

mariDme states and governing bodies. ContradicDng the safety aspect as processed by

Sampsonetal.(2014),wherecompaniesmaysethigherstandardsthannecessarytoimprove

theirreputaDonwhenitcomestolabourrights,thegoverningbodieshavearesponsibilityto

ensurethatshippingcompaniesdo in factsethighaimsasasaDsfiedworker,willhopefully

alsobeasafeworker.

5.4.3ImplementaDonconcerns

While this study doesmainly focus on enforcement, the 2014 Report of the CommiZee of

ExpertsdoeshighlightsomeissuesintheimplementaDonoftheMLC2006thatareworthyof

discussion.Next to the topicsdiscussedearlier in this thesis, theCommiZeealso idenDfied

theimportanceofstaDsDcsinsupervisingimplementaDon.Ifonelooksattheactualreportby

the CommiZee it would also be part of the documentaDon important for governments

implemenDngtheMLC2006.Thereportcontainsgoodadviceonvariouspointsthathasbeen

moreorlessdifficulttoimplementinvariousstates.

ThecriDcismthathasbeenlevelledtowardstheDMLCisinteresDngasitshouldbeofprime

importancethatadocumentwithprimafaciestatus,whichwillpreventfurtherinvesDgaDon

ifallisinorder,shouldundernocircumstanceshaveanydiscrepancies.Itdoesalsohighlight

the fact that proper implementaDon is just as important as proper enforcement of any

convenDon.

Somegovernmentsalsotendedtofail intheiradopDonofthetermsubstanDalequivalence

and inexclusionofshipsorpersonsfromdetailsof theMLC2006. If failuretoproperlyuse

thesetoolsofcertainfreedominimplementaDonwasduetoinexperienceorfor“personal”

�26

benefitofthestateisnotclear.However,aZenDontothismustbetakenasthiswouldbehow

a state,whichvalues convenienceoreconomicgainbeforemoral values,wouldexploit the

loopholesoftheconvenDon.

5.5Futureresearch

Exceptforpreviousremarks,thefollowingsuggesDonsaregiveninregardstofutureresearch.

5.5.1UsingresearchtoimprovetheConvenDon

WhilethisthesisonlyprovidesalimitedamountofnewdataoninspecDonresultssincethe

MLC2006, itdoeshighlight issueswithstaDsDcs inannualreports fromtheParisMoU.The

authorwouldherebyliketopressonceagainontheimportancethatfutureinstancesfordata

presentaDoninregardstotheimpactoftheMLC2006aremadeinaclearandconsistentway.

Further research aimedat analysing thefigures relaDng to enforcement and compliance as

wellastheadapDonofthemariDmeindustrytothenewConvenDonishighlyencouraged.

Suchresearchcouldbeofgreathelpnotonly to ILOandtheCommiZeeofExperts in their

endeavourtoimprovetheMLC2006,butalsotothedifferentactorsinthemariDmeindustry.

Aspreviouslydiscussed in this thesis,an important featureof theConvenDon is to increase

raDficaDon and implementaDon through the spreading of awareness in regards to labour

rights,futureresearchplaysalargeroleinthistask.

Case studies and interview based research to invesDgate the impact on crews and

managementorganisaDons,wouldbean interesDngaddiDontostaDsDcalresearch. Inthisa

comparisonbetweennaDonsofdifferentlabourrightsexperiencewouldalsobeofvalue.By

conducDngacasestudyina,onlabourrights,lessdevelopednaDoncouldindeedalsoleadto

increasedawarenessmariDmeactorsinthatstate.

Finally, turning back to implementaDon, it would be interesDng to see further research on

how enforcement is dealt with in naDons which do not yet have any registered vessels.

Especiallyincaseswherethestateisalsonotaportstate.AcountrywithawellfuncDoning

flagstateregimeaswellasanexperiencedPSCorganisaDonwouldnaturallybemuchbeZer

equippedfortheMLC2006thananaDonwithlimitedexperienceinthemaZer.Theneedfor

assistanceinthesenaDons,asexpressedbytheCommiZee,couldperhapsbesolvedeasilyby

� 27

cooperaDon with states that have already successfully implemented the convenDon on all

levels.

5.5.2LabourregulaDonsintheserviceofmariDmesafety

The2014CICresultedindetenDonsinanareawheredetenDonpreviouslyhasnotbeenthe

“most appropriate acDon” on hours of rest deficiencies (Paris MoU, 2014). This highlights

anotherimportantfactoroftheConvenDon.Takingtheexampleofhoursofrest,whichinthe

MLC 2006 is regulated in Title 2, RegulaDon 2.3 (ILO, 2006a). Failure to comply with this

regulaDonbynotprovidingcrew-memberswiththeappropriateamountofrestcouldquickly

result inanumberofserioussafetyhazardsduetofaDgue,whichasperStandardA5.2.1 is

detainable (ILO, 2006a). The issue of faDgue has been extensively researched (Cook and

Shipley,1980).Yet,detenDonsasaresultofbreachestohoursofworkregulaDonshaveonly

recentlybeenhighlighted,aphenomenathatshouldbefurtherresearched.

5.5.3MoDvaDonaffecDngthefigures

Wages represent the largest categoryofdetenDons in2014andupunDl thepublicaDonof

this thesis. This could be an indicator of the successful funcDon of the onboard complaint

procedureasitseconomicinfluencemakesthecategoryvitalforthemoDvaDonandwellbeing

for seafarers. A seafarermay bemore likely to complain aboutwages not being paid than

discomfort due to living arrangements in an industry that culturally and historically is

regarded and regards itself as a “tough branch”. The numbers in the annual reports could

thereforebeslightlymisleading,ifmoDvaDontoreportaffectsthenumberofmoredetailed

inspecDonsbeingperformed.ThereisahugepotenDalforfurtherresearchonthissubject.

5.5.4Futurereports

Apart from conDnuous analyses of future inspecDon results relaDng to deficiencies and

detenDons,itisrecommendedtoconDnueacomparaDveanalysisbetweenfuturereportsby

theCommiZeeofExpertstoensureimprovementisapparentandthriving.

�28

References

Adăscăliţei,O. (2014). TheMariDme LabourConvenDon2006 –A Long-awaitedChange in

theMariDmeSector.Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences,149,pp.8-13.

Bauer,PaulJ.(2008)"TheMari.meLabourConven.on:AnAdequateGuaranteeofSeafarer

Rights,oranImpedimenttoTrueReforms?,"ChicagoJournalofInternaDonalLaw:Vol.8:No.

2,ArDcle12.Availableat:hZp://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol8/iss2/12

Cameron, L. (2013). The Mari.me Labour Conven.on 2006: A Frozen Revolu.on in the

Realisa.onofSocialJus.ceforSeafarers?.Lund:Facultyoflaw,LundUniversity,p.7.

Christodoulou-Varotsi, I 2012, 'CriDcal Review of the Consolidated MariDme Labour

ConvenDon (2006) of the InternaDonal LabourOrganizaDon: LimitaDons and PerspecDves',

Journal Of Mari.me Law & Commerce, 43, 4, pp. 467-489, Academic Search Elite,

EBSCOhost,viewed14November2015

Cook, T. and Shipley, P. (1980). Human factors studies of the working hours of UK ship's

pilots.AppliedErgonomics,11(2),pp.85-92.

Hjorth, F. (2015). Complexity and ambivalence in ship safety inspec.on. Ph.D. Kalmar

MariDmeAcademy,LinnaeusUniversity.

ILO,(2001).FinalReport-High-levelTripar.teWorkingGrouponMari.meLabourStandards.

Geneva,December2001,[online]Availableat:hZp://ilomirror.library.cornell.edu/public/

english/dialogue/sector/techmeet/twgmls01/twgmls-fr.pdf[Accessed14Nov.2015]

ILO,(2006a).Mari.meLabourConven.on2006.ILO.InternaDonalLabourOrganisaDon.

ILO,(2006b).ProvisionalRecord7PartIReportoftheCommiBeeOftheWhole,Geneva:

InternaDonalLabourOrganizaDon.

ILO, (2009), Guidelines for flag State inspec.ons under the Mari.me Labour Conven.on,

2006, and Guidelines for port state control officers carrying out inspec.ons under the

Mari.meLabourConven.on,2006Geneva,InternaDonalLabourOffice.

ILO,(2013).BasicfactsontheMari.meLabourConven.on2006.[online]Availableat:

� 29

hZp://www.ilo.org/global/standards/mariDme-labour-convenDon/what-it-does/

WCMS_219665/lang--en/index.htm[Accessed7Sep.2015].

ILO,(2015).Applica.onofInterna.onalLabourStandards2015(I).ReportoftheCommiZee

ofExpertson theApplicaDonofConvenDonsandRecommendaDons. [online]Geneva: ILO,

pp.477-480. Available at: hZp://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/

documents/meeDngdocument/wcms_343022.pdf[Accessed1Dec.2015]

Ilo.org,(2015a).MLC,2006:Whatitisandwhatitdoes.[online]Availableat:

hZp://www.ilo.org/global/standards/mariDme-labour-convenDon/what-it-does/lang--en/

index.htm[Accessed7Sep.2015].

Ilo.org, (2015b). Ra.fica.ons of ILO conven.ons: Ra.fica.ons by Conven.on. [online]

Availableat:hZp://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:

P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312331:NO[Accessed4Nov.2015]

Ilo.org, (2015c). Text and preparatory reports of the Mari.me Labour Conven.on, 2006.

[online]Availableat:hZp://www.ilo.org/global/standards/mariDme-labour-convenDon

/text/lang--en/index.htm[Accessed10Sep.2015].

ITF, (2015). InternaDonal Transport Workers FederaDon, About the Inspectorate. [online]

Availableat:hZp://www.i�seafarers.org/inspectorate.cfm[Accessed13Nov.2015].

Knudsen,F. (2009).Paperworkattheserviceofsafety?Workers’reluctanceagainstwriBen

proceduresexemplifiedbytheconceptof‘seamanship’.SafetyScience,47(2),pp.295-303.

Lillie,N.(2008).TheILOMariDmeLabourConvenDon,2006:Anewparadigmforglobal

labourrightsimplementa.on,inKonstanDnosPapadakis(Ed.).Cross-bordersocialdialogue

andagreements:Anemergingglobalindustrialrela.onsframework?,(pp.191-217).

InternaDonalInsDtuteforLabourStudies.

McConnell,M,Doumbia-Henry,C,&Devlin,D2011,TheMari.meLabourConven.on,2006:

ALegalPrimerToAnEmergingInterna.onalRegime,Leiden:Brill|Nijhoff,eBookCollecDon

(EBSCOhost),EBSCOhost,viewed9September2015

�30

Patel, R. and Davidson, B. (2011). Forskningsmetodikens grunder. 4th ed. Lund:

StudentliZeraturAB.

Parismou.org, (2015a). Inspec.on Results Deficiencies | Paris MoU. [online] Available at:

hZps://www.parismou.org/inspecDon-search/inspecDon-results-deficiencies.

Parismou.org,(2015b).White,GreyandBlackList|ParisMoU.[online]Availableat:hZps://

www.parismou.org/inspecDons-risk/white-grey-and-black-list[Accessed11Nov.2015]

Parismou.org,(2015).Organisa.on|ParisMoU.[online]

Availableat:hZps://www.parismou.org/about-us/organisaDon

[Accessed4Nov.2015].

Paris MoU, (2010). Annual Report 2010. [online] Paris MoU. Available at: hZps://

www.par i smou .org /s i tes/defau l t /fi les/Annua l%20Repor t%202010%20fina l

%20%2830%20June%202011%29.pdf[Accessed4Nov.2015].


www.parismou.org/sites/default/files/AnRep%20Paris%20MoU%202011t.pdf [Accessed 4

Nov.2015].


www.parismou.org/sites/default/files/Annual%20Report%202012%20%28final%29.pdf

[Accessed4Nov.2015].

Paris MoU, (2013). Annual report 2013. [online] Paris MoU. Available at: hZps://

www.par i smou.org /s i tes/defau l t /fi les/Par i s%20MoU%20Annua l%20Report

%202013%20revised_1.pdf[Accessed5Nov.2015].


www.parismou.org/sites/default/files/2014%20Annual%20Report%20on%20Port%20State

%20Control%20-%20v3.pdf[Accessed5Nov.2015].

Piniella,F.,Silos, J.andBernal,F. (2013).Whowillgiveeffecttothe ILO'sMariDmeLabour

ConvenDon,2006?.Interna.onalLabourReview,152(1),pp.59-83.

Sampson,H.,Walters,D.,James,P.andWadsworth,E.(2014).MakingHeadway?Regulatory

ComplianceintheShippingIndustry.Social&LegalStudies,23(3),pp.383-402

� 31

ScoZ,R. and Stephan, P. (2004).Self-Enforcing Interna.onalAgreements and the Limits of

Coercion.SSRNElectronicJournal.

Sharife,K.(2011).FlyingaQuesDonableFlag:Liberia'sLucraDveShippingIndustry.World

PolicyJournal,27(4),pp.111-118.� 32

�32

AppendixI

ExamplesofcircumstancesthatmaywarrantadetenDon,inaccordancewiththeGuidelinesforportstatecontrolofficerscarryingoutinspec.onsundertheMari.meLabourConven.on,2006:

• thepresenceofanyseafareronboardundertheageof16(StandardA1.1,paragraph1);GuidelinesforportStatecontrolofficersundertheMLC,2006

• theemploymentofanyseafarerundertheageof18inworklikelytojeopardizetheirhealth or safety (StandardA1.1, paragraph 4) or in nightwork (see StandardA1.1,paragraphs2and3);

• insufficientmanning(RegulaDon2.7andStandardA2.7),includingthatcausedbytheremovalfromtheSMDofunder-ageseafarers;

• anyotherdeficienciesconsDtuDngaviolaDonoffundamentalrightsandprinciplesorseafarers’employmentandsocialrightsinArDclesIIIandIV;

• any non-conformity applied in a way that violates those fundamental rights (forexample,theaZribuDonofsubstandardaccommodaDonbasedontheraceorgenderortradeunionacDvityoftheseafarersconcerned);

• repeated casesof seafarerswithout valid cerDficates confirmingmedical fitness forduDes(StandardA1.2);

• seafarers on board the same ship repeatedly not in possession of valid seafarers’employment agreements (SEAs) or seafarers with SEAs containing clausesconsDtuDngadenialofseafarers’rights(RegulaDon2.1,paragraph1);

• seafarers repeatedly working beyond maximum hours of work (Standard A2.3,paragraph 5(a)) or having less than the minimum hours of rest (Standard A2.3,paragraph5(b));

• venDlaDon and/or air condiDoning or heaDng that is not working adequately(StandardA3.1,paragraph7);

• accommodaDon,includingcateringandsanitaryfaciliDes,thatisunhygienicorwhereequipment is missing or not funcDoning (Standards A3.1, paragraph 11, and A3.2,paragraph2;RegulaDon4.3,paragraph1);

• qualityandquanDtyoffoodanddrinkingwaternotsuitablefortheintendedvoyage(StandardA3.2,paragraph2);

• medical guide ormedicine chest ormedical equipment, as required, not on board(StandardA4.1,paragraph4(a));

• nomedicaldoctorforpassengershipsengagedininternaDonalvoyagesofmorethanthreedays,carrying100personsormore,ornoseafarerinchargeofmedicalcareonboard(StandardA4.1,paragraph4(b)and(c));

• repeated cases of non-payment of wages or the non-payment of wages over asignificantperiodorthefalsificaDonofwageaccountsortheexistenceofmorethanonesetofwageaccounts(StandardA2.2,paragraphs1and2).(ILO,2009)

� i

AppendixII

CorrespondencewithParisMoUregardingdifferencesintheresultbetweenannualreports.

�

�ii

�

� iii

�

�iv

AppendixIII

Email correspondencewith ParisMoU regardingdetenDonson labour issues prior toMLC

2006.

� � v

AppendixIV

ReportoftheCommiZeeofExpertsontheApplicaDonofConvenDonsandRecommendaDons,2014(ILO,2015)

�vi

� vii

�viii

� ix

�

39182Kalmar

Tel0772-288000

[email protected]

Lnu.se

�x

Enforcing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - DiVA...

Documents

Transcript of Enforcing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 - DiVA...