Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the Provisional Instruction concerning the application to foreign seafarers of the employment conditions in force on board ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, the maritime employment contract of a foreign seafarer who is not resident in France may take the form of two separate contracts of a different nature for one and the same seafarer:

(i)  a contract concluded between the shipowner and every seafarer; and

(ii)  a service contract concluded between the shipowner and a foreign company responsible for recruitment of crew.

The Committee also notes that the district court of Saint-Denis (Réunion) is competent to hear individual disputes concerning the employment relationship between shipowner and seafarer, the interpretation of the contract and the action of nullity of contractual clauses.

The Committee requests the Government to specify whether the legislation governing contracts concluded between French seafarers (or those of comparable status) and the shipowner, also applies to contracts of foreign non-resident seafarers who have been recruited in the framework of a service contract concluded between the shipowner and a foreign company responsible for recruitment of crew.

Article 5, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that section 88 of the Maritime Labour Code does not provide for the maintenance of the seafarer up to the time fixed for his departure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions in national legislation giving effect to this Article of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee notes with interest the ratification of the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166) for the metropolitan territory.

According to Article 13, Convention No. 166 revises the Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23). The ratification of Convention No. 166, however, does not entail the automatic denunciation of Convention No. 23. Should the Government wish to denounce Convention No. 23, it may, at any time, communicate to the Director-General an act of denunciation to that effect.

As far as the French Southern and Antarctic Territories are concerned, the Committee therefore draws the Government’s attention to the possible communication of an act of denunciation of Convention No. 23 and to the possibility to extend the geographic scope of the ratification of Convention No. 166.