Repetition

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016entered into force for Liberia on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019 respectively. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 October 2020 and 26 October 2020 respectively, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 on this issue.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2, 3 and 7 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. National determination.In its previouscomment, the Committee noted that, pursuant to Marine Notice MLC-001, the Government, following consultations, had decided that several categories of persons are not to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. Noting in particular that guest entertainers have been included in this list, without any reference to the duration of their stay on board, the Committee requested the Government to provide further information in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the guest entertainers not to be regarded as seafarers are those who make special (guest) appearances on board a ship for the purpose of entertaining passengers and whose principal place of work is ashore. These guest entertainers normally stay on board for a single voyage and return to their normal place of work after the voyage is over. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the reference to guest entertainers would be amended as follows: “Guest entertainers for special appearances during a single voyage, whose principal place of work is ashore”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if such an amendment or any other measure has been adopted to ensure that guest entertainers who regularly work on board are not excluded from the definition of seafarers.

The Committee noted in its previous comment that section 320 of the Liberian Maritime Law, RLM-107 (Title 21 of the Liberian Code of Laws of 1956) (hereafter RLM-107), provides that “Before the master of any Liberian vessel of 75 tons or more shall sail from any port, there shall be in force shipping articles with every seaman on board his vessel except with persons who are apprenticed to, or servants of himself or the vessel’s owner, who are not deemed to be seafarers”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, at the next revision of the RLM-107, it is proposed that section 320 be amended in order to ensure conformity with the provisions of the Convention.The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship is covered by the Convention and to provide a copy of the relevant texts once adopted.

Cadets.In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, under Marine Notice MLC-001, cadets, trainees and operations assistants enrolled in a maritime university and sent on board to complete the sea time required for graduation, may upon application and satisfactory review of their contractual or similar arrangements, be exempted from Regulations 1.4 (Recruitment and placement); 2.1 (Seafarers’ employment agreements); 2.2 (Wages); 4.2 (Shipowners’ liability); 4.5 (Social security); and Standards A2.4 (Entitlement to leave); and A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b) (Repatriation) of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is applied to cadets whose work falls within the definition in Article II, paragraph 1(f), of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: 1) cadets, trainees and operations assistants enrolled in a maritime university and sent on board to complete the sea time required for graduation are provided with labour and social conditions comparable to the protection that is provided for by the MLC, 2006 under Standards A4.2.1 and A4.5; 2) these persons are not paid a wage as provided for in Regulation 2.2 of the MLC, 2006 but may be provided with a stipend to enable them to continue with their training programme and thereby graduate; 3) cadets are however covered by the provisions of the Convention with respect to minimum age, medical certificate, training and qualifications, hours of work and hours of rest, repatriation, accommodation and recreation facilities, food and catering, medical care on board ship and ashore, health and safety protection and accident prevention. Cadets are also normally covered under the shipowners’ P&I insurance for occupational accidents, injuries and illnesses occurring while on board, including maintenance, cure and repatriation; shipowners’ financial security obligations under Regulation 2.5 for repatriation and Regulation 4.2 for shipowners liability. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article II, paragraph 1(f) of the Convention, the term “seafarer” means any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies. The Committee considers that obtaining on-board training for the purpose of becoming a seafarer by definition implies working on board and, as a result, no question of doubt can arise concerning the fact that cadets are to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. The Committee underlines that the protection afforded by the Convention is particularly important for the more vulnerable categories of persons, such as cadets, trainees and operations assistants. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that cadets, trainees and operations assistants are regarded as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection provided for by the Convention. The Committee is certainly aware of the reported and anticipated shortage of qualified officers to effectively man and operate ships engaged in international trade and the difficulties encountered to ensure that cadets fulfil the minimum mandatory seagoing service which forms part of the requirements prescribed in the STCW Convention for certification. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that, as foreseen in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Governments, in consultation with social partners, could agree on substantial equivalent measures applicable to cadets, trainees and operations assistants where needed, in accordance with the Convention. If the intention of the Government is to adopt substantial equivalent measures for cadets, trainees and operations assistants, then the relevant provisions of the MLC, 2006 should be strictly followed (Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4). The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether it has decided to adopt measures which are substantially equivalent regarding cadets, trainees and operations assistants enrolled in a maritime university and sent on board to complete the sea time required for graduation trainees, and, if this is the case, to provide detailed information on how the measures adopted conduce to the full achievement of the general object and purpose of the provisions of Part A of the Code concerned and how they give effect to the provisions of Regulations 1.4; 2.1; 2.2; 4.2; 4.5; Standards A2.4 and A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b) of the Convention.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i), 4, 5 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. National determination.The Committee noted the Government’s decision that Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU) whose primary service is drilling operations for the exploration, exploitation, production of resources beneath the sea-bed that are not normally engaged in navigation or international voyages, as well as Floating Production, Storage and Offloading facilities (FPSOs), Floating Storage Units (FSUs), and Self-Elevating Liftboats, whose primary service is neither underway nor engaged in an international voyage, were not to be considered ships as defined by the MLC, 2006 and therefore do not require to comply with its provisions. The Committee observed in its previous comment that Marine Notice MLC-001 provides that “However, if FPSO, FSU or Self-Elevating Liftboat owners/operators wish to apply MLC on a voluntary basis, they should contact the Administration. Application of MLC to Mobile Offshore Accommodation Units and other similar mobile offshore units, such as non-self-propelled barges, will be considered on a case by case basis”. The Committee therefore requested the Government to explain the basis on which these case by case determinations may be made, and if they require consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a national determination for non-application of MLC, 2006 to Mobile Offshore Accommodation Units and other similar mobile offshore units, such as non-self-propelled barges, was made after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, as provided for under document MLC National determination and exemption request – Tripartite Review. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistics on the numbers and types of the above-mentioned units which are excluded from the field of application of the MLC, 2006.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Substantial equivalence. In its previous comment, noting that the Government had adopted substantial equivalent provisions regarding Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), according to which Seafarers’ Employment Agreements (SEA) shall be signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, and Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(b), under which the SEA should contain the shipowner’s name and address, the Committee considered that a general statement by the shipowner included in the DMLC Part I, which had not signed the SEA, agreeing to “ensure that it will comply with all the terms and conditions in the SEAs” is not substantially equivalent to the requirements of Standards A2.1, paragraph 1(a) and A2.1, paragraph 4(b). The Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any substantial equivalence applied in this regard is conducive to the full achievement of the general objective and purpose of Standards A2.1, paragraphs 1(a) and 4(b), and gives effect to those provisions as required by Article VI, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that where the shipowner is unable to implement any of the provisions above, in accordance with Article VI, paragraph 3, the Administration has provided measures in the DMLC Part I, which are substantially equivalent to these provisions, while ensuring that the shipowner implements these measures in the DMLC Part II. The Government further indicates that the substantial equivalent provision in the DMLC Part I requires that: (1) The Shipowner under Article II, paragraph 1(j) engages the services of the Employer, who may also be the owner of the ship under a signed agreement; (2) The Shipowner under Article II, paragraph 1(j) attests in the DMLC Part II that it has agreed to ensure that it will comply with all the terms and conditions in the SEA upon engagement of the seafarer; and (3) The SEA contains an Addendum that includes the ships particulars; the name and address of the shipowner under Article II, paragraph 1(j) of the Convention; and the details of the seafarer concerned. The Addendum is required to be signed by the seafarer and the shipowner or the representative of the shipowner. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Administration considers that the Addendum to the SEA, the engagement of services of the Employer, along with the substantial equivalence in DMLC Part I and the shipowners’ attestation in the DMLC Part II provides the seafarer sufficient information regarding the name and address of the shipowner who has agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions in the SEA. The DMLC Parts I and II are posted on board for the seafarer to review. The Addendum to the SEA is verified by the Inspector during MLC, 2006 inspections. However, the Committee notes that section 3.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC-003 establishes the requirement for every seafarer to have a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner. The Committee also recalls that Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Convention provides that a Member which is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code may, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Convention, implement Part A through provisions in its laws and regulations or other measures which are substantially equivalent to the provisions of Part A. Noting the Government’s indication that the substantial equivalent provision in the DMLC Part I requires the shipowner or its representative to sign the addendum to the SEA, the Committee requests the Government to explain why the shipowner or its representative is unable to directly sign the SEA, as required under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a).The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the laws or regulations requiring the addendum to the SEA as well as the signatures of both the seafarers and the shipowner or his/her representative. The Committee further requests the Government to provide a copy of an example of the addendum.

The Committee also noted in its previous comment that section 3.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC-004 stipulates that the Administration may, for ships under 500 gross tonnage, permit the location of sleeping rooms below the load line after taking into account substantially equivalent provisions. The Committee requested the Government to explain how the possibility to use substantial equivalence regarding seafarers’ accommodation facilities comply with the requirements of Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention. The Committee notes in this regard the Government’s indication that the substantial equivalence relates to: (1) non-SOLAS ships built for servicing the off-shore industry and not engaged on international voyages; (2) the seafarers on these ships spend short periods up to 30 days on board and 30 days away; (3) the sleeping rooms are fitted with water detection systems and high capacity pumping arrangements; (4) escape arrangements provide direct access to open deck; and (5) adequate arrangements for lighting and ventilation are provided. The Committee recalls that in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article VI of the Convention, in order to adopt substantial equivalent measures, a Member must first make surethat it is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code. Any substantial equivalences that have been adopted must be stated in Part I of the DMLC. The Committee requests the Government: (i) to explain why it is not in a position to implement the relevant provisions of the MLC, 2006; and (ii) to indicate the laws or regulations containing the requirements and conditions specified in the Government’s reply listed above.

The Committee also notes that revised Marine Notice MLC-004 (Rev.2/17) provides for a new substantial equivalent provision to the minimum floor area requirement for sleeping rooms. Section 3.4, paragraph 2 provides that the Administration may “accept private or semi-private sanitary facilities which do not add effectively to the space available for free movement as a substantially equivalent provision to reduced floor area in the sleeping room. The substantial equivalence will be included into the DMLC Part I.” The Committee recalls that explanations are required on the reason why the Member was satisfied that the substantial equivalence met the criteria set out in paragraph 4 of Article VI.The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information, as explained above, with respect to the substantial equivalence included in Marine Notice MLC-004, section 3.4.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 1. Minimum age.In its previous comment, the Committee noted that sections 326(2) and 326(4) of RLM-107 allow for possible exceptions to the prohibition of the employment, engagement or work on board a ship of any person under the age of 16 and requested the Government to take steps to amend its legislation to give full effect to this provision of the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication that sections 326(2) and 326(4) of RLM-107 will be amended, the Committee requests it to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that full effect is given to Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 and to provide a copy of these measures once adopted.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 1.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC-002 allows for exceptions to the strict compliance with the night work restriction and requested the Government to provide detailed information about such exceptions in light of Standard A1.1, paragraph 3(b). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that currently there are no seafarers under the age of 18 engaged on Liberian registered ships. The Committee notes that paragraph 1.1.2(b) of Marine Notice MLC-002 was amended to better reflect the requirements of the MLC, 2006 to ensure that shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations are consulted by the Administration in determining that the work performed will not be detrimental to the health and well-being of persons under the age of 16. The Committee notes with interest this information.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 3.3.4 of Marine Notice MLC-005 gives the shipowner the responsibility to determine the types of work which are potentially hazardous and likely to jeopardize the health and safety of young seafarers under the age of 18 years and recalled that the types of such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with relevant international standards. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Administration has determined, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, a list of activities that are potentially hazardous and likely to jeopardize the health and safety of young seafarers under the age of 18 years. However, the amendment renumbered 3.3.5 adopted in revised Marine Notice MLC-005 (Rev.07/20) sets out exceptions to the prohibition of hazardous work and states that when assigning potentially hazardous work to young seafarers under the age of 18 years, the shipowner should consider, in particular, work involving the list of activities determined with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The document entitled MLC National Determination and Exemption request – Tripartite review further states that “shipowners shall adopt, effectively implement and promote an occupational health and safety programme to ensure that potentially hazardous work for young seafarers under the age of 18 years is undertaken only under appropriate supervision and instruction”. The Committee recalls that the Convention, under Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, requires the absolute prohibition for young seafarers of the types of work considered hazardous but allows, under Guideline B4.3.10, the determination of types of work which young seafarers cannot undertake without adequate supervision and instruction. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, clearly distinguishing between types of work that are prohibited and those that can only be undertaken under adequate supervision.

Regulation 1.2 and the Code. Medical certificate. Noting in its previous comment that the Government had provided no information on consultations regarding the requirements ofthe medical examination and certificates prescribed under Marine Notice MLC-002, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether these requirements were adopted following consultations with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, as required by Standard A1.2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.The Committee notes that Marine Notice MLC-002 will be amended and will include a section 1.2.3, providing that “The Administration has determined, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, that the medical examination shall be conducted and certificate issued in accordance with the current joint ILO/IMO Guidelines on the medical examination of seafarers. Current paragraph 1.2.3 would be re-numbered as 1.2.4 stating that “the Medical certificates issued in accordance with the requirements of STCW 1978, as amended will be accepted”. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that full effect is given to Standard A1.2, paragraph 2, and to provide a copy of these measures once adopted.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 7. Recruitment and placement. Investigation of complaints.In its previous comment, the Committee noted the legislative provisions concerning private seafarers’ recruitment and placement services and requested the Government to specify how it ensures that adequate machinery and procedures for the investigation of complaints concerning the activities of seafarer recruitment and placement services are put in place.The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the private seafarer recruitment and placement service has not commenced any recruitment yet and that most of the mechanisms and procedures for regulating private recruitment and placement organizations are still being developed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that if there is a complaint about alleged breach of seafarers’ rights, the commissioner will set up an MLC, 2006 investigation team which will include representatives from the seafarers Union, the shipowner and a lead investigator from the Administration. Noting the Government’s indication that at present the private seafarer recruitment and placement service has not commenced any recruitment, the Committee requests the Government to provide: (i)information on how seafarers are currently recruited on ships flying Liberia’s flag; (ii) information on any progress made towards the implementation of the established system for the operation of the private seafarer recruitment or placement service in its territory; and (iii) information on the measures, once adopted, to ensure adequate machinery and procedures for the investigation of complaints concerning the activities of seafarer recruitment and placement services, required under Standard A1.4, paragraph 7.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Requirements. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that while section 3.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC-003 establishes the requirement for every seafarer to have a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, Regulation 10.320(2) of RLM-108 stipulates that “every seafarer, other than the master, joining a vessel to commence employment on board shall sign the shipping articles prior to the vessel’s departure …”. The Committee requested the Government to clarify the legal status of the SEA and the shipping articles and to explain the relationship between the two documents. It also requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that masters have a SEA in conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the “Shipping articles” referred to in section 10.320(2) of RLM-108 correspond to the articles of agreement defined in Article II, paragraph 1(g) and provides the minimum conditions of employment for seafarers engaged on Liberian registered ships. The Government further indicates that the Liberian Administration also accepts a shipowners “Conditions of Employment” as part of the SEA, provided the conditions are not inferior to those prescribed in the Liberian “Shipping Articles”. The Committee observes that section 10.318(2)(b) of RLM-108 provides that “The conditions for employment and shipboard living arrangements on board every Liberian vessel are embodied in a valid labour contract concluded between a shipowner or shipowner's organization and a seafarers’ organization constituted in accordance with the substantive provisions of the applicable International Conventions”. The Committee understands that, under the abovementioned provisions, the master is considered as a representative of the shipowner for the purpose of signing the articles of agreement. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in accordance with the DMLC Part I, paragraph 4(a), the Master is also required to sign the Articles of Agreement without however indicating the legislative or regulatory provisions that require masters to have a SEA. It recalls that under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, each Member shall adopt laws or regulations requiring that all seafarers, including masters, working on ships that fly its flag covered by the Convention have a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner. The Committee requests the Government: (i) to indicate the legislative or regulatory measures taken or envisaged to ensure that masters have a SEA in conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1; and (ii) to indicate the relevant national provisions authorizing the master to act as a representative of the shipowner when signing the shipping articles.

The Committee also notes that the national provisions with respect to the Shipping Articles set out different requirements of tonnage of ships under which a seafarer is required to have a SEA. Section 320 of RLM-107 provides that “Before the master of any Liberian vessel of 75 tons or more shall sail from any port, there shall be in force shipping articles with every seaman on board his vessel except with persons who are apprenticed to, or servants of himself or the vessel’s owner, who are not deemed to be seafarers”. Section 10.320(2) of RLM-108 does not set a limit for ships under a certain gross tonnage for seafarers to sign shipping articles. The Committee observes that the DMLC, Part I, paragraph 4(a) reproduces the requirement of section 320 of RLM-107 and states that shipping articles are required on Liberian vessels of 75GT or more. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the need to avoid any inconsistencies in the applicable provisions so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention and recalls that the requirement for seafarers working on ships that fly its flag to have a SEA applies to all ships covered by the Convention, including those below a certain tonnage. Recalling that the Convention does not contain a general or overall exclusion of ships below a certain gross tonnage,the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships within the meaning of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Record of employment. The Committee notes that section 10.325(2)(a) of RLM-108 regulates the requirements related to the record of employment of seafarers. The Committee however notes that Regulation 10.325(2)(a) only applies to “Each person employed on board a Liberian vessel, other than those persons such as certain hotel staff personnel on passenger vessels who are not assigned or required to perform ship safety or pollution related shipboard duties”. Referring to its comments under Article II, paragraph 1(f) of the Convention, the Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006, does not allow for the partial application of the national law implementing its provisions if the workers concerned are seafarers covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers within the meaning of the Convention and that all seafarers, regardless of the tasks performed on board, are given a document containing a record of their employment, as required under Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and (3).

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5. Hours of work and hours of rest. Limits. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the existence of both minimum hours of rest and maximum hours of work regimesand accordingly requested the Government to explain how it ensures that the maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest are fixed in accordance with Standard A2.3 of the Convention and not subject to selective application by shipowners or masters. The Committee notes that Marine Notice MLC-003 was revised and the amended paragraph 3.3.1 provides the application of the minimum hours of rest standard on Liberian registered ships. Noting the Government’s indication that section 10-341(1) of RLM-108 also needs to be amended,the Committee requests it to provide information on any measures adopted in this regard.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Prohibition of agreements to forgo annual leave.In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 3.5.4 of Marine Notice MLC-003 stipulates that any agreement which provides that seafarers agree in advance to forgo annual leave in return for pay shall be prohibited, except in cases provided by the Administration. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Administration takes into account the following elements when permitting a seafarer to forgo minimum annual leave: (a) evidence that the seafarer requested the shipowner to forgo the minimum annual leave with pay (such as a request to continue working on board for a period exceeding 11 months); (b) evidence that the shipowner agreed to the request; (c) the reason for forgoing minimum annual leave with pay; and (d) a proper risk assessment carried out by the shipowner taking into account the ship’s trading pattern, the seafarer’s record of rest hours, fatigue and other identified hazards. The Committee requested the Government to provide the legal basis for the above mentioned criteria and to communicate statistical information on the number of such authorizations issued by the Administration.The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that the Administration only permits forgoing minimum annual leave with pay in urgent cases, due to weather related delays; or inability to obtain visas to join the ship; or unavailability of seafarers’ replacement; or to obtain the necessary sea-service for graduation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the length period during which annual leave was authorized to be forgone generally did not exceed 1 month. The Government further indicates that the Administration has authorized seafarers on 22 occasions to forgo annual leave with pay. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2 (a). Repatriation. Circumstances. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a seafarer shall forfeit his right to repatriation in case of: (1) desertion; (2) entering into a new agreement with the same owner after his discharge; (3) entering into a new agreement with another owner within one week after his discharge; (4) criminal offenses under sections 346, 348, and 349 of the RLM-107; and (5) “unjustifiable repudiation of the shipping articles”, as it is mentioned under section 343 of RLM-107. The Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any provision in the national legislation depriving seafarers of this right is limited to the circumstances allowed under the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 330 of RLM-107, which is not relevant. The Committee notes that, while section 3.6.7 of Marine Notice MLC-003 indicates that the cost of repatriation may be recovered from the seafarers’ wages in the circumstances where the seafarer has been discharged in accordance with section 343 of RLM-107, section 343 clearly defines the situations according to which a seafarer loses his right to repatriation altogether and not those in which it is allowed the recovery of repatriation costs from her/his wages. The Committee recalls that the Convention does not provide for cases of forfeiture of the entitlement to repatriation when the circumstances foreseen in Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1, are met. The only case where this entitlement may lapse is where the seafarers concerned do not claim it within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with Guideline B2.5.1, paragraph 8. Recalling the fundamental importance of the right to repatriation, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that any provision in the national legislation depriving seafarers of this right is limited to the circumstances allowed under the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to review section 343 of RLM-107 to ensure conformity with Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2 (a), of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(c). Repatriation. Entitlements. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment requesting the Government to indicate how it gives consideration to Guideline B2.5, paragraph 7 (seafarers’ right to choose from among the prescribed destinations the place to which they are to be repatriated), the Government intends to revise section 3.6.1of Marine Notice MLC-003, in order to reproduce Guideline B2.5, paragraph 7. The Government further indicates that sections 342 and 342B of the RLM-107 would also be revised accordingly. The Committee welcomes this information and requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended text once adopted. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it implements Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(c) and to indicate what are the precise entitlements to be accorded by shipowners for repatriation. The Committee welcomes in this regard the Government’s indication that Marine Notice MLC-003 (Rev.2/17) was revised and provides new sections - 3.6.5.6 and 3.6.5.7 – which stipulate that theassistance provided by the financial security maintained by the shipowner shall be sufficient to notably cover all expenses reasonably incurred by the seafarer, the essential needs of the seafarer and repatriation by appropriate and expeditious means, normally by air. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee noted that section 3.6.7 of Marine Notice MLC-003 provides that a shipowner could recover the costs of repatriation where a seafarers’ employment agreement has been terminated in the cases listed in section 343 of RLM-107, where seafarers are found to be in serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it ensures that shipowners pay for the repatriation of seafarers in all cases when the latter are entitled to this right, as well as on provisions in national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective agreements setting out the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations” so that the shipowner could recover the cost of the repatriation from the seafarer. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it suggests amending section 3.6.7 of Marine Notice MLC-003 in order to request that a copy of the log book entry in accordance with section 350 of RLM-107 shall be provided to the Administration for review and determination, if the shipowner may recover costs of repatriation in the cases listed under section 343 of RLM-107. The Committee notes that section 350 of RLM-107 provides for the entry of offenses in the official log book of a vessel on which anoffense was committed, and provides the offender a copy of such entry and have it read over distinctly and audibly to him, to allow him/her to make a reply if wanted which will be entered in the log Book. The Committee however notes that the situations listed under section 343 are not explicitly qualified as situations where the seafarer has been found to be in serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations but are referred to as cases where the seafarer’s right to repatriation shall be forfeited (see point above). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that what is considered to be “serious default of the seafarers’ employment obligations” is explicitly determined by the relevant legislation or applicable collective bargaining agreements as situations where the shipowner may recover the costs of repatriation and not forfeit the seafarer’s right to repatriation.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 7. Repatriation. Foreign ships and crew change. With respect to its previous request that the Government explains how it facilitates the repatriation of seafarers serving on ships which call at its ports or pass through its territorial or internal waters, as well as their replacement on board, as provided for under Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 7, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to indicate how it gives effect to this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. It notes that Marine Notice MLC-003 was revised in order to give effect to the requirements of Standard A2.5.2. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2-I of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7).

Regulation 2.6 and the Code. Seafarer compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering. Noting that section 3.7.1 of Marine Notice MLC-003 limits the total indemnity payable to any one seafarer in case of ship’s loss or foundering to 15 days basic wage, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it has given due consideration to Guideline B2.6, paragraph 1, under which the indemnity against unemployment resulting from a ship’s foundering or loss should be paid for the days during which the seafarer remains effectively unemployed at the same rate as the wages payable under the employment agreement, but the total indemnity payable to any one seafarer may be limited to two months’ wages. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that it intends to revise the RLM-107, section 324 and paragraph 3.7.1 of Marine Notice MLC-003 accordingly in order to fully comply with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that full effect is given to the Convention and to provide copy of the revised texts once adopted.

Regulation 2.7 and Standard A2.7, paragraph 3. Manning Levels. Food and catering. In its previous comment, while noting the Government’s indication that all ships with a prescribed manning of ten or more seafarers are required to carry a ship’s cook, the Committee observed that neither the regulations nor the sample minimum manning documents appear to contain provisions concerning the catering staff or the ship’s cook. The Committee accordingly requested the Government to explain how, when determining manning levels, the competent authority takes into account all the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 concerning food and catering. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while it agrees that the manning levels shall take into account the requirement to have a ship’s cook for ships with a prescribed manning of ten or more seafarers, the Administration considers that the minimum safe manning document is issued under the provision of Regulation 14 of SOLAS Chapter V taking into account Resolution A.1047(27) and the STCW Convention. Therefore, the Administration does not consider it necessary to revise the minimum safe manning document to include the ship’s cook, and the requirement to ensure that each ship with a prescribed manning of ten or more seafarers that flies its Flag is provided with a ship’s cook is verified during onboard annual safety inspections. The Committee recalls that the requirement of Standard A2.7, paragraph 3 is additional to those set out under Regulation 14 of SOLAS Chapter V, taking into account Resolution A.1047(27) and the STCW Convention.Observing that the requirements on manning composition, set under the Liberian Maritime Law and the regulations, as well as the sample minimum manning documents, do not take into account the ship’s cook or catering staff as required under Standard A2.7, paragraph 3,the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to implement this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 21. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Exemptions. In its previous comment, noting that Marine Notice MLC-004on the Standards of accommodation, recreational facilities, food, water and catering under the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006)allows for a number of exceptions in the application of its provisions for ships of less than 3,000 gross tonnage and that under section 3.16 of the Notice, the Administration is authorized to grant exceptions to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage, the Committee requested the Government to specify whether it has held consultations with respect to the adoption of variations or exemptions to the accommodation requirements under Marine Notice MLC-004.The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is proposed to revise the chapeau of section 3.16 of Marine notice MLC-004 as well as paragraph two of section 3.17 adding that these variations or exemptions may be granted after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that full effect is given to the Convention and to provide copy of the revised texts once adopted.

Regulation 4.2 and Standards A4.2.1, paragraphs 8 to 14, and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. In this regard, the Committee notes that revised Marine Notice MLC-005 (Rev. 2/17) was adopted in order to give effect to the 2014 amendments concerning shipowners’ liability. The Committee requests the Government to provide a sample of an existing certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4-I of the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14).

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. In its previous comment, in the absence of any legislation or information, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that its provisions will be regularly reviewed in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee notes with interest that Marine Notice MLC-005 was revised and adds three new paragraphs (3.3.11-3.3.13) to include reference to: (i) the reporting of occupational accidents, injuries and diseases by the shipowner; (ii) the conducting of risk evaluation in relation to management of occupational safety and health; and (iii) the regular review by the Administration in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations of standards for occupational safety and health protection and accident prevention on Liberian registered ships. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that welfare facilities in its territory are available for the use of all seafarers, as required under Standard A4.4, paragraph 1. Furthermore, welcoming the Government’s indication that it is working with the welfare board to extend seafarer welfare facilities to its four ports, the Committee requested it to provide updated information on this initiative.The Committee notes the Government’s detailed information on welfare facilities and how they are operated by welfare organizations, approved by the Liberia Maritime Authority. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: 1) one of the requirements for the approval process is for organizations to demonstrate that they have culture awareness training and are familiar with MLC, 2006 and have a policy statement in their management policy that reflects that their services and facilities are available for the use of all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion or social origin, and irrespective of the flag State of the ship on which they are employed or engaged or work; 2)there are currently two welfare organizations in Liberia that are providing both mobile welfare services in the four ports and a shore-based facility in Monrovia; 3) a project has been initiated to relocate the seafarer welfare facility in the port area of Monrovia to ensure seafarers have fast and easy access to shore-based facility considering the fast turnaround time of vessels and the challenges posed to easily access the existing one; 4) due to less traffic in the other ports, the organizations currently provide mobile services where seafarers are taken onshore by personnel of the welfare organizations to public recreational facilities or other social and religious functions at the request of the seafarers; and 5) plans are underway to establish shore-based recreational facilities in those ports once the traffic improves and the welfare board has requested to charge port levy for the maintenance and improvement of current facilities and the establishment of new facilities in the other three ports. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain the manner in which it provides protection in the branches of social security specified at the time of ratification (old-age benefit, employment injury benefit and invalidity benefit) to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory, as required under Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. It further requested the Government to explain whether it has given consideration to the various ways in which comparable benefits will be provided to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag in the absence of adequate coverage in those branches in conformity with Standard A4.5, paragraph 6. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the seafarers’ employment agreement or applicable CBA should identify how, as a minimum, the three branches of social security declared will be provided to these seafarers as well as any other relevant information at the disposal of the shipowner, such as statutory deductions from the seafarers' wages and shipowners’ contributions which may be made in accordance with the requirements of the national insurance company of Liberia or a private insurance company. The Government further indicates that a seafarers’ union or a manning or recruitment agency could seek group social security protection for resident seafarers registered with them under the national social security schemes or national insurance company of Liberia. With regard to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the relevant collective bargaining agreement may be silent as to social security protection, the Administration also reviews the general terms and conditions of employment provided by the shipowner to ensure at least three of the nine branches of social security or its equivalent are provided by the shipowner to seafarers during the period of employment with the shipowner. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the Government has not provided detailed information on the benefits provided under the three branches, by either the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation (NASSCORP) or a private insurance company. In this regard, the Committee notes that persons employed on board ships do not seem to be covered by the employment injury scheme (EIS) and National Pension Scheme (NPS). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide details on the social security benefits enjoyed by seafarers ordinarily resident in Liberia as well as on the social security schemes applicable. It further requests the Government to indicate how it provides, in accordance with national law and practice, comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag in the absence of adequate coverage under the three branches.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures.The Committee notes with interest that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government issued in 2018 a document dealing with onshore complaint-handling procedure to enable that seafarers on ships calling at Liberian ports are able to report a complaint of a breach of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.3 and the Code. Labour-supplying responsibilities. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the absence of information with respect to the obligation under Regulation 5.3 to ensure the implementation of the Convention’s requirements regarding the recruitment and placement of seafarers as well as the social security protection of seafarers that are its nationals or are resident or are otherwise domiciled in its territory. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that RLM-107, section 327A and RLM-108, section 10.327, provide for seafarers to have access to an efficient and appropriately regulated seafarer recruitment and placement system. Any violation of this Regulation or of an official notice given pursuant thereto may result in revocation of any Liberian license, certificate or document issued by the Administration, in addition to any penalty otherwise prescribed by law. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the system for the inspection, monitoring and enforcement of its labour-supplying responsibilities entails certification and regulation of seafarers’ recruitment and placement services. Prior to certificating, any recruitment and placement service is audited on an annual basis to verify if it is operating in accordance with the MLC, 2006. The Committee takes note of this information.

Repetition

The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention. It also notes that the Government has previously ratified eight maritime labour Conventions which were denounced as a consequence of the entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). Following a first review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and (i), and 4 of the Convention. Seafarers and ships. The Committee notes that, pursuant to Marine Notice MLC-001 (Rev. 01/14) the Government, following consultations, has decided that several categories of persons are not to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. The Committee notes in particular that guest entertainers have been included in this list, without any reference to the duration of their stay on board. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the decision to exclude this category of persons takes account of the fact that, according to the resolution concerning information on occupational groups, adopted by the International Labour Conference, “persons who regularly spend more than short periods aboard, even where they perform tasks that are not normally regarded as maritime tasks, may still be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of this Convention regardless of their position on board”. It further notes that, under the MLC-001, cadets, trainees and operations assistants enrolled in a maritime university and sent on board to complete the sea time required for graduation, may upon application and satisfactory review of their contractual or similar arrangements, be exempted from Regulations 1.4 (Recruitment and placement); 2.1 (Seafarers’ employment agreements); 2.2 (Wages); 4.2 (Shipowners’ liability); 4.5 (Social security); and Standards A2.4 (Entitlement to leave); and A2.5, paragraph 2(b) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention does not allow for the partial application of the national law implementing its provisions if the workers concerned are seafarers covered by the Convention. The Committee also recalls, in this regard, that according to the definition of seafarer included in Article II of the Convention, cadets “who are employed or engaged or work in any capacity [including for educational reasons] on board a ship to which this Convention applies” are to be regarded as seafarers. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to explain how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is applied to cadets whose work falls within the definition in Article II, paragraph 1(f), of the Convention. Finally the Committee notes that according to section 230 of the Liberian Maritime Law, RLM-107 (Title 21 of the Liberian Code of Laws of 1956) (hereafter RLM-107), “Before the master of any Liberian vessel of 75 tons or more shall sail from any port, there shall be in force shipping articles with every seaman on board his vessel except with persons who are apprenticed to, or servants of himself or the vessel’s owner, who are not deemed to be seafarers”. The Committee, recalling the definition of seafarer included in Article II of the Convention, requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to revise this provision in order to ensure that any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship is covered by the Convention.

The Committee also notes that according to the MLC-001, “Application of MLC to Mobile Offshore Accommodation Units and other similar mobile offshore units, such as non-self-propelled barges, will be considered on a case by case basis”. The Committee requests the Government to explain the basis on which these case by case determinations may be made, and if they require consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Substantial equivalences. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that substantial equivalent provisions have been adopted regarding Standard 2.1 – Seafarers’ Employment Agreement (SEA). According to the sample Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC) Part I provided by the Government, substantial equivalence applies in particular to Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), according to which SEAs shall be signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, and Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(b), under which the SEA should contain the shipowner’s name and address. The Committee recalls that the Government must satisfy itself that the alternative solution proposed “is conducive to the full achievement of the general object and purpose of the provision or provisions of Part A of the Code concerned” and “gives effect to the provisions of Part A of the Code concerned” as required by Article VI, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The Committee notes in that regard the explanation provided by the Government in the sense that where the SEA is signed by the employer or its representative and does not contain the name and address of the shipowner, the Administration may, in the DMLC Part I, accept measures which are substantially equivalent to these provisions if they ensure that the shipowner takes responsibility for all the terms and conditions in the SEA. The Committee further notes that in the sample DMLC Parts I and II provided by the Government, substantial equivalence was granted by the Administration under the statement that the shipowner, which had not signed the SEA, “agreed to ensure that it will comply with all the terms and conditions in the SEAs”. The Committee recalls that while the Member’s obligation is principally to “satisfy itself”, this does not imply total autonomy, since it is incumbent on the Committee of Experts to determine not only whether the necessary procedure of “satisfying itself” has been carried out, but also whether it has been carried out in good faith in such a way as to ensure that the objective of implementing the principles and rights set out in the Regulations is adequately achieved in some way other than that indicated in Part A of the Code. Recalling the importance of the basic legal relationship that the Convention establishes between the seafarer and the person defined as “shipowner” under Article II and the fact that under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1, every seafarer must have an original agreement that is signed by the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the latter (whether or not the shipowner is considered to be the employer of the seafarer), the Committee considers that a general statement by the shipowner included in the DMLC Part I is not substantially equivalent to the requirements of Standards A2.1, paragraph 1(a) and A2.1, paragraph 4(b), and contrary to the purpose of the Convention. Indeed, under the arrangement proposed by the Government, the shipowner is not a party to the SEA. Furthermore, seafarers are not in a position to identify who is the shipowner at the time of signing the SEA. In addition, as the DMLC is not attached to the SEA, seafarers will lack the means to prove that the shipowner has agreed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any substantial equivalence applied in this regard is conducive to the full achievement of the general objective and purpose of Standards A2.1, paragraphs 1(a) and 4(b), and gives effect to those provisions as required by Article VI, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

The Committee notes that section 3.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC-004 (Rev. 12/13) stipulates that the Administration may, for ships under 500 gross tonnage, permit the location of sleeping rooms below the load line after taking into account substantially equivalent provisions. The Committee requests the Government to explain how the possibility to use substantial equivalence regarding seafarers’ accommodation facilities comply with the requirements of Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and the Code. Minimum age. The Committee notes section 326(2) of RLM-107, which states that “persons under the age of 16 shall not be employed or work on Liberian vessels registered under this Title, except on vessels upon which only members of the same family are employed, school ships or training ships”. Recalling that Standard A.1, paragraph 1, prohibits the employment, engagement or work of seafarers under the age of 16 and that no exceptions are permitted in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend its legislation to give full effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee also notes that RLM-107 states under section 326(4) that “persons of not less than fourteen (14) years of age may occasionally take part in the activities on board such vessels during school holidays, subject to the conditions that the activities in which they are engaged: (a) are not harmful to their health or normal development; (b) are not such as to prejudice their attendance at school; and (c) are not intended for commercial profit”. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.1, paragraph 1, prohibits the employment, engagement or work of seafarers under the age of 16 and that no exceptions are permitted in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend its legislation to give full effect to this provision of the Convention.

Night work. The Committee notes that Marine Notice MLC-002 (Rev. 12/13) states under section 1.1.3 that “Night is defined as a period of at least nine (9) consecutive hours starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m. Where seafarers under the age of 18 years are engaged at night, the beginning and end of this period shall be determined by the shipowner”. The Committee notes that this provision does not define “night” in a specific manner in national law and practice as required under Standard A1.1. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to precisely define the nine-hour period that constitutes night with respect to work for seafarers under the age of 18. The Committee further notes that, under section 1.1.2 of the MLC 002, exceptions to the prohibition of night work are possible: “(a) when the seafarer is engaged in a training programme established by the shipowner and accepted by the Administration; or (b) when the Administration has determined that the work performed due to its specific nature or under a recognized training programme is not detrimental to their health and well-being”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if any such exceptions have been authorized by the competent authority and, regarding point (b), if such authorizations were given after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned as required by Standard A1.1, paragraph 3(b).

Hazardous work. The Committee notes section 3.3.4 of Marine Notice MLC 005 (Rev. 12/13) which states that “The shipowner shall determine the types of work which are potentially hazardous and likely to jeopardize the health and safety of young seafarers under the age of 18 years”. It recalls that Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that the employment, engagement, or work of seafarers under the age of 18 shall be prohibited where the work is likely to jeopardize their health or safety. The types of such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with relevant international standards. Noting that section 3.3.4 of MLC-005 gives the shipowner the responsibility to determine the types of work which are potentially hazardous and likely to jeopardize the health and safety of young seafarers under the age of 18 years, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect Standard A1.1, paragraph 4 of the Convention.

Regulation 1.2 and the Code. Medical certificate. The Committee notes the Marine Notice MLC-002 which prescribes the nature of the medical examination and certificates. Noting that the Government has provided no information on consultations regarding these requirements, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these requirements were adopted following consultations with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, as required by Standard A1.2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Regulation 1.4. Standard A1.4, paragraph 7. Investigation of complaints. While noting the legislative provisions concerning private seafarers’ recruitment and placement services, the Committee notes that no information has been provided by the Government concerning existing machinery and procedures for investigating complaints about their activities, as required under Standard A1.4, paragraph 7, of the Convention. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it implements this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1. Standard A2.1, paragraph 1. Seafarers’ employment agreements (SEA). The Committee notes that section 3.1.2 of Marine Notice MLC 003 (Rev. 12/13) establishes the requirement for every seafarer to have a SEA signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner. The Committee also notes, however, that Regulation 10.320(2) of the Liberian Maritime Regulations, RLM-108 (RLM-108) stipulates that “every seafarer, other than the master, joining a vessel to commence employment on board shall sign the shipping articles prior to the vessel’s departure …”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the legal status of the SEA and the shipping articles and to explain the relationship between the two documents. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures that masters have a SEA in conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee notes section 10.341(1) of the RLM-108 which states that “The limits on hours of work or rest shall be as follows: (a) Maximum hours of work shall not exceed: (i) 14 hours in any 24-hour period; and (ii) 72 hours in any seven-day period; or (b) Minimum hours of rest shall not be less than: (i) ten hours in any 24 hour period; and (ii) 77 hours in any seven-day period”. It further notes Marine Notice MLC-003 which states under section 3.3.1 that “The Administration has provided for the minimum hours of rest of not less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period; and 77 hours in any seven-day period, however with proper notice to the Administration, shipowners may choose to apply the maximum hours of work of not more than 14 hours in any 24-hour period; and 72 hours in any seven-day period, but shall not implement both on the same vessel”. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.3, paragraph 2, stipulates that each Member shall fix either a maximum number of hours of work or a minimum number of hours of rest and that it should not be interpreted as to give shipowners or masters the choice of regimes concerning maximum hours of work and minimum hours of rest. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to explain how it ensures that the maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest are fixed in accordance with Standard A2.3 of the Convention and not subject to selective application by shipowners or masters.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee notes that section 3.5.4 of Marine Notice MLC-003 stipulates that “Any agreement which provides that seafarers agree in advance to forgo annual leave in return for pay shall be prohibited, except in cases provided by the Administration” reproducing the language of Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. The Committee notes in this regard the Government’s indication that the Administration takes into account the following elements when permitting a seafarer to forgo minimum annual leave: (a) evidence that the seafarer requested the shipowner to forgo the minimum annual leave with pay (such as a request to continue working on board for a period exceeding 11 months); (b) evidence that the shipowner agreed to the request; (c) the reason for forgoing minimum annual leave with pay; and (d) a proper risk assessment carried out by the shipowner taking into account the ship’s trading pattern, the seafarer’s record of rest hours, fatigue and other identified hazards. Recalling the fundamental importance of paid annual leave to protect the health and well-being of seafarers and to prevent fatigue, the Committee requests the Government to provide the legal basis for the criteria listed in the report of the Government as elements taken into account by the Administration to authorize seafarers to forgo their annual leave. The Committee also requests the Government to communicate statistical information on the number of such authorizations issued by the Administration.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. The Committee notes that under section 3.6.7 of Marine Notice MLC-003 read in conjunction with section 330 of the RLM-107, shipowners may require seafarers to pay repatriation costs in the following cases: “(1) unjustified failure to report on board at such times and dates as may be specified by the Master; (2) incompetence to perform duties for which the seaman has represented himself as qualified; (3) theft, embezzlement or wilful destruction of any part of the vessel, its cargo or stores; (4) serious insubordination or wilful disobedience or wilful refusal to perform assigned duties; (5) mutiny or desertion; (6) habitual intoxication, quarrelling or fighting; (7) possession of dangerous weapons, narcotics or contraband articles; (8) intentional concealment from the shipowner or Master at or prior to engagement under the Shipping Articles of a condition which resulted in sickness or injury; (9) assistance to stowaways; and (10) wilful violation of the laws of the Republic of Liberia or applicable local criminal laws.” The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that “a seafarer shall forfeit his right to repatriation in case of: (1) desertion; (2) entering into a new agreement with the same owner after his discharge; (3) entering into a new agreement with another owner within one week after his discharge; (4) criminal offenses under sections 346, 348, and 349 of the RLM-107; and (5) unjustifiable repudiation of the shipping articles”. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.5, paragraph 3, of the Convention prohibits shipowners from requiring that seafarers make an advance payment towards the cost of repatriation at the beginning of their employment, and also from recovering the cost of repatriation from the seafarer’s wages or other entitlements except where the seafarer has been found, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures of applicable collective bargaining agreements, to be in serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations. Stressing the fundamental importance of the right to repatriation, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any provision in the national legislation depriving seafarers of this right is limited to the circumstances allowed under the Convention (for example, minimum periods of service). The Committee also recalls that while the shipowner may recover the cost of the repatriation, under the limited circumstances provided for under Standard A2.5, paragraph 3 (that is, where the seafarer has been found, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective agreements, to be in serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations), this situation does not release the shipowner from the obligation to pay for the repatriation in the first instance. The Committee underlines that pursuant to the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference at its 103rd Session in 2014 that resulted in the inclusion of Standard A2.5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Members shall require a financial security system to assist abandoned seafarers for ships flying its flag. It notes that a seafarer is deemed abandoned, among other reasons, when the shipowner fails to cover the cost of their repatriation. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it ensures that shipowners pay for the repatriation of seafarers in all cases when seafarers are entitled to this right. With regard to the possibility provided by the Convention to recover the cost of the repatriation from the seafarer, the Committee underlines that it is conditioned to a finding of serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures of applicable collective bargaining agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on provisions in national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective agreements setting out the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations”. With regard to the place of repatriation, the Committee notes that section 3.6.1(2) of Marine Notice MLC 003 provides that seafarers shall be repatriated, at the shipowner’s option, to the port in which the seafarer was engaged or where the voyage commenced or a port in the seafarer’s own country; or to another port agreed upon between the seafarer and the shipowner or master. The Committee recalls that, under Guideline B2.5, paragraph 7, seafarers should have the right to choose from among the prescribed destinations the place to which they are to be repatriated. The Committee requests the Government to explain how it has given due consideration to this provision when implementing Standard A2.5. Furthermore, noting the absence of any information in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it implements the remaining provisions of Standard A2.5, including: (i) seafarers’ entitlement to repatriation when the employment agreement is terminated by (a) the shipowner; or (b) the seafarer for justified reasons (Standard A2.5, paragraph 1(b)); (ii) the precise entitlements to be accorded by shipowners for repatriation including the items of expense to be covered and other arrangements to be made by shipowners (Standard A2.5, paragraph 2(c)); and (iii) how it facilitates the repatriation of seafarers serving on ships which call at its ports or pass through its territorial or internal waters, as well as their replacement on board (Standard A2.5, paragraph 7).

Regulation 2.6 and the Code. Seafarers’ compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering. The Committee notes section 3.7.1 of Marine Notice MLC-003, which states that shipowners shall provide for adequate compensation to each seafarer in the case of unemployment arising from the ship’s loss or foundering, which shall not be less than 15 days basic wage or the basic wages until the expiration of the period for which the seafarer was engaged, whichever shall be least; provided the seafarer is not employed as a seafarer during this period or has not refused substantially equivalent seagoing employment. The Committee recalls that, under Guideline B2.6, paragraph 1, the indemnity against unemployment resulting from a ship’s foundering or loss should be paid for the days during which the seafarer remains effectively unemployed at the same rate as the wages payable under the employment agreement, but the total indemnity payable to any one seafarer may be limited to two months’ wages. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it has given due consideration to this provision when implementing Standard A2.6.

Regulation 2.7. Manning levels. The Committee notes the regulatory provisions implementing minimum manning requirements, as contained in the RLM-107 and Marine Notice MLC-003, as well as the sample minimum manning documents provided by the Government. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that all ships with a prescribed manning of ten or more seafarers are required to carry a ship’s cook. The Committee further notes, however, that neither the regulations nor the sample documents appear to contain provisions concerning the catering staff or the ship’s cook. It recalls, in that respect, that under Standard A2.7, paragraph 3, when determining manning levels, the competent authority must take into account all the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 concerning food and catering. The Committee requests the Government to explain how it implements this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes the accommodation requirements, as set forth in Marine Notice MLC-004 (Rev. 12/13). It notes, however, that while many of the requirements of the Convention are contained in the Notice’s provisions, a number of exceptions have been set out for ships of less than 3,000 gross tonnage. In addition, under section 3.16 of the Notice, the Administration is authorized to grant exceptions to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage. The Committee recalls that, under Standard A3.1, paragraphs 19 and 20, the competent authority may permit fairly applied variations and applicable exemptions only after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether it has held consultations with respect to the adoption of variations or exemptions to the accommodation requirements under Marine Notice MLC-004.

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee notes Marine Notice MLC-005 (Rev. 12/13) which contains the provisions for occupational safety and health policy on board ships. It recalls that, under Standard A4.3, paragraph 3, the laws and regulations implementing Regulation 4.3 and the Code shall be regularly reviewed in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. Noting the absence of any legislation or information in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that these provisions will be regularly reviewed in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that it has one shore-based welfare facility and that it is working with the welfare board to extend seafarer facilities to all four Liberian seaports. In addition, it notes section 3.4 of the Marine Notice MLC-005 which states that seafarers shall be granted shore leave, taking due account of the operational requirements of their positions, to access shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee requests the Government to explain how it ensures that welfare facilities in its territory are available for the use of all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion or social origin, and irrespective of the flag State of the ship on which they are employed or engaged or work, as required under Standard A4.4, paragraph 1. Furthermore, welcoming the Government’s indication that it is working with the welfare board to extend seafarer welfare facilities to its four ports, the Committee requests it to provide updated information concerning any progress with this initiative.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee notes that, upon ratification of the Convention, Liberia declared that the branches for which it provides protection in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraphs 1, 2 and 10 are: old-age benefit, employment injury benefit and invalidity benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 3.5 of the Marine Notice MLC-005 which partially reproduces the language found in Standard A4.5 without indicating, however, the manner in which Liberia will give effect to those provisions. The Committee also notes that under section 3.5.2 of the same Marine Notice, shipowners that employ seafarers on board their ships that are from a country or territory that is not a party to the MLC, 2006, must ensure the seafarers are provided with the health and social security protection benefits required under MLC Regulation 4.5 during the period of employment with the shipowner. The Committee further notes the model collective bargaining agreement for Indian seafarer officers (1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017) annexed to the Government’s report which, while setting out many terms and conditions of employment, is silent as to the social security protections specified above. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to explain the manner in which it provides the branches of social security protection it has specified to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory, as required under Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. It further requests the Government to explain whether it has given consideration to the various ways in which comparable benefits will be provided to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag in the absence of adequate coverage in those branches in conformity with Standard A4.5, paragraph 6, whether or not seafarers come from a country which has ratified the Convention.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Noting the absence of any information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning its onshore complaint-handling procedure.

Regulation 5.3 and the Code. Labour-supplying responsibilities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as regards its machinery for inspecting and investigating complaints regarding recruitment and placement services, seafarers can file complaints to the Administration through their union for immediate investigation and action. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that the obligation under Regulation 5.3 and the Code is to ensure the implementation of the Convention’s requirements regarding the recruitment and placement of seafarers as well as the social security protection of seafarers that are its nationals or are resident or are otherwise domiciled in its territory. Noting the absence of details in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide further details concerning the system for the inspection and monitoring and enforcement of its labour-supplying responsibilities.