Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1992, publiée 79ème session CIT (1992)

1. The Committee refers to its general observations of 1990 and the previous years, concerning the communications from the National Federation of Maritime Trade Unions (FNSM) concerning the application of Convention No. 111, in the French Southern and Antarctic Territory (TAAF). Since Convention No. 111 was declared applicable without modification to this territory in March 1990, this year the Committee proposes to examine the substance of the comments made by the FNSM.

2. The Committee recalls that the comments of the FNSM concern the system for the registration of vessels in the TAAF, which is governed by Decree No. 87.190 of 20 March 1987 and the Order of 20 March 1987. Under this system, the proportion of crew members of French nationality may not be less than 25 per cent of the seafarers registered on the crew list, including two to four officers according to the type of vessel. According to the FNSM, this means that 75 per cent of registered crews can be made up of foreign seafarers engaged under discriminatory conditions, the purpose being to reduce crew costs as far as possible by cutting back substantially on the social conditions of the foreign seafarers engaged.

3. The Committee refers in this context to the comments and information supplied by the Government on several occasions since 1988. The Government indicates, in particular, that differences in remuneration or social security coverage are based only on distinctions in professional qualification and, as a consequence, the posts occupied on board the vessel, and are not based on any of the grounds of discrimination set out in Convention No. 111 and that, even in the absence of a declaration of their application to the TAAF the ratified maritime Conventions were observed and a check carried out prior to registration. The Government provided extracts of inspection reports concerning five vessels registered in the TAAF, from shipping companies with a total of some 15 vessels operating under the same system.

4. The Government considers that the FNSM's criticism of the differences between the wages of French seafarers and those of other nationalities is based on a misinterpretation of Convention No. 111 since, in the opinion of the Committee of Experts itself, the reference in the Convention to "national extraction" does not cover the situation of persons of foreign nationality.

5. The Government also indicates that the overseas Labour Code (Act No. 52-1322 of 15 December 1952), which applies to seafarers on board vessels registered in the TAAF, is perfectly in keeping with the standards of Convention No. 111, particularly section 91 of the Code which provides that for "equal conditions of work, occupational qualifications and output, wages shall be equal for all workers regardless of their origin, sex, age or status".

6. The Government states that, at 19 October 1991, 755 seafarers and officers were engaged on board vessels registered in the TAAF, including 60 officers and 386 foreign seafarers, and that no individual complaints about wage discrimination have been filed by these seafarers directly or through a trade union organisation with the French administrative authorities or the competent jurisdictions.

7. Lastly, the Government states that the legislation in force in the TAAF does not deprive the trade union organisations of the right to negotiate collective agreements on conditions of work and remuneration, enabling observance of the principle of equal treatment to be reinforced and that the Government pays particular attention to encouraging collective bargaining as it has done in a recent case.

8. The Government therefore considers that the observations of the FNSM are totally unfounded.

9. The Committee takes due note of all the above indications. It proposes to examine the differences in wages which may exist between foreign crew members and crew members of French nationality.

10. In this connection, the Committee notes that the Government observes correctly that the reference in the Convention to "national extraction" does not cover the situation of persons of foreign nationality. However, it should be pointed out that the Convention extends to foreign nationals protection against any discrimination based on one of the criteria set out in Article 1, paragraph 1(a), including race, colour or social origin, and on any other grounds that might be specified after consultation with representative employers' and workers' organisations, where such exist, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of the same Article.

11. With regard to the wages of foreign personnel, the Committee notes the amounts referred to in the extracts of inspection reports supplied by the Government. It notes that these amounts are indicated as being higher than the ILO standards (and they are indeed higher than the basic standard fixed at the time for a qualified seafarer). It also notes that the collective contract for the recruitment of seafarers by the foreign agency which supplies the French shipowner with personnel is sometimes countersigned by the International Federation of Transport or checked by the maritime administration of the country of recruitment.

12. However, the Committee notes from the inspection reports that the amount budgeted by the shipowner for a foreign workpost and for a French workpost is four to five times higher for the latter and that, consequently, there is a considerable difference between the wages of foreign personnel and those of French personnel.

13. The Committee notes that the foreign personnel on the five vessels inspected are of Korean, Indian, Filipino, Polish and Turkish nationality respectively. It notes that these workers hold posts as officers or seafarers and that their qualifications cannot reasonably be a justification for such large differences in wages as those noted. Consequently, the foreign nationality of these persons is clearly the only common denominator and the main reason for the difference between their remuneration and that of French personnel.

14. Since the term "national extraction", in paragraph 1(a) of Article 1 of the Convention, does not refer to nationality, the foreign personnel in question cannot, admittedly, avail themselves of the provision in question.

15. The Committee observes, however, that section 91 of the overseas Labour Code which, according to the Government, applies to the foreign seafarers concerned, establishes equal remuneration for workers regardless, inter alia, of "their origin", which, it would seem, should also cover their nationality. Any preference or distinction based on the origin of the worker would therefore constitute a specific discrimination, in the meaning of paragraph 1(b) of Article 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the differences in wages applied to foreign seafarers on vessels registered in the TAAF should be regarded as constituting a discrimination covered by the Convention.

16. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring national practice into conformity with the Convention.

17. The Committee refers to paragraphs 56 and 57 of its General Report of 1991 and to paragraphs 62 and 63 of its General Report of this year.