Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention du travail maritime, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Singapour (Ratification: 2011)

Autre commentaire sur C186

Demande directe

2019
2016
2014

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

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 2016 entered into force for Singapore on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. It further notes that the Government’s report was received before the entry into force of these amendments. Following a second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2 and 3. Seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the definition of seafarer in section 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (hereinafter, “MLC Act”). It further noted that pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Definition of Seafarer) Order 2014, certain categories of persons are not regarded as seafarers. Noting that in accordance with the wording of paragraph 2 of the Schedule a person could be working on board a ship for periods of up to 45 consecutive days and up to an aggregate of four months per year on one ship, followed by similar periods working on board other ships, without being considered a seafarer, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on this issue. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all cases of exclusion of the definition of seafarer must fall within all statutory limits and be submitted to the Director of Marine for approval. The Government further indicates that, since the Convention came into force, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has never granted any exclusion to any persons under paragraph 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Definition of Seafarer) Order 2014. The Committee further note the detailed explanations on the consultations process conducted in the framework of the Tripartite Working Group regarding all aspects of implementation of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information with respect to any exclusion granted in the future under paragraph 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Definition of Seafarer) Order 2014.

Article II, paragraph 6. Ships. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 4(1)–(3) of the MLC Act, the MPA may determine that it is not reasonable or practicable to apply any provision of the Act or regulations made under the Act to a Singapore ship of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages and in making such an exemption, the Authority may also impose conditions on the ship or particular categories of ships including those set out in any other laws or in a term of a seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) or of a collective agreement or in other measures in lieu of any provision of the Act. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information concerning the recourse to this possibility. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no exemptions have been granted so far, and that in case an exemption is granted, the ships concerned need to comply with Singapore’s port and harbour craft regulations as well as Singapore’s Employment Act. The Committee recalls that Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention, provides flexibility with respect to the application of “certain details of the Code” to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that do not voyage internationally, if determined that it would not be reasonable or practicable at the time of the exemption to apply certain details of the Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on measures currently adopted, or envisaged, in accordance with section 4(1)–(3) of the MLC Act in order to ensure that any exemption granted is limited to certain details of the Code as required by Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention.

The Committee had noted that sections 53(12) and 80 of the MLC Act provide that the Director of Marine may grant ships dispensation of requirements in specific circumstances and had requested information on the use of this possibility. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these powers to grant exemptions are to be exercised by the Director of Marine only when absolutely necessary, and that the legislative and policy intent behind such exemption provisions are to allow the administration the necessary flexibility to deal with extreme circumstances, such as force majeure. It also notes the Government’s indication that no exemptions have been granted under sections 53(12) and 80 of the MLC Act since the Convention came into force. Bearing in mind that under the MLC, 2006, exemptions are possible to a limited extent and only where they are expressly permitted by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any exemption granted in the future under sections 53(12) and 80 of the MLC Act.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement services. The Committee notes that section 15 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Seafarer Recruitment and Placement Services) Regulations 2014, requires recruitment and placement services to establish “a system of protection, by way of insurance or an equivalent appropriate measure, to compensate seafarers for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarer’s employment agreement to meet its obligations to them”. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the system of protection that is required under Section 15 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Seafarer Recruitment and Placement Services) Regulations 2014, and its conformity with Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(vi), of the Convention.

Regulation 2.2 and the Code. Wages. The Committee notes that section 20, paragraph 1 of the MLC Act requires wage payments to be made in full and on a monthly basis “except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other written law”. It also notes that section 20(6) and (7) of the MLC Act provides for any adjustment to the amount stated in the account of the seafarer, without, however, providing for grounds on which such adjustment is made or for the seafarer’s right to request explanations. Recalling that Standard A2.2, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides that each Member shall require that payments due to seafarers working on ships that fly its flag are made at no greater than monthly intervals and in accordance with any applicable collective agreement, the Committee requests the Government to provide full information with respect to the exceptions provided under section 20, paragraph 1, of the MLC Act. It further requests the Government to clarify the grounds for adjustment of wages provided for under section 20, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the MLC Act.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. In its previous comment, noting that section 16(9) of the MLC Act provides that the Director may make exceptions to the minimum hours of rest with conditions and that the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I, states, in connection with hours of rest, that: “Provisions in a collective agreement or any other agreement between a seafarer and shipowner may set out exceptions” from the required hours of rest, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information clarifying the use of these possible exceptions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Singapore ships not subject to collective agreements may encounter situations where exceptions to the hours of work and hours of rest are required for certain circumstances, such as during rough weather situations or an unexpected work requirement to safeguard the safety and security of the ship. These exceptions must be documented in an agreement made between the shipowner and the seafarer, and must be registered with the Director of Marine. The Government further indicates that, as stated in section 6(2) of the DMLC, Part I, any exceptions to the hours of work and hours of rest must fulfil the requirements of the 2010 Manila Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW). The Committee recalls that pursuant to Standard A2.3, paragraph 14, the master of a ship has a right to require a seafarer to perform any hours of work necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea. All other exceptions to the minimum hours of rest shall, in accordance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 13, be provided in a collective agreement. The Convention however does not envisage exceptions being made in agreements between a shipowner and a seafarer. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all possible exceptions to the minimum hours of rest are allowed in full compliance with the Convention.

The Committee also notes that section 16(8) of the MLC Act provides that a seafarer shall be given a record of his/her daily hours of rest that has been endorsed by the master or his/her representative. Recalling that Standard A2.3, paragraph 12, of the Convention provides that a copy of the records of seafarer’s daily hours of work or rest has to be endorsed both by the master and the seafarer, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it is ensured full compliance with this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Shore leave. Noting that section 22, paragraph 4(c) of the MLC Act, provides that temporary shore leave by agreement between the shipowner and the seafarer under the seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) is not counted as part of seafarer’s annual leave, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information as to whether seafarers on ships flying Singapore’s flag are given shore leave in accordance with Standard A2.4, paragraph 2 of the MLC, 2006, even when such leave is not provided for in the SEA. The Committee notes with interest that the MPA Shipping Circular to Shipowners No. 4 of 2017/Rev.1 has revised the DMLC, Part I, on this point and now requires shipowners to provide seafarers on ships flying Singapore’s flag with shore leave even when such leave is not provided for in the seafarer’s employment agreement. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, Paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Prohibition of agreements to forgo annual leave. The Committee notes that section 14(8) of the MLC Act provides that any term in an employment agreement to forgo any part of the minimum annual leave prescribed under section 22 of the Act shall be unenforceable in so far as it purports to deprive the seafarer of that right or to remove or reduce the liability of the shipowner to grant the minimum annual leave except under such circumstances as may be prescribed by the Authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if the competent authority has prescribed any circumstances under which a part of the minimum annual leave can be forgone.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. Abandonment. 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. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment (if yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also 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 2.7 and the Code. Manning levels. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning its manning requirements. It notes, in this respect, that the requirements on manning composition do not take into account the ship’s cook or catering staff. It recalls that, under Standard A2.7, paragraph 3, 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. Noting that section 3(4) of the Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations (hereinafter, “Crew Accommodation Regulations”) authorizes the Director of Marine to exempt any ship from any provision of the Crew Accommodation Regulations, the Committee had requested the Government to explain how it is ensured that any such exemption may only be made within the limitations provided for under Standard A3.1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Director of Marine has not authorized any exemptions in accordance with section 3(4) of the Crew Accommodation Regulations. Noting however that this provision confers wide-ranging authority on the Director of Marine to grant exemptions, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the Crew Accommodation Regulations fully comply with Standard A3.1, paragraph 21. The Government further indicates that, based on the Committee’s previous remarks, the MPA, in consultation with the Singapore shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations through the Tripartite Working Group, is in the process of reviewing the following provisions of section 10 of the Crew Accommodation Regulations: section 10(6)(a) to fully comply with Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(a), of the Convention, and section 10(5)(e) and 10(10) to be in accordance with Standard A3.1, paragraphs 9(i) and 9(j). The Committee requests the Government to provide the amended text of the Crew Accommodation Regulations once adopted.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care ashore. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that seafarers on board ships voyaging in Singapore waters or visiting its ports are given access to medical facilities on shore when in need of immediate medical or dental care (Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3), subject to certain conditions where necessary for security and health reasons. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the conditions that may be imposed on foreign seafarers to get access to medical care ashore.

Regulation 4.2 and Standards A4.2.1, paragraphs 8–14, 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. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned?; (b) how national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay; (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount; (iii) interim payments (while situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship; (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident; and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary)?; (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4-I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease; (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated; and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated?; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model 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. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information with respect to any national guidelines or other measures adopted to assist in the implementation of the health and safety requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the MPA has issued several shipping circulars to assist in the implementation of the provisions of section 40 of the MLC Act and the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Health and Safety Protection and Accident Prevention) Regulations 2014, (hereinafter “OSH Regulations”) on board ships. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the shipping circulars mentioned in its report. The Committee also notes the Government’s explanation in response to its previous request on how section 43 of the OSH Regulations providing for the establishment of a safety committee is applied. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government, in reply to its previous comments, on activities of seafarers’ shore-based welfare facilities and services. It also notes that a Welfare Committee for Seamen has been set up. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether seafarers ordinarily resident in Singapore working on ships flying the flag of another country are provided with social security protection as required under Regulation 4.5 and the Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Singaporean citizens and permanent residents are included in the mandatory national security fund. It further notes that the Central Provident Fund Act and other welfare schemes apply to Singaporean seafarers working on foreign-flagged vessels. The Committee takes note of this information which address its previous request.

The Committee recalls that according to the Convention, Members shall give consideration to the various ways in which “comparable benefits” to those provided to seafarers ordinarily resident in the country can be provided to seafarers working on board the ships flying their flag, in the absence of adequate coverage (Standard A4.5, paragraph 6, of the Convention). The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding the implementation of this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Intervals of inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information with respect to flag State inspection of Singapore flagged ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate or DMLC. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that the MPA’s flag State inspectors verify compliance with the MLC, 2006, by Singapore ships that are not required to be certified. The Government provides an example of the MLC, 2006, certification procedures and inspection (MAR-MMS-GL035) which refers to inspection when no certification is required. The Committee notes, however, that the intervals at which inspections have to be carried out are not addressed in this document nor in other existing regulations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the interval between inspections for Singaporean ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate or DMLC does not exceed three years, as required by Standard A5.1.4.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Confidentiality of sources of grievances or complaints. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information as to the procedures it has established with respect to receiving and investigating complaints regarding ships that fly its flag, and in particular as to the procedures for ensuring confidentiality. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to a standard operating procedure for the handling of crew complaints set up by MPA. The Committee notes however that this procedure is of a general nature and does not include any specific measures to ensure confidentiality. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any additional measures adopted to ensure that the procedures to receive and investigate complaints regarding ships that fly its flag, including the procedures for ensuring that the source is kept confidential, fully comply with the requirements of the Convention (Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b)).

Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 3. Flag State responsibilities. On-board complaint procedures. Victimization. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 55(2)(c) of the MLC Act requires that on-board complaint procedures include adequate safeguards to ensure that the rights of the seafarers are not prejudiced by the making of complaints. Paragraph 5 of the model format for on-board complaint procedures contained in Shipping Circular No. 6 of 2013, requires the shipowner to put in place measures to safeguard against possible victimization for filing a complaint. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that MPA takes guidance from Singapore’s national tripartite guidelines, in particular the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which has in place a set of guidelines on “Grievance Handling”. However, these requirements remain general in nature. In addition, the existing legislation does not prohibit and penalize acts of victimization, as required under Regulation 5.1.5, paragraph 3. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning any additional guidance it may have adopted concerning specific measures and regulations in place against victimization, e.g. the possibility for a seafarer to be accompanied or represented during the complaints procedure, as prescribed under Standard 5.1.5, paragraph 3 of the Convention.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Inspections of foreign ships in port. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Part X of the MLC Act addresses and merges inspections of both Singapore flagged ships and ships operating under the flag of another country. Section 58(4) enumerates conditions in which a detailed inspection may be conducted. It also noted that section 58(8)(g) of the Act confers on inspectors the power to require rectification of deficiencies, but that section does not appear to provide that inspectors must in some cases bring the deficiencies to the attention of the appropriate seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations, as provided under Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the MPA adheres to the Guidelines for port State control officers on the Convention and consults with the Tripartite Working Group. The Committee takes note of this information which answers it previous request.

Regulation 5.2.2 and Standard A5.2.2, paragraph 7. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures. Confidentiality of the complaints. The Committee further notes that national legislation does not provide for procedures, including steps taken to safeguard confidentiality, for seafarers calling at Singapore ports to report a complaint alleging breach of the requirements of the Convention in accordance with Regulation 5.2.2, paragraph 1, and Standard A5.2.2, paragraphs 1–7. While section 3.14 of the Tokyo MOU states that “In the case that an inspection is initiated based on a report or complaint, especially if it is from a crew member, the source of information must not be disclosed”, it does not establish procedures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to fully comply with Regulation 5.2.2, paragraph 1, and Standard A5.2.2, paragraphs 1–7.

Additional documentation requested. The Committee notes that the Government has omitted to provide some of the documents requested in the report form. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the following documents and information: an example of the approved document for seafarers’ record of employment (Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1 and 3); a copy of any documentation that is available informing seafarers and interested others about the procedures for making a complaint (in confidence) regarding a breach of the requirements of the Convention (including seafarers’ rights) (Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 5).