Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Special Edition

ILO and the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 – where are we now?

There are currently many rumours, misunderstandings and flights of fancy about MLC 2006. These include an expectation that implementation of MLC is imminent, placing on owners an obligation to provide individual cabins for each crew member, or with a crew mess the size of a roller-skating rink. On the other hand there are stories that all crew are going to be taxed and that owners will deduct compulsory social security contributions from everybody’s wages.

As with all these things, the reality is often far different from what people imagine it to be.

At present, nobody knows exactly when MLC 2006 will come into force. This is because we still don’t know when the minimum number of Member States (30), with the prescribed minimum percentage of world shipping (33%), will have ratified the convention. There is only a target date for ratification (December 2010). There will then be another 12 months before the legislation would be due to come into force. Further, the ILO recogises the practical difficulties of providing and training a sufficient number of inspectors to inspect an estimated 40,000 ships, and issue to each one its Maritime Labour Certificate and its Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. All of which will have to be done during these 12 months.

Accordingly, it has been proposed that flag and port states be asked to consider allowing ships to operate for a further 12 months if they have not yet received their MLC’s and DMLC’s, provided that there is no clear case that they would not qualify for such issuance.

In terms of suggested overall priority, bulk carriers and passenger ships are at the top of the list. It is anybody’s guess as to where yachts will appear on the inspection priority list of any given flag state. Well above us we would expect to see cruise ships, high-capacity and/or high/speed ferries, VLCC’s, LPG carriers, refined product carriers, RoRo ships, container vessels et al. But it is always possible that a flag state will regard its commercial yachts as having the same status as passenger ships when it comes to MLC’s and DMLC’s. Or yachts may be relegated to a very low priority status, and not be inspected until late in the above-mentioned 12-month extension period proposed by the ILO. It is still too early to know.

What is sure is that once MLC 2006 is ratified, then 12 months from that date will be the official date of implemetation, and even though there may then be a “year of grace” for certification, this grace period will not apply to new constructions. Any new keel laid on or after day one of implementation will have to be completed to MLC 2006 requirements.

When MLC 2006 was being drawn up, its content was overseen by a tripartite group consisting of Governments, Shipowners and Trade Unions representing seafarers from a multitude of Member States. The MCA was heavily involved in the drafting, along with Nautilus and other bodies from the UK. Once the final draft was approved and sent out for states to study prior to ratification, the UK Tripartite Implemetation Working Group (TIWG) realized that one sector of the maritime industry had not been considered or consulted – yachting.

The PYA’s own Work Group, which was set up to study MLC 2006 after it was a done deal, had already realised that blanket implemetation of MLC 2006, without any effort to study and ameliorate its impact, could effectively shut down a large part of the yacht construction industry. The economic fallout would have rendered such an outcome politically unacceptable. But there was the possibility of short-term damage to the industry, and of damage to the credibility of the ILO and MLC 2006 itself.

The PYA accordingly welcomed an invitation from the MCA to send a representative to a Sub Group to consider ways to implement MLC 2006 within the Large Yacht Code LY2. Since December 2008 the PYA and other representatives of the yachting industry have been working with the MCA to adapt LY2 so as to embrace the provisions of MLC 2006.

Initially the PYA Work Group identified three issues that needed immediate clarification:

1. Crew Accomodation
2. Social Security
3. Recruitment and Placement

Crew Accomodation

On the issue of crew accommodation standards, there was a need to strike a balance  between giving crew the decent living spaces as prescribed in the Convention, without compressing the owner’s accommodation into the lazarette.

Part of the exercise required us to come up with a method of squeezing a quart of crew accommodation into the pint pot of the fore section of a typical motor yacht (or even more difficult, a sailing yacht). At our first meeting, standing around a table with builders, naval architects, and surveyors from the MCA, Cayman Islands, and the Isle of Man, and studying some actual new-build crew accommodation layouts, it was made very clear that a quart into a pint pot won’t go. So further discussion of parameters, and off-site study by the naval architects, took us to the point where at our next meeting it was demonstrated how most of a quart could be poured into the pint pot, but there was still an important portion of the quart left over.

A morning of group head-banging, and some lateral thinking by an MCA surveyor, led to a proposal whereby the substantial equivalence of the interior of a pint pot would be precisely defined without reference to its sides (don’t try this with a quart of beer and a pint pot in a crowded bar). At this time the proposal remains just a proposal, and its details cannot yet be promulgated, yet we expect it be one of the several amendments to LY2  which the Sub Group will incorporate to make LY2 compatible with MLC 2006, and maintain decent standards. Much serious progress has been made, and it is expected that after the next meeting of the Sub Group (April 23rd) the final draft of the amended LY2 should be ready for submission to the UK Tripartite Implemetation Working Group for approval. However, if any issues are not resolved to the satisfaction of the PYA at the April meeting, we shall insist on further consultation time.

Social Security

The issues grouped under “social security” are largely a responsibility for states rather than for individual vessels. Under the MLC 2006 Member States have to make sure that seafarers have access to the same social security benefits as those who are shore based. This does not mean to say that all seafarers will be forced to make National Insurance (Social Security) Contributions.

As far as the UK authorities are concerned they have two aspects to consider; those who are required to make compulsory contributions due to their Domicile/Residence and those who wish to make voluntary contributions.

The UK authorities have satisfied themselves that they already have the elements required under the MLC 2006 in place without the need to introduce new laws.

However, the way in which the issue of contributions will be policed will change under the MLC 2006, in so far as the MCA inspectors will be aware of who should be making a compulsory social security contribution. Where a seafarer is not making the compulsory contribution then the inspector will refer it to the Department for Works and Pensions for further action. You will then have to complete the Mariners Questionnaire and will probably be asked to provide further information. Collection of social security contributions is the responsibility of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

If you are entitled to make voluntary social security contributions to the UK authorities then you should complete the Mariners Questionnaire after the 5th April each year for the preceding tax year. This form goes to the Marine NIC’s branch of HMRC in Cardiff.

If you are not required to make a compulsory contribution or are not eligible to make a voluntary contribution then you will need to enquire with the authorities in your country of residence or nationality to see if you are able to make contributions to either Member State.

Recruitment and Placement

At the last meeting, the PYA raised the issue of how recruitment and placement agencies operating in the yacht industry differed from those companies operating in the merchant shipping industry. Various examples were given to the MCA and this was followed up with an email detailing all the types of agent operating within the yacht industry. The MCA are currently reviewing the contents of this email and we will have a clearer picture at the next meeting in April. Clarification on this issue is very important as it will determine who crew can approach to assist them in getting a job.

Report compiled by Tork Buckley, John Cook and Rod Hatch