The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Industrial Chambers of the United States of Mexico (CONCAMIN), forwarded by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on 26 July 2016, regarding the Government’s application of Conventions Nos 22, 55, 134, 163 and 164. CONCAMIN indicates that, in view of the Committee’s considerations and the legislation in force, it would be appropriate to analyse the whole body of standards relating to seafarers and indicates its willingness to participate in the process of analysis and implementation of ad hoc regulations. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this regard. The Committee also notes the reports sent by the Government on the application of the abovementioned maritime Conventions and Convention No. 166. In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, as follows.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under article 133 of the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico (Constitution) and section 6 of the Federal Labour Act of 1 April 1979, treaties form part of national law and may be applied without it being necessary to adopt national legislation. The Committee observes that article 133 of the Constitution provides that the said Constitution, the laws of the National Congress emanating from it and all treaties which are in conformity with it, concluded by the Government with the approval of the Senate, shall be the supreme law of the land, and that the judges of each federal entity shall act in conformity with the Constitution, laws and treaties, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the constitutions or laws of federal entities. The Committee also observes that, under section 6 of the Federal Labour Act, the respective laws and treaties concluded and approved in accordance with article 133 of the Constitution shall be applicable to employment relationships in respect of all the benefits enjoyed by workers, from the date of entry into force. On this basis, in the absence of specific national provisions that give effect to the self-executing provisions of the Conventions, the Committee has considered the latter provisions to be directly applicable in Mexico. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the maritime Conventions contain a number of provisions which are not self-executing and hence require the adoption of legislation and other measures by the Government.

Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22)

Article 3(1) of the Convention. Facilities to examine the articles of agreement before signature. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that seafarers are given facilities to examine the articles of agreement before signature. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that seafarers may consult free of charge the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor for the Defence of Labour regarding any queries concerning the content of the agreement. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, under section 28 of the Federal Labour Act, when a Mexican worker is employed abroad, the agreement shall be submitted to the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board to verify that it satisfies the conditions of work prescribed by the abovementioned Act. The Committee notes this information.

Article 6(3)(10). Information to be included in the agreement. Conditions for the termination of the agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the Federal Labour Act does not include, among the indications which must be provided in writing in the agreement, the conditions for termination of the agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that such conditions are established in sections 194 and 195 of the Federal Labour Act, which include the stipulation that the agreement shall indicate whether it is concluded for a definite or indefinite period or for an individual voyage, and in section 206 of the aforementioned Act concerning the termination of employment relationships of workers on board vessels. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under article 133 of the Constitution and section 6 of the Federal Labour Act, the provisions of Article 6(3) of the Convention concerning the particulars that the agreement must contain are directly applicable in national law. While recalling the self-executing nature of Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government and considers that it responds to its previous request on this matter.

Article 9. Termination of the agreement. In many previous comments, the Committee noted that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act – which provides that employment relationships may not be terminated when the vessel is abroad, in unpopulated areas or in port, should the vessel be exposed in the latter case to any risk due to bad weather or other circumstances – is not in conformity with Article 9 of the Convention, which provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the purpose of section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act is to prevent workers and the vessel itself from being exposed to exceptional situations of risk and does not prevent the termination of the employment relationship when such a situation no longer exists. However, the Committee once again observes with deep concern that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act prevents the possibility of an agreement for an indefinite period being terminated in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, as required by the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 14(1). Record of discharge in the identity document. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the copy of the seafarers’ book and identity document sent by the Government does not include a space to enter the expiry or termination of the agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Communication and Transport (SCT), the competent authority for issuing this document, stated that in view of the austerity measures regarding the use of government resources and the significant number of seafarers’ books and identity documents in circulation, the space for noting the expiry or termination of the agreement has not yet been incorporated in the document in question. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the measures taken to ensure that any discharge is recorded in the document issued to the seafarer, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Convention.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Article 6 of the Convention. Repatriation expenses in the event of sickness or injury. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 204(VII) of the Federal Labour Act, employers have the obligation to provide seafarers with food and accommodation, medical treatment and medicines in the event of illness, but that there is no mention of shipowners’ responsibility to bear the cost of repatriation for a sick or injured seafarer who is put ashore during the voyage as a result of illness or injury. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Labour Act does not specifically establish the obligation to cover repatriation expenses in such circumstances. However, the Government indicates that this obligation derives from article 123(A)(XXVI) of the Constitution, which provides that employment contracts concluded between a Mexican citizen and a foreign employer shall clearly specify that the cost of repatriation shall be borne by the employer. The Committee observes that this provision of the Constitution does not regulate the repatriation of seafarers on vessels flying the Mexican flag or not under foreign ownership. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all seafarers have the right to be repatriated at the expense of the shipowner in the event of sickness or injury, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134)

Article 2(3). Detailed statistics on occupational accidents on board. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the availability of statistics relating to occupational accidents on board that indicate clearly the part of the ship (deck, engine room or catering areas) and the location (at sea or in port) where the accident occurred, in accordance with Article 2(3). The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: the Merchant Shipping Department at the SCT and the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) compile the relevant statistics; the IMSS bases its statistics on the data compiled in the occupational accident notification system (SIAAT), and the relevant Mexican Official Standard (NOM-036-SCT4-2007 of 17 August 2007) is being updated. However, the Committee observes that the statistics of the Merchant Shipping Department forwarded by the Government do not indicate the part of the vessel or the location where accidents occurred. The Committee also notes that the Government has not provided any statistics from the IMSS and that the SIATT accident notification form does not include a space to indicate in the part of the ship and the location where the accident occurred. Lastly, while noting that NOM-036-SCT4-2007 provides that the shipowner shall report occupational accidents to the maritime authority, the Committee points out that the aforementioned standard does not specify the level of detail to be included in such reports. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether and how the different mechanisms established for the compilation of information on occupational accidents on board (by the Merchant Shipping Department or the SIAAT system) enable the Government to have disaggregated statistics, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Convention.

Article 3. Research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to conduct research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on occupational safety and health (OSH) advisory committees at both the national and the individual state level (COCONASST and COCOESST, respectively and on the National Advisory Committee on OSH Normalization). The Committee also notes the Government’s indications that the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (Federal OSH Regulations), which apply to ships, require employers to do research into the risks of various types of jobs and to send information to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. The Government also indicates that employers can examine the risks of occupational accidents through OSH committees and services. However, the Committee observes that the mechanisms for research into the occupational hazards described by the Government are not exclusive to maritime employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify whether in practice such research makes it possible to establish general trends and hazards peculiar to maritime employment, and can be used in relation to the prevention of accidents in the particular context of maritime employment, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 4(3). Measures for the prevention of occupational accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee firmly requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the standards applicable to seafarers for the prevention of accidents and the protection of health in employment specify the particular features of maritime employment listed in Article 4(3), such as structural features of the ship, machinery, special safety measures on deck, loading and unloading equipment, fire prevention and firefighting, anchors, chains and lines, dangerous cargo and ballast, and personal protective equipment. The Committee notes that the information supplied by the Government is of a general nature and does not mention the adoption of any standards that meet the requirements of Article 4(3). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the standards applicable to seafarers for the prevention of occupational accidents include the aspects listed in Article 4(3) of the Convention.

Article 8. Programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the formulation and implementation of programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents among seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the SCT and the Ministry of Shipping have competence for the matters covered by the Convention. However, the Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether these authorities have drawn up the prevention programmes required under Article 8. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare does not have separate programmes for the prevention of accidents to seafarers, to whom the general OSH self-management programme (PASST) – of general application – applies. The Committee once again notes with regret that the information provided by the Government refers to generally applicable OSH programmes, whereas the Convention requires specific maritime programmes to be drawn up in cooperation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to formulate and implement programmes which give effect to Article 8 of the Convention.

Seafarers’ Welfare Convention, 1987 (No. 163)

Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Welfare facilities and services in ports and on board ship. Review of welfare facilities and services. International cooperation. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the functioning of seafarer centres (Casas del Marino) in various ports in the country, on the review of welfare facilities and services for seafarers, and on international cooperation in this field. The Committee notes that the Government refers once again to the General Regulations for Seafarers of 8 December 1943 but does not indicate how the seafarer centres operate in practice. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government once again refers to section 214 of the Federal Labour Act, which provides that the Federal Executive Authority shall determine how services in seafarer centres shall be maintained and improved, without indicating whether any regulations have been promulgated under the aforementioned section. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2 of the Convention, each Member undertakes to ensure that adequate welfare facilities and services are provided for seafarers both in port and on board ship. Such services shall be reviewed frequently to ensure that they are appropriate in the light of changes in the needs of seafarers resulting from technical, operational and other developments in the shipping industry (Article 5). Moreover, each Member undertakes to cooperate with other Members with a view to ensuring the application of the Convention (Article 6). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164)

Article 4(c) of the Convention. Right to visit a medical doctor. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee seafarers the right to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call where practicable. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (a) seafarers have the unrestricted right to medical consultations in ports of arrival; and (b) seafarers may use IMSS hospitals in Mexican ports and are covered for medical assistance abroad by the insurance policies concluded by shipowners with “protection and compensation associations”. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the Government does not indicate the legal provisions which ensure compliance with Article 4(c) of the Convention, according to which seafarers must be guaranteed the right to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call where practicable. The Committee firmly requests the Government to provide the aforementioned information.

Article 5(4) and (5). Inspection at regular intervals of the medicine chest. Checking of the labelling. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to give effect to the specific requirements relating to the regular inspection of the medicine chest on board at intervals not exceeding 12 months and the checking of the labelling, expiry dates and conditions of storage of all medicines contained in the medicine chest, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (a) the Merchant Shipping Department is responsible for the application of Mexican Official Standard NOM-034-SCT4-2009 of 24 February 2009 concerning OSH conditions for the handling, transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals, which stipulates that a medicine chest must be carried on board; and (b) maritime safety inspections are ongoing and can be conducted at any time. However, the Committee observes that the information provided by the Government does not indicate how such inspections are ensured at regular intervals not exceeding 12 months or whether the requirements for storage of the medicines listed in Article 5(4) and (5) are checked. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the intervals at which on-board medicine chests are inspected, and on the checking of compliance with the provisions of the Convention regarding the labelling and storage of medicines.

Article 7. Medical advice by radio or satellite communication. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that vessels can obtain medical advice at any time of day by radio or satellite communication, in accordance with Article 7. The Committee notes with regret that the Government once again refers in this regard to the Maritime Safety Inspection Regulations of 12 May 2004, which require vessels to carry radio communication equipment on board. The Committee recalls that the existence of radio communication equipment on board is not sufficient to ensure the availability of medical advice on vessels on the high seas at any time of day or night, in accordance with Article 7. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 8. Presence of a medical doctor on board ships. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that neither the Maritime Safety Inspection Regulations nor the Federal Labour Act specify the ships or categories of ships which are required to carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government once again refers to section 204(VIII) of the Federal Labour Act, under which employers are obliged to carry medical staff and equipment on board as established by the laws and regulations on maritime communications. In view of the fact that the provisions referred to by the Government do not meet the requirements of Article 8, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that ships covered by the Convention carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew.

Article 9. Training courses for persons in charge of medical care. In its previous comments, the Committee reminded the Government that training courses for persons in charge of medical care on board vessels who are not doctors must meet the requirements of Article 9, such as being approved by the competent authority and being based on the content of the relevant international guides. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Nautical Academies and the Education Centre provide senior and junior Merchant Navy officers with training courses which conform to the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), including courses in basic first aid, medical first aid and medical care. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that these courses are approved at the national level by the Ministry of Public Education and the Maritime Authority, while the qualifications and validations issued are recognized at the global level by the International Maritime Organization. The Committee notes this information, which meets the requirements of the Convention.

Article 11. Hospital accommodation. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation does not give effect to Article 11, which stipulates that in any ship of 500 or more gross tonnage, carrying 15 or more seafarers and engaged in a voyage of more than three days’ duration, separate hospital accommodation must be provided. In this regard, the Committee notes with regret that the Government refers once again to section 49 of the Federal OSH Regulations of 13 November 2014, which regulate the provision of preventive occupational medical services. The Committee reiterates that the aforementioned Regulations are of a general nature and do not contain provisions determining the type of vessel in which separate hospital accommodation is required or describing the particular features of such hospital accommodation. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to give effect to Article 11 of the Convention.

Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166)

Article 2(1)(c) of the Convention. Repatriation in the event of illness, injury or other medical condition. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 204(VII) of the Federal Labour Act, employers have the obligation to provide seafarers with food and accommodation, medical treatment and medicines in the event of illness, but that there is no mention of shipowners’ responsibility to bear the cost of repatriation for a sick or injured seafarer who is put ashore during the voyage as a result of illness or injury. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Labour Act does not specifically establish the obligation to cover repatriation expenses in such circumstances. However, the Government indicates that this obligation derives from article 123(XXVI) of the Constitution, which provides that employment contracts concluded between a Mexican citizen and a foreign employer shall clearly specify that the cost of repatriation shall be borne by the employer. The Committee observes that this provision of the Constitution does not regulate the repatriation of seafarers on vessels flying the Mexican flag or not under foreign ownership. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all seafarers have the right to be repatriated at the expense of the shipowner, in accordance with Article 2(1)(c) of the Convention.

Article 2(1)(e) and (f). Repatriation in the event of the inability of the shipowner to continue to fulfil legal or contractual obligations or in the event that a seafarer does not consent to go to a war zone. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure that seafarers have the right to be repatriated under the circumstances provided for in Article 2(1)(e) – namely, in the event of the shipowner not being able to continue to fulfil his or her legal or contractual obligations as an employer of the seafarer by reason of bankruptcy, sale of ship or any other similar reason – and in Article 2(1)(f) – namely, in the event of a ship being bound for a war zone to which the seafarer does not consent to go. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 204(IX) of the Federal Labour Act guarantees repatriation regardless of the reason. However, the Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section excludes from its scope situations of separation for reasons that cannot be ascribed to the employer, which can include the cases listed in Article 2(1)(e) and (f). In view of the fact that section 204(IX) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Article 2(1)(e) and (f), the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the shipowner is obliged to bear the cost of repatriation, in accordance with Article 2(1)(e) and (f).

Article 2(1)(g). Repatriation in the event of termination or interruption of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions in the national legislation on the right to repatriation in the event of the interruption or termination of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. However, the Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section only guarantees repatriation in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality. Hence it does not cover cases of termination or interruption of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In view of the fact that section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Article 2(1)(g), the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the shipowner is obliged to bear the cost of repatriation, in accordance with Article 2(1)(g).

Article 2(2). Maximum duration of service periods. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions on the maximum duration of service periods on board following which seafarers are entitled to repatriation. In this respect, the Committee notes with regret that the Government refers to sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2) requires national laws or regulations or collective agreements to prescribe the maximum duration of service periods on board following which seafarers are entitled to repatriation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that this duration is prescribed by national laws or regulations or collective agreements.

Article 3. Destinations for repatriation. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions establishing the right of seafarers to choose from among the prescribed destinations for repatriation. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. The Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section only covers repatriation in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality for the ship, and does not allow seafarers in such situations to choose between different destinations. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indication that sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution give effect to Article 3. However, the Committee recalls that Article 3(1) requires national laws or regulations to prescribe the destinations to which seafarers may be repatriated. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to adopt the necessary legislation to give effect to Article 3.

Articles 4 and 5. Responsibility of the shipowner to arrange for repatriation. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure the shipowner’s compliance with the obligation to arrange for repatriation through prompt and appropriate means. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. However, the Committee observes that the aforementioned section guarantees repatriation only in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality for the ship. The Committee notes with regret that these provisions do not cover all the cases of repatriation envisaged in the Convention, do not specify which elements listed in Article 4 must be included in the cost of repatriation, and do not clarify how repatriation is to be arranged if the shipowner fails to make the necessary arrangements in accordance with Article 5. In view of the fact that section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that repatriation is arranged for in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 6. Passport and other identity documents. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to specify how it is ensured that seafarers who are to be repatriated are able to obtain their passport and other identity documents. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the National Institute for Migration (INM) is responsible for making arrangements for entry into the countries of repatriation. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that Article 6 seeks to protect seafarers from situations in which they are obliged to surrender their passport to the shipowners, captain or employment agency, as a result of which they could be without an identity document at the time of repatriation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to clarify how it is ensured that seafarers can retain their passport or other identity documents for the purpose of repatriation.

Article 7. Paid leave. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation does not contain any provision ensuring that time spent awaiting repatriation and repatriation travel time is not deducted from paid leave accrued to the seafarer. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the direct application of the Convention and indicates that sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution give effect to Article 7. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous requests.

Article 12. Availability of the text of the Convention in an appropriate language. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which the text of the Convention in an appropriate language is made available to the crew members of every ship registered in its territory. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consultations will be held with the Merchant Shipping Department on the possibility of disseminating the text of the Convention in English and Spanish to the crew members of every seagoing vessel registered in its territory. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information, further to consultations with the Merchant Shipping Department, on the application of this provision of the Convention.