CMNT_TITLE

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Netherlands (RATIFICATION: 2011)

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee also notes the observations of the Association of the National Maritime Platform for Labour, Income and Health Care (Platform Maritiem), communicated with the Government’s report and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for the Netherlands on 22 August 2018 and 8 January 2019, respectively. The Committee welcomes the important steps taken by the Government and social partners towards the full implementation of the Convention. Based on its 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, 3 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. National determination. In its previous comment, noting Platform Maritiem’s observation that while the Seafarers Act defines the term “seafarers” in accordance with the Convention, the Dutch Civil Code does not contain a definition of this term, the Committee requested clarifications in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) Chapter 12 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code contains special regulations concerning the Seafarers’ Employment Agreement (SEA) that were adopted to implement the relevant requirements of the MLC, 2006; (ii) while there is no definition of a seafarer in the Civil Code, article 7:694 of that Code, however, contains a definition of a SEA stating that it is an employment agreement by which the seafarer undertakes to work on board a seagoing ship. Under this definition, the seafarer has the status of employee; and (iii) the definition in the Act on Seafarers guarantees the protection of the MLC, 2006 to all seafarers working in any capacity on board ships flying the flag of the Netherlands. The Committee notes, however, that the social partners represented in Platform Maritiem reiterate their concerns with respect to the absence of a definition of the term “seafarer” in the Civil Code, which raises difficulties since discrepancies may arise between the laws and regulations by which the MLC, 2006, is implemented under civil law and public law. Platform Maritiem adds that a person who is a seafarer under public law may not be a seafarer according to the Civil Code, under which important matters concerning the Convention are implemented. The Committee requests the Government to identify possible discrepancies which may result from the absence of a definition of the term “seafarer” in the Civil Code – which provides protection regarding the majority of issues covered by the MLC, 2006 – and to further re-examine this issue, in consultation with the social partners, in order to ensure that all the persons who fall under the definition of seafarers pursuant to the MLC, 2006, are effectively covered by the protection it affords. The Committee further noted that under Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment, of 12 October 2012, No. IENM/BSK-2012/158694 (hereafter Seafarers Regulation), article 1.2, the following persons, among others, are not to be considered as seafarers for the purpose of the MLC, 2006: “(e) other persons whose duties are not part of the regular duties on board within the framework of the use of the ship”. The Committee observes that there is no reference to the duration of their stay on board. The Committee recalls that under the terms of the Resolution concerning information on occupational groups adopted by the 94th (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference in 2006, “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”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate on which grounds this category of persons was excluded from the definition of “seafarer”, taking into account the above-mentioned resolution.

The Committee also requested the Government to inform on any additional determination concerning cases of doubt as to whether any specific category of persons is to be regarded as seafarers. The Committee notes that a determination has been made by the Advisory Seafarers Committee, formed by the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, regarding “client representatives” on board ships working in the offshore industry. The Committee notes this information.

Cadets. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify the status of cadets. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that cadets work on board a ship under a so-called traineeship agreement, which is not regarded as an SEA. Article 7:737 of the Civil Code nevertheless gives cadets some protection regarding repatriation and compensation of damage in case of shipwreck and death. The Government further indicates that cadets are protected by other Acts, such as the Working Conditions Act, under which the shipowner must take all the measures necessary to make sure that the cadet works in a safe and healthy environment aboard ship, and also chapter 6 of the Decree on Working Hours in Transport containing rules for hours of work and hours of rest for seafarers. The Government further indicates that cadets can furthermore be regarded as seafarers under the Seafarers Act (article 1, paragraph 1(z)) and, therefore, all the rights of seafarers and obligations of the shipowner under this law apply to cadets, in particular concerning accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, complaint procedure, medical certification, etc. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the specific provisions of the Civil Code which implement many of the requirements of the MLC, 2006, do not apply to cadets. 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 therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that cadets 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 meet the minimum mandatory seagoing service which forms part of the requirements prescribed in the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 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 where needed, in accordance with the Convention.

Personnel in special purpose ships. The Committee also requested the Government to clarify the status of personnel in special purpose ships (SPS). The Committee notes in this regard the Government’s indication that these workers work under an SEA if they fulfil the requirements of the definition of seafarers’ employment agreement in article 7:694 of the Civil Code and are in that case to be regarded as seafarers under the Civil Code. Referring to its comments in relation to the absence of a definition of the term “seafarer” under the Civil Code, the Committee notes this information.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i), 4, 5 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. National determination. The Committee requested the Government to indicate if the determination to exclude seagoing vessels serving as tugs for the period in which they serve in port had been made after consultation, as provided for under Article II, paragraph 5. The Committee understands from the Government’s report that consultations took place in this regard.

Article II, paragraphs 6 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships under 200 gross tonnage. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the legislation that applies to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that are not engaged on international voyages. The Government indicates that, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention, article 2, paragraph 7, of the Seafarers Act provides that “after having consulted the organizations of managing owners and seafarers involved. It may be determined by Regulation of Our Minister, for categories of ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that are not engaged on international voyages, that exemption is granted from the provisions of or pursuant to this Act under conditions to be established thereby”. While noting the Government’s indication that so far there is no need to make use of this provision, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any determination made in the future under Article II, paragraph 6.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Substantial equivalence. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information in relation to substantially equivalent measures adopted with respect to the requirements of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), and certain paragraphs of Standard A3.1. Noting the information provided, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to its comments under each specific requirement of the Convention for which the Netherlands has allowed substantial equivalent provisions.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. Noting a discrepancy between the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I, and the Decree on Working Hours in Transport with respect to the period that should be considered as “night”, the Committee requested clarification from the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the DMLC, Part I, has been amended to ensure conformity with the requirement of the Decree on Working Hours in Transport that young seafarers shall have a rest period of at least 12 hours in each period of 24 successive hours, of which at least nine hours are uninterrupted and in which the period between midnight and 5 a.m. has been included. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether the prohibition of hazardous work for young seafarers is implemented without exceptions or whether such work may be allowed under adult supervision. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that, while the Working Conditions Decree specifically prohibits seafarers under the age of 18 from carrying out certain types of works presenting special risk of accident or of detrimental effects to their health or well-being, as determined in articles 4.105 (biological agents) and 6.27, other types of work that could potentially be dangerous or unhealthy are not strictly prohibited (e.g. Articles 3.45, 3.46 (work posts), 4.106 (dangerous goods)). These types of work are subject to a risk assessment, as provided for under article 1.36. They are also subject to expert supervision as provided for by article 1.37, paragraph 2, if it appears from the risk inventory and evaluation of risks that young employees must perform work to which specific dangers are attached, particularly for occupational accidents as a result of lack of work experience, not being able to properly assess dangers and the non-completion of the young employee’s mental or physical development. The Committee considers that the situation is in conformity with Standard A1.1 and takes into account Guideline B4.3.10. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure compliance with Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that two situations have to be distinguished: (i) first, regarding recruitment services, given that they are only an intermediary and not a party to the employment contract, it is not necessary to foresee a system of protection because if the employment service fails to fulfil its services, no contract will be established between the seafarer and the employer. In this case, a seafarer is free to seek the services of a private employment service and if this private employment service fails to deliver, the seafarer can abandon their services without costs; (ii) the second situation concerns placement services by temporary working agencies which put a person at the disposal of a third party (intaker). In this case, national provisions were adopted, as a security, to ensure protection for seafarers who are temporary employees aboard a ship flying the Dutch flag. Therefore, the intaker (the shipowner) is responsible for various duties, if the employer, in that case the employment agency, fails to meet its obligations (article 7:693 CC); and (iii) articles 8:211, b CC and 8:216 CC provide protection with respect to claims arising from sea-employment contracts regarding remuneration, salary or rewards, which are recoverable. First, the Committee recalls that the Convention establishes the same obligations for recruitment and placements services. Both kind of agencies should therefore be required to have a system of protection to compensate seafarers for monetary loss. Second, while noting that a system of protection was established to cover cases in which seafarers incur in monetary loss as a result of the failure of a temporary working agency to meet its obligations to them, the Committee notes that there is no reference to measures put in place to compensate seafarers when the monetary loss results from the failure of the relevant shipowner. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), requires that insurance or an equivalent appropriate measure must also be in place to compensate seafarers for monetary loss they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service “or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them”. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to the obligation under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), both for employment services and temporary working agencies.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 6. Recruitment and placement. Supervision of services. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 6, under which the competent authority shall closely supervise and control all seafarer recruitment and placement services operating in its territory. The Government indicates that the Act on Placement of Workers by Intermediaries stipulates, inter alia, that an employer who makes available workforce for remuneration must be registered as a lender in the Commercial Register of the Chamber of Commerce. A lender who is not registered in the Commercial Register of the Chamber of Commerce will be fined, and so are intakers who do business with a lender who is not registered. The Government further indicates that the temporary work agency sector has set up a certification system for temporary employment agencies. A certification guarantees the intaker (shipowner) that the temporary employment agency complies with its contractual agreements with the temporary agency workers. The Committee also notes, as stated in the instructions to Recognized Organizations (RO) – document ItoRO No. 22 – Maritime Labour Convention 2006 – that ROs shall verify that the recruitment and placement service/temporary employment agency has been audited with a positive result, by one of the six ROs authorized by the Dutch Administration to ensure compliance of the Recruitment and Placement services with Regulation 1.4. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. Noting that the Netherlands has adopted a substantially equivalent measure allowing seafarers’ employment agreements (SEA) to be signed by the employer, including a temporary employment agency, and not by the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner as required by Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), the Committee requested the Government to provide further explanations in this regard, in line with Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) in practice the shipowner is not always the employer, for instance in the case of a temporary employment agency. According to Dutch law, the employer has to sign the employment agreement because he is party to that contract. If the shipowner is the employer and party to the agreement, he has to sign the contract; (ii) according to the provisions of Dutch law on the seafarers’ employment agreement, the person who is regarded as the employer has to fulfil the duties and responsibilities under the Convention, which are set out in Chapter 12 of Book 7 of the Civil Code. The “open” definition of seafarers’ employment agreement implies that the duties and responsibilities of the Convention are applicable to any entity that is to be regarded as employer of the seafarer, whether it is the shipowner or not. The employer is responsible for honouring the obligations in the employment agreement, in particular those relating to the payment of wages and allowances and social protection obligations. The shipowner is liable for other obligations which are of concern to the shipowner rather than to the land-based outside employer as set out in the Seafarers Act (manning and decent and secure accommodation and recreational facilities), without however being part of the employment agreement; (iii) the Government has adopted substantial equivalent measures to ensure that, as a security, in case the employer who is not the shipowner fails to fulfil its obligations towards the seafarer under articles 706 to 709 (wages), 717 to 720 (leave, repatriation, seafarer compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering), 734 to 734l (financial consequences of sickness, injury or death), the shipowner shall nonetheless be liable for these obligations, as provided for in article 7:693 CC (in the case of a temporary employment agency) and article 7:738. This measure is covered by article 69d(2) of the Seafarers Act with respect to the obligations of the managing owner. Recalling the importance of the basic legal relationship that the Convention establishes between the seafarer and the person defined as “shipowner” under Article II of the Convention and the fact that under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1 (a), 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 the measures adopted by the Government cannot be considered as substantially equivalent to these requirements of the Convention. Furthermore, seafarers might not be in a position to identify who is the shipowner at the time of signing the SEA and thereby be fully informed of all the circumstances related to the living and working conditions on board. Furthermore, the situation of temporary working agencies and managing owners has been taken into account by the Convention which establishes, under Article II(I)(j), that the shipowner has the responsibility for the operation of the ship and takes the duties and responsibilities imposed on them in accordance with the Convention. The purpose of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), is therefore that seafarers do not have to deal with more than one person or entity with respect to their working and living conditions. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to ensure full compliance with Standards A2.1, paragraph 1(a), ensuring by the signature of the contract that the shipowner takes responsibility for ensuring conformity of all conditions with the requirements of the MLC, 2006, independently of the person of “employer” from the perspective of contract law.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b). Seafarers’ employment agreement. Examination and advice before signing. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on how effect is given to Regulation 2.1 (right of seafarers to have an opportunity to examine and seek advice on the agreement before signing). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the principle laid down in article 7:611 of the Civil Code, that the employer is obliged to act as a good employer is also applicable in the pre-contractual phase and that, as a security, a contract can be annulled if it was performed under the influence of threat, fraud or abuse of circumstances (article 3:44 of the Civil Code). Furthermore, under article 6:228 of the Civil Code an agreement can be declared void if it was concluded under the influence of error and, if the employee would not have agreed to the contract if the presentation had been correct. Under this principle, there is an obligation of diligence for employers that requires them to duly inform their (future) employees of their rights and duties. The Committee notes Platform Maritiem’s observation that the inclusion in the law of a preventive obligation, such as one provided for under article 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Decree on Claims of Seafarers and Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers is more effective than a provision that offers seafarers protection after the fact, in the case that they did not enter freely into an agreement with sufficient understanding of their rights and responsibilities. The Committee notes that article 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Decree on Claims of Seafarers and Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers does require that the recruitment and placement services shall inform seafarers of their rights and their obligations as mentioned in the SEA before or during the process of entering into service and take the necessary steps to enable seafarers to study their employment agreement before and after signing. The Committee observes that no similar provisions exist for seafarers who do not enter into an agreement through recruitment and placement services. Recalling that Standard A2.1, paragraph 1, expressly requires Members to adopt laws and regulations to comply with the requirements set out in the same paragraph, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee requested further information with respect to the implementation of Standard A2.3, paragraph 6, related to the division of hours of rest into no more than two periods, one of which shall be at least six hours in length. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Dutch legislation does not allow to split the ten hours of rest into more than two periods (one of which must have the minimum length of six hours). The Committee observes however that the Annexes to the DMLC, Part I, still refer to the interpretation of article 6.5.2 of the Working Hours Decree Transport according to which, rest may be divided into more than two periods if one of the periods includes an uninterrupted rest for at least six hours. The Committee observes that Platform Maritiem suggested that the DMLC, Part I should be amended in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to revise the Annexes of the DMLC Part I, so as to dissipate any misunderstanding concerning the fact that hours of rest should be divided into no more than two periods as required by Standard A2.3, paragraph 6.

Finally, the Committee noted from the annexes to the DMLC, Part I, that “Under Dutch law it is allowed to operate ships under a two-watch system, including 6-on/6-off”. It recalled that Members should take measures to avoid infringements of the work or rest hour requirements that result from additional work which officers have to perform outside their watchkeeping routine. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that article 6.5:7 of the Decree on Working Hours in Transport (Arbeidstijdenbesluit vervoer) only allows derogations from the hours of work and rest in cases of emergency situations. The Government further states that this happens only incidentally and when it happens, sufficient compensatory rest has to be given. The Committee also observes that article 4(7) of the Seafarers Act provides that the master shall organize work and the watch schedule such that the watchkeeping staff has had sufficient rest and is otherwise fit to serve at the beginning of the watch. The Committee notes this information.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Financial security in the event of abandonment. The Committee requested the Government to provide information with respect to the kind of financial security which is required from ships flying its flag. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the costs of repatriation are covered by insurances and that, if the repatriation of a seafarer on a Dutch ship in a foreign port is necessary, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment shall discuss the matter with the Dutch organizations of shipowners and seafarers to find the best solution. The Government provided a certificate of insurance in respect of seafarer repatriation costs and liabilities, as an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued as proof of financial security. The Committee notes that articles 737, paragraph 2, and 738a–738d of the Civil Code set the requirements for financial security in accordance with the 2014 amendments and that this has been reflected in the Annexes to the DMLC, Part I. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

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, according to section 7:718, paragraph 4, of the Civil Code, the right to repatriation lapses if the seafarer has not made his or her wish to repatriation known to the captain within two days after one of the situations provided for in section 7:718 occurred. Recalling that paragraph 8 of Guideline B2.5.1 provides that “the entitlement to repatriation may lapse if the seafarers concerned do not claim it within a reasonable period of time to be defined by national laws or regulations or collective agreements”, the Committee requested the Government to clarify the basis for its decision that exceeding the two-day period from the time when the seafarer is entitled to be repatriated could, in this regard, justify the loss of the seafarer’s right to repatriation. The Committee notes that the Government’s indication that the decision is based on the urgent character of situations calling for repatriation and that it is in the interest of both parties to know within a short time whether the seafarer will invoke his right or not. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that article 7:718, paragraph 4, CC provides that a longer period may be agreed to by collective bargaining agreement or regulation by or on behalf of a competent authority. The Government further indicates that the period of two days was stipulated after consultation and agreement by the Dutch organizations of shipowners and seafarers and that this period of two days is not applicable in case the condition of the seafarer prevents to have him repatriated. The Committee notes this information.

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted with respect to vocational guidance, education and training of seafarers in application of Standard A2.8, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science include Maritime Education and Training offered through senior secondary vocational education curricula and through the higher professional education curriculum. The Committee also notes that the Dutch Maritime Strategy, 2015–2025, was adopted in 2015 providing a comprehensive framework for the government-wide policy for the maritime sector. The strategy develops initiatives aiming in particular at encouraging the choice for maritime professions, as well as retaining the current personnel offering them development opportunities and career prospects. The Committee further notes Platform Maritiem’s observations that, while acknowledging the measures in place with respect to vocational guidance, education and training of seafarers, it considers that the Government should take a more supportive position towards vocational education and employment protection for Dutch professionals in the maritime sector. Noting that the Maritime strategy of the Netherlands is an ongoing process, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the progress made in this regard.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 1. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Legislation. The Committee requested the Government to explain how effect is given to the provisions of Standard A3.1. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government which is also included in the DMLC, Part I, and its Annexes. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Noting that substantially equivalent provisions have been adopted with respect to certain requirements relating to sleeping rooms of Standard A3.1 (floor areas and location above the load line in passenger and special purpose ships), the Committee requested the Government to provide further information in this regard. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government with respect to the compensating measures adopted to ensure that they are substantially equivalent and that they are conducive to the general purpose of Standard A3.1 to provide seafarers with decent accommodation. The Government indicates that the substantial equivalent provisions were adopted in close consultation with the social partners. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c). Medical care on board and ashore. Right to visit a doctor or dentist in ports of call. The Committee noted that section 7:734(a) of the Civil Code provides that while working on board a seafarer has a right to adequate medical care at no cost for the seafarer. Noting that this provision does not however explicitly refer to the right of a seafarer to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delays in ports of call, where practicable, as set out under paragraph 1(c) of Standard A4.1, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification as to how effect is given to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 4(10) of the Seafarers Act which provides that the permission of the master is not required for abandoning the ship in a port of call for consulting, if possible, a doctor or dentist. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee noted that section 7:734(a) and (b) of the Civil Code provide that the right to medical care and treatment, as well as the right to full payment of wages in case of illness “ends when the seafarer reaches his country of residence”. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether shipowners are required: (a) to continue to defray the expense of medical care after the sick or injured seafarers have returned home at the termination of their employment for at least 16 weeks or until recovery or until such time as the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character; and (b) to pay wages in whole or in part as prescribed by national laws or regulations or as provided for in collective agreements from the time when the seafarers are repatriated or landed until their recovery or, if earlier, until they are entitled to cash benefits under the legislation of the Member concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed explanations concerning seafarers who are resident in the Netherlands. In this regard, a seafarer who returns to the Netherlands receives medical care under the Health Insurance Act (Zvw) or under the Long-term Care Act (Wlz). Seafarers ordinarily resident in the Netherlands are also insured by the Dutch employee insurance schemes (werknemersverzekeringen), covering employees, if they work for an employer situated in the Netherlands, including the Unemployment Benefit Act (WW), Incapacity to work schemes (Sickness Act (ZW), Act for Work and Income (WIA)) and maternity scheme (Labour and Care Act (Wazo). The Committee understands that the shipowner’s liability is limited given that, once seafarers resident in the Netherlands return home, the liability of the shipowner is taken over by the legal social insurance schemes. For seafarers insured on account of a member of the European Union, Regulation (EC) 883/04 is applicable and therefore medical care is provided at the cost of the State whose legislation is applicable, by the state of residence or stay. Finally, seafarers who are not insured under the Health Insurance Act/Long-term Care Act, or the Sickness Act or under a corresponding EU Member State legislation are covered by the provisions of articles 7:734d–734k CC. The Committee notes however Platform Maritiem’s observation that it would like to consult with the Government on a further specification of the obligation to reimburse the medical costs of sick seafarers who return to their home country. The Committee notes these explanations and requests the Government to provide up-dated information with respect to any further developments.

Regulation 4.2, Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8 to 14, and Standard A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. The Committee notes that the Government has submitted an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued with respect to the financial security that must be provided by shipowners to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard (Standard A4.2, paragraph 1(b)). The Committee notes that articles 738e CC and 738f CC set the requirements for financial security in accordance with the 2014 amendments and that this has been reflected in the Annexes to the DMLC, Part I. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. Noting Platform Maritiem’s concerns on the development of seafarer welfare facilities in the country, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to promote the development of seafarer welfare facilities in Dutch ports. The Government indicates that it is currently in contact with the Nederlandse zeevarendencentrale (a foundation in which a number of welfare organizations cooperate nationwide) which is studying further possible action to respond as much as possible to the welfare of seafarers in Dutch ports. The Government indicates that a study was presented in June 2017 and that parties agreed to continue exploring the possibilities to contribute primarily to the prevention of psychological problems of seafarers who are dealing with long-term absence from home, or related to bullying or undesirable behaviour towards seafarers. The Committee also notes Platform Maritiem’s observation that, as agreed during the consultation of 11 September 2017, the Government, on the basis of its responsibility under the MLC, 2006, in the field of seafarer welfare, will organize a meeting with stakeholders to initiate a dialogue on optimizing seafarers’ welfare in Dutch ports. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made towards improving seafarers’ welfare facilities in the country.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraphs 1 and 2. Social security. Branches. The Committee noted that, in the declaration made at the time of ratification (in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraph 10), the Government had not indicated employment injury benefit as one of the branches of social security provided to seafarers. Noting the Government’s indication that all branches of social security are covered, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications as to whether, and under which framework, employment injury benefits are provided to seafarers. The Committee notes the extensive information provided by the Government in this regard.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on whether seafarers ordinarily resident in the Netherlands working on ships flying the flag of another country are provided with social security protection, as required under Regulation 4.5 and the Code, both in the presence and absence of bilateral or multilateral agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that if seafarers are working on board a ship flying the flag of another country and fall under Dutch social security law, they will have the same social security rights as any other citizen falling under Dutch social security. The Government further explains that, in the absence of a bilateral or multilateral agreement, a seafarer ordinarily resident in the Netherlands is in principle insured by the national insurance schemes (volksverzekeringen), covering all residents of the Netherlands. Seafarers ordinarily resident in the Netherlands are also insured by the Dutch employee insurance schemes (werknemersverzekeringen), covering employees, if they work for an employer situated in the Netherlands. This means that they are insured under the Unemployment Benefit Act (WW), incapacity to work schemes (Sickness Act (ZW), Act for Work and Income (WIA)) and maternity scheme (Labour and Care Act (Wazo)). Finally, seafarers who are not insured under the Health Insurance Act/Long-term Care Act, or the Sickness Act or under corresponding EU Member State legislation are covered by the provisions of articles 7:734d–734k CC. The Committee notes this information.

Regulation 5.1.2 and the Code. Recognized organizations. The Committee requested the Government to clarify the legal status of the instructions given to recognized organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the recognized organizations (seven in total) have a specific agreement with the Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate (Agreement of 3 April 2014) between the Administration of the Netherlands and Recognized Organization governing the authorization of statutory survey and certification services of ships registered in the Netherlands. Recognized organizations are formally mandated to inspect and certify on the MLC, 2006, aspects. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and the Code. Inspection and enforcement. The Committee requested clarifications on the measures giving effect to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that article 5.4 of the Seafarers Regulation gives effect to this requirement of the Convention with respect to the obligation that a copy of the inspection report, in the working language of the ship and in English, when the working language is not English and the ship is engaged on international voyages, is given to the master. Upon request, the master gives a copy of the inspection report, as well as of the maritime labour certificate and the DMLC, in English or in the working language of the ship, to officials designated to carry out surveys, inspectors of a port State or representatives of shipowners or seafarers. With respect to the requirement that a copy of the inspection report be posted on the ship’s noticeboard and that a copy be sent to seafarers’ representatives upon their request, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the next review of the Seafarers Regulation, a sentence will be added to ensure that a copy of the inspection report shall also be posted on the ship’s noticeboard. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.