Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188) - Thailand (Ratification: 2019)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188). The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), received on 20 September 2021 and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government and the social partners to implement the Convention, while drawing attention to the following issues that still need to be addressed. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of fishers’ rights as laid out in the Convention. The Committee refers to the resolution adopted by the Governing Body in its 340th Session (GB.340/Resolution) concerning maritime labour issues and COVID-19 disease, which calls on Member States to take measures to address the adverse impacts of the pandemic on fishers’ rights. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic, fishers in Thailand have been discriminated against, forced to stay at sea for long periods of time without pay, restricted to jetties when in port, and, in some cases, fenced in with barbed wire by police. The ITF indicates that due to border restrictions, many fishers faced difficulties re-entering Thailand, which have resulted in undermanned vessels and longer hours of work, increasing the risk of accidents. The ITF also indicates that in-person Port In Port Out (PIPO) inspections have been greatly reduced due to the pandemic, resulting in less accountability for fishing vessel owners regarding non-compliance with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that PIPO inspections will be normalized as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic situation improves and that a multidisciplinary body called Flying Inspection Team (FIT) has been established in order to ensure the effectiveness of those inspections. The Government further states that, as a measure to control the pandemic, it had to close the borders and isolate infected people for treatment, and that, in this context, some fishers chose to stay in the vessels. The Committee is of the view that it is precisely at times of crisis, like the one created by the COVID-19 pandemic, that the protective coverage of the Convention assumes its full significance and needs to be most scrupulously applied. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and to provide information on any measure adopted in relation with the COVID-19 pandemic that can affect the implementation of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any case of violation of fishers’ rights in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that has been reported to the competent authorities. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the normalization of the PIPO inspections and on the work of the FIT.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Fishers. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not contain the definition of “skipper”. Section 3 of the Notification of the Marine Department No. 216/2562: Manpower on Fishing Vessel Criteria and Methods states that the definition of “fishing labourer” does not include “captain” and “vessel operator” according to the Thai Water Navigation Law. The Committee recalls that the Convention provides that except as otherwise provided, it applies to all fishers and all fishing vessels engaged in commercial fishing operations (Article 2(1)) and that the skipper is the “fisher” having command of a fishing vessel (Article 1(e) and (l)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to the Convention to all fishers, including skippers.

Article 3. Exclusions. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 5 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015), which defines commercial fishing as “fishing operations using a fishing vessel of a size from ten gross tonnage or more or a fishing vessel installed with an engine with unit of horse powers as prescribed by the Minister” and artisanal fishing as “fishing operations in coastal seas in which a fishing vessel is used or in which a fishing gear is used without a fishing vessel, excluding commercial fishing”. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, pursuant to Article 5, the possibility to use gross tonnage in place of length (L) or length overall (LOA) as the basis for measurement only concerns the implementation of Annex III. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to section 5 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), the following categories of fishing are excluded from the scope of application of the Convention: (1) subsistence fishing; (2) freshwater fishing; (3) recreational fishing; and (4) fishing in accordance with the size of vessel or fisher as prescribed in a Notification by the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The Government indicates that, to date, no notifications have been issued in this regard. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that during meeting No. 1/2018 of the Legislative Drafting Subcommittee to support the ratification of the Convention, it was suggested that artisanal fishing be excluded from the scope of application and that artisanal fishing operators wishing to sell aquatic products at the ports regulated by the Department of Fisheries would need to register as commercial fishing. Noting the reasons provided by the Government for such exclusions and the information on the consultations held, the Committee requests it to provide detailed and up-dated statistic information on the number of fishers who are working: 1) in the artisanal fishing sector; 2) on board fishing vessel of a size of less than ten gross tonnage; and 3) on fishing vessels that are engaged in commercial fishing operations on freshwater, like rivers, lakes or canals. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on any notification adopted by the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives providing further exclusions. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether artisanal fishers (including artisanal fishing operators wishing to sell aquatic products at the ports regulated by the Department of Fisheries) are included in the scope of application of the national measures adopted in order to give effect to the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the equivalent protection provided to all the categories of fishers that have been excluded from the scope of application of the national measures adopted in order to give effect to the Convention.

Article 4. Progressive implementation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that its legislation implements all provisions of the Convention and therefore it does not plan to make use of the flexibility foreseen in Article 4 of progressively implementation. However, the Committee also takes note that the Government indicates that some provisions of a few laws and regulations could be progressively implemented, including provisions related to the medical certificate, risk evaluation, fisher’s work agreement as well as benefits and compensation. Likewise, the Government indicates that representatives of employers and workers organizations considered that the implementation of such provisions needs time for adjustment. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, where it is not immediately possible for a Member to implement all of the measures provided for in the Convention owing to special problems of a substantial nature in the light of insufficiently developed infrastructure or institutions, the Member may, in accordance with a plan drawn up in consultation, progressively implement all or some of the provisions foreseen in Article 4. Noting the reasons provided by the Government for such progressive implementation, the Committee requests it to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged in order to give full effect to all provisions of the Convention that are subject to progressive implementation and to provide a plan to that purpose.

Article 5. Scope. Basis for measurement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the length overall (LOA) is used in place of length (L) as the basis of measurement, and that gross tonnage is also used as a basis for measurement equivalent to LOA. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), which uses LOA when referring to the inspection certificate on the compliance with living and working conditions (section 14) and gross tonnage when referring to accommodation (sections 13 and 22). However, the Committee notes that several laws and regulations use gross tonnage as the only basis of measurement, for instance, the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) and the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health, and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016). The Committee recalls that member States shall, for the purpose of the Convention, use L as the basis for measurement. The competent authority, after consultation, may decide to use LOA in place of L as the basis for measurement, in accordance with the equivalence set out in Annex I. Gross tonnage may not be used as a basis for measurement except for the implementation of Annex III and under the conditions specified (Article 5).  The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Article 5.

Articles 10–12. Medical examination. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 8 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) which states that “permission under the law on navigation in Thai waters, the law on foreigners’ working management and the law on fisheries, in respect of the working of fishing labourers, may be granted only in the case where the applicant for permission has a medical certificate indicating readiness, as regards health, for working on board a fishing vessel, including hearing and visual health as well”. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not indicate whether such obligation for permission applies to all fishers, under the meaning of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government´s reference to different relevant regulations and notifications, which require a medical certificate or examination for certain categories of fishers and for fishers working on board certain types of fishing vessels. Considering the various concurrent rules in this regard, the Committee, therefore, requests the Government to confirm that all fishers, as defined by the Convention, are not allowed to work on board a fishing vessel without a valid medical certificate attesting to fitness to perform their duties and to indicate whether any exemptions may be granted and on which grounds. Moreover, noting that the provisions indicated by the Government do not reflect the detailed requirements of Articles 10 to 12 on medical examination (for example, right to a further examination and reference in the medical certificate to the conditions foreseen in Article 12(1)(b)), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full conformity with these Articles of the Convention and to clarify what is the period of validity of the medical certificate for fishers. Additionally, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of all legislation, regulations, or any other measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to Articles 10 to 12, including the Annexes of the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on Medical Examination and Insurance for Migrant Workers (No. 2), B.E. 2563 (2020).

Articles 13 and 14. Manning and hours of rest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication of section 5 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) which states that: (1) an employer shall provide a rest period of not less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period and not less than 77 hours in any 7-day period for an employee; and (2) in case of emergency or necessity, the employer may require the employee to work during the rest period, provided that the employer allocates the rest period without delay and prepares the evidence of such rest period. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers regularly report limited hours of rest, which increases injuries and accidents on board. Moreover, the Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Notification of the Marine Department No. 216/2562 regarding Criteria and Methods to Determine Manpower on Fishing Vessels, which sets the maximum manpower for fishing vessels in accordance with the size of the fishing vessel and the types of fishing gears used (section 4). The Committee further notes that, in relation to the requirement that fishing vessels be under the control of a competent skipper, the Government refers to the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Requirement for Issuing Certification of Fishing Vessel Inspection for Vessel Permit and Registration B.E. 2561 (2018), but does not provide a copy of such rule. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government do not reflect the detailed requirements of Articles 13(a) and 14(1)(a) on manning levels, the Committee asks the Government to indicate any measure adopted or envisaged to give full effect to these requirements of the Convention and to provide detailed information on the criteria and the procedure established to determine the minimum level of manning, including information on the fishers’ qualifications requirements. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Requirement for Issuing Certification of Fishing Vessel Inspection for Vessel Permit and Registration B.E. 2561 (2018). In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comment on the observations raised by the ITF in relation to hours of rest provided to fishers.

Article 15. Crew list. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 82 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) which states that, before taking the fishing vessel out to the sea, the owner or skipper of the fishing vessel shall submit the crew list to the competent official at the PIPO Control Centre. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the fisher registration form (Por Mor 3 form) provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Crew List Form for Employees in Fishing Work, B.E. 2557 (2014). Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 7 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) which states that “in the case that the employer employs ten employees or more, the employer shall prepare the registration of employees in Thai language and keep it at the workplace of the employer and the employees for the inspection of the labour inspector, and send a copy to the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare or the person assigned by the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare within 30 days after the first day of employment.” The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the requirement of submitting a crew list foreseen in section 82 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) applies to all fishing vessels, regardless of the number of fishers employed by the fishing vessel owner or any other circumstance.

Article 16. Fisher’s work agreement. Annex II. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 49 of the Thai Vessel Act, B.E. 2481 (1938) which states that while a registered Thai vessel is in use, the crew’s work agreement shall be kept on board at all times. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the fishers’ work agreement form (Por Mor 1) provided in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contract for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017). The Committee notes, however, that some particulars required under Annex II of the Convention for instance, the protection that will cover the fisher in the event of sickness, injury, or death in connection with service, and the amount of paid annual leave or the formula used for calculating leave, where applicable, are not included in the aforementioned Notification. Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the Por Mor 1, fishers’ work agreements shall be written in the Thai language. In this respect, the Committee notes that in its observations, the ITF indicates that the fishers members of the Fishers’ Rights Network (FRN) regularly report that fishers are not sure of their actual salary or other work agreement provisions because their work agreement is not written in their own language or is not in their possession. According to the ITF, a recent FRN research, based on surveys of 520 fishers in eight Thai provinces from March to June 2021, revealed that: (1) 87 per cent of fishers in Thailand were not in possession of a copy of their employment contract; (2) 96 per cent of fishers did not completely understand their contract; (3) 33 per cent of fishers who understood their contract stated that working conditions were not in accordance with the terms of the work agreements; and (4) 89 per cent of fishers have not had their contract translated or explained in a language they can understand. The ITF also indicates that fishers report that their passports, work permits, ATM cards, bank books, and other important documents are often held by the captain or vessel owner, which restricts the fishers’ movement as well as the possibility of changing vessels, accessing payments, freely transferring or remitting earnings, and reporting abuse. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that it is developing a work agreement with the relevant provisions in several languages and that work agreements do not remain in the possession of the fishers to prevent loss or damage, but that inspectors check whether such agreements are in the fishers’ accommodation. The Committee requests the Government to report any progress achieved in respect to the new fisher’s work agreement, ensuring that it is comprehensible to them (including to migrant fishers who do not read Thai) and consistent with the provisions contained in Annex II.

Article 17. Fisher’s work agreement. Examination of the terms and records of service. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 7 of the Notification of the Office of the Prime Minister Regarding Issuance of Seabooks in Accordance with the Legislation on Fisheries B.E. 2563 (2020), which states that an appointment shall be made for the negotiation of the fisher’s work agreement between the employer and the migrant worker, accompanied by a labour inspector and an interpreter in order to interview the migrant worker and verify the information foreseen in the agreement. The Committee notes that the Por Mor 1 provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contracts for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017) has a standard sentence which indicates that both the employer and the employee have revised the fisher’s work agreement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that all fishers have an opportunity to seek advice on the terms of the fisher’s work agreement before it is concluded. In this regard, the Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the appointment foreseen in section 7 of the Notification of the Office of the Prime Minister Regarding Issuance of Seabooks in Accordance with the Legislation on Fisheries B.E. 2563 (2020), allows for the migrant fishers to seek advice on the terms of their work agreements. It further requests the Government to provide details about the laws, regulations or other measures adopted or envisaged regarding the maintenance of records concerning the fisher’s work under such an agreement.

Article 21. Repatriation. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on repatriation foreseen in section 9 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act B.E. 2562 (2019), section 15 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) and its amendments, and section 54 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries, B.E. 2558 (2015). The Committee notes that the aforementioned legislation does not refer to the maximum duration of service periods on board after which a fisher is entitled to repatriation (Article 21(3)). In addition to the legislation referred by the Government, the Committee notes that the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) provides for the repatriation of foreigners (sections 50 to 58 and 77). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted or envisaged to set out the maximum service period on board after which a fisher is entitled to repatriation. In the absence of specific information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to explain in detail how it gives full effect to Article 21 with regard to migrant fishers, clarifying whether the aforementioned provisions of the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) apply to fishers.

Article 22(2) and (3)(c). Recruitment and placement. Private services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that private recruitment and placement services are authorized in the country, subject to permission and registration by the Department of Employment. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985), including its section 8(2), which states that the application for, and the issuance of, a license shall be in accordance with the rules, procedures, and conditions as prescribed by the Ministerial Regulations. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the process of bringing in migrant workers to work for employers in Thailand is based on the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) and its amendments, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Thailand and Myanmar, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam. The Government indicated that there are 42,625 workers from such countries working in the fishing industry in Thailand. The Committee finally notes the Government’s indication that the Department of Employment has a mechanism to monitor and provide advice to the recruitment agencies to ensure their compliance with the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985) and its amendments, as well as relevant ministerial regulations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on such mechanism and to indicate whether any ministerial regulation has been adopted pursuant to section 8(2) of the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it gives full effect to Article 22(2) and (3)(c) of the Convention with regard to private services that provide recruitment and placement services for migrant workers and to provide a copy of the abovementioned MoU between Thailand and Myanmar, Lao PDR, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Article 22(3)(a) and (b). Recruitment and placement. Prevention or deterrence of fishers and fees or other charges. The Committee notes that both section 26 of the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985) and section 42 of the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) states that a domestic employment arrangement licensee and the person granted permission for bringing foreigners for working, respectively, are prohibited from demanding or receiving any money or property from a jobseeker other than service charges and expenses. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers are at high risk of debt bondage due to unlawful migration and high broker or document fees. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 22(3)(b) provides that each Member shall, by means of laws, regulations or other measures require that no fees or other charges for recruitment or placement of fishers be borne directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the fishers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that: 1) no fees or other charges for recruitment or placement are borne directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the fishers concerned; and 2) recruitment and placement services, whether public or private, are prohibited from using means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter fishers from engaging for work.

Article 23. Payment of fishers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 10(1) of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), which states that whereas wage is calculated on a monthly, daily or hourly basis, or on the basis of other time periods not exceeding one month, wage shall be paid not less often than once a month unless otherwise agreed in favour of an employee. Moreover, section 10(2) states that shared profits in which an employer has agreed to pay according to the value of the aquatic animals being caught shall be paid according to a mutually agreed payment schedule, but the payment frequency shall not be less frequent than once every three months. In addition, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that many fishers report receiving wages significantly lower than the amount stated in their work agreement, and that fishers members of the FRN regularly report that fishers are not paid for months. In this regard, the Government replied that some fishers choose to have employers buy goods and supplies for them, which is deducted from their wages, causing some to have the impression that they have not received their wages in full. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations made by ITF with respect to fishers not being paid for months.

Article 24. Payment of fishers. Transmission of wages to families. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries (No. 2), B.E. 2561 (2018), which states that the employer shall pay the wages and holidays to the employee through bank transfer, and the expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the employer. The Committee notes, however, that the Por Mor 1 provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contract for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017) has a standard sentence which indicates that the employer agrees to pay wages through bank account transfer for a transaction fee. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that, in most cases, wages are paid in cash rather than monthly bank transfer as required by Thai law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) is in the process of being amended in order to ensure “the transfer of wage and holiday pay to family members of the employee, upon the employee’s request, with the employer bearing the transaction cost”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard and to provide a copy of the amended text once it is adopted.

Articles 26–28. Accommodation and Food. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on accommodation, food and water supply provided for in the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), in the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health, and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016), which applies partially to fishing vessels of 30 gross tonnage or more and partially to fishing vessels of 60 gross tonnage or more, and in the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Conditions relating to Accommodation Standards on Fishing Vessels B.E. 2563 (2020), which applies to new fishing vessels or extensively modified fishing vessels with a deck of 300 gross tonnage or more. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government have their application limited by the gross tonnage of the fishing vessel and do not give full effect to Articles 26 to 28 and to the detailed provisions of Annex III, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure conformity with the various aspects of fishing vessel accommodation mentioned in these provisions of the Convention. Recalling that the food and water shall be provided by the fishing vessel owner at no cost to the fisher unless an applicable collective agreement governing a share system or the fisher’s work agreement provides otherwise (article 27(c)), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to this requirement of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers regularly report cramped sleeping quarters and lack of toilet on board fishing vessels, as well as inadequate food and clean drinking water on board. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that fishing vessels in Thailand are old and have limited space, despite the Government’s efforts to encourage vessel owners to renovate their fleet in order to improve living and working conditions on board. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged in this regard.

Articles 29 and 30. Medical care. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on medical care provided for in the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016), which contains relevant provisions for fishing vessels of 30 gross tonnage or more, and in the Ministerial Regulation concerning Labour Protection in Sea Fishery Work B.E.2557 (2014). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, according to the Rule on Vessel inspection, Procedure and Condition of Certificate of Inspection of Fishing Vessel, B.E. 2558 (2015), which applies to vessels operated by machine, fishing vessels with more than 10 gross tonnage shall be equipped with a radio transceiver. In this regard, the Committee notes that the ITF indicates, in its observations, that fishers regularly report poorly stocked and inaccessible first-aid kits. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government have their application limited by the gross tonnage of the fishing vessel and do not give full effect to Articles 29 and 30, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures conformity with each of the requirements regarding medical care foreseen in these Articles, particularly in relation to Article 29(c) and 30(b), (c), (d), and (e). The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the radio transceiver foreseen in the Rule on Vessel inspection, Procedure and Condition of Certificate of Inspection of Fishing Vessel, B.E. 2558 (2015) ensures communication with persons or services ashore that can provide medical advice, taking into account the area of operation and the length of the voyage.

Articles 31 and 32. Occupational safety and health and accident prevention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on occupational safety and health and accident prevention provided in the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016) and Guidelines for Occupational Safety in Fishing Work by the Bureau of Labour Safety, Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, Ministry of Labour (a copy of which was not provided). The Committee notes, however, that the provisions indicated by the Government do not give full effect to Articles 31 and 32, particularly to Article 31(c), (d), and (e), Article 32(2)(a), and Article 32(3)(b). The Committee also notes that the ITF indicates in its observations that health and safety conditions on board vessels are substandard, and fishers regularly report insufficient protective equipment and poor training. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures conformity with each of the requirements regarding occupational safety and health and accident prevention foreseen in Articles 31 and 32, providing a copy of any national law, regulation, guideline, or other measure adopted in this regard.

Article 33. Occupational safety and health and accident prevention. Risk evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, during vessel inspections, the PIPO Controlling Centres conduct the Risk Assessment for Inspection System developed by the Department of Fisheries, which takes into account the information from its database on fishing vessels and fishers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that risk evaluation in relation to fishing is conducted, as appropriate, with the participation of fishers or their representatives, as provided for in Article 33.

Articles 34 and 35. Social security. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 2 of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour Regarding Provision of Health and Welfare Benefits in Fishing Works B.E. 2562 (2019), which states that employers shall provide: (1) non-work-related health protection; (2) compensation for non-work-related sickness or accident; (3) compensation for non-work-related disability; and (4) compensation for non-work-related death. The Committee notes that, in the case where a fisher is sick or injured from a non-work related reason and is not protected under the law on national health security, vessel owners shall provide the health protection in accordance with the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on health examination and health insurance of migrant workers (section 3). The Government also indicates that, according to sections 7 and 8 of such Notification, employers may choose to provide health and welfare protection (1) by themselves, (2) by purchasing private insurance for fishers (except in case of non-work-related health protection), or (3) by joining the social security scheme. Likewise, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that in the case where fishers are insured under section 33 of the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990), they shall receive the same benefits as the other insured persons, that is: (1) danger or sickness benefit; (2) parturition benefit; (3) infirmity benefit; (4) death benefit; (5) child allowance benefit; (6) old age benefits; and (7) unemployment benefit (section 54). The Committee recalls that Article 34 of the Convention provides that each Member shall ensure that fishers ordinarily resident in its territory, and their dependants to the extent provided in national law, are entitled to benefit from social security protection under conditions no less favourable than those applicable to other workers, including employed and self-employed persons, ordinarily resident in its territory. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number and the categories of fishers (i.e., artisanal fishers, migrant fishers, etc.) that are insured under section 33 of the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). The Committee requests the Government to describe in detail the social security benefits granted to fishers, including fishers working on foreign-flagged vessels ordinarily resident in Thailand. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on Health Examination and Health Insurance of Migrant Workers referred to in section 3 of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour Regarding Provision of Health and Welfare Benefits in Fishing Works B.E. 2562 (2019).

Article 36. Social security. Cooperation. Bilateral and multilateral agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to a study on the development of a bilateral or multilateral Social Security Agreement to promote the portability of social security rights and benefits between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as well as to the Siem Reap Roadmap Toward Labour Ministerial Declaration on the Portability of Social Security Schemes for Migrant Workers in the CLMTV Countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam). The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in this respect.

Articles 38 and 39. Protection in the case of work-related sickness, injury or death. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act B.E. 2537 (1994) and its amendments, which provides protection in case of work-related injury, illness, disability and death and establishes the “Workmen’s Compensation Fund”. The Committee takes note of sections 13 to 25 of such Act, which provide for medical care and monthly compensation in the event of injury or sickness and funeral expenses in case of death. The Committee notes that section 22 states that the employer shall not pay compensation when the injury or sickness: (1) occurred due to the employee’s loss of control because of the ingestion of alcoholic beverages or addiction and (2) was caused willingly by the employee himself or by someone else with his authorization. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 39(2) of the Convention provides that national laws or regulations may permit the exclusion of the liability of the fishing vessel owner only if the injury occurred otherwise than in the service of the vessel or the sickness or infirmity was concealed during engagement, or the injury or sickness was due to wilful misconduct of the fisher. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the exclusion of the liability of the fishing vessel owner in relation to health protection and medical care are only permitted in the cases foreseen in Article 39(2). The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the Workmen's Compensation Act B.E. 2537 (1994) applies to fishers (including migrant fishers), indicating exceptions, if any. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any obstacles that may prevent fishers from being provided with health protection and medical care while employed or engaged or working on a vessel at sea or in a foreign port, and with coverage of expenses of medical care, including related material assistance and support, during medical treatment in a foreign country, until they have been repatriated.

Articles 40 and 41. Compliance and enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) in relation to inspections and corrective orders (section 16) as well as reports on work in fishing results (section 6). In addition, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that the effective implementation and enforcement of the Convention remain a major challenge, particularly in relation to migrant fishers, such as Burmese and Khmer fishers. The ITF indicates that PIPO inspections are superficial and are not carried out thoroughly enough to identify, report and correct violations. In this sense, it indicates that, according to a Thai government report, the PIPO inspected 55,818 fishing vessels in 2020 and 44,322 in 2019, identifying 19 and 20 vessels in violation of labour laws, respectively. At-sea inspections of 842 vessels were carried out in 2020, and one case of labour violation was detected. The ITF affirms that it is unclear to which officer or agency fishers should report violations and that most fishers in the FRN are intimidated by the inspectors and do not trust the inspection process, which often discourages and prevents fishers from effectively reporting violations. It affirms that fishers are not interviewed privately and away from the captain or vessel owner and that there is no interpretation in the fishers’ language during the inspection. The ITF further alleges that PIPO officers are reassigned frequently, which makes it difficult for officers to establish relationships with local fishers, trade unions and civil society organizations with a view to effectively investigating complaints, as well as sharing and updating information. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that PIPO inspections are conducted with the presence of an interpreter and by a multidisciplinary team, which receives complaints and transmits them to the responsible agency for in-depth investigation, enforcement and remedy. The Government also replied that it is willing to work with the FRN and the ITF in case of evidence of violation of fishers’ rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the system established for ensuring compliance with the requirements concerning complaint procedures and appropriate penalties. The Committee further requests the Government to provide an example of a valid document issued by the competent authority stating that the vessel has been inspected by the competent authority, or on its behalf, for compliance with the provisions of the Convention concerning living and working conditions.

Article 43. Compliance and enforcement. Complaints. The Committee notes that, in its reply to the ITF’s observations, the Government indicates that all fishers regardless of their nationality can file a complaint through a hotline, social network platform, civil society organizations, as well as complaint boxes installed at jetties and PIPO Centres. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide details of the existing arrangements for investigating complaints submitted by a fisher, a professional body, an association, a trade union, or, generally, any person with an interest in the safety of the vessel, including an interest in safety or health hazards to the fishers on board, and ensuring that action is taken to remedy any deficiencies found. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on the number of investigations carried following such complaints and on the measures taken as a result. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to describe any port State control measures taken in pursuance of Article 43 and to give information on the implementation of these measures (e.g. number and nature of cases considered and nature of any action taken).

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]