Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1991)

Article 2(a)(i). Safety standards – Standards of competency. The Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend section 11 of the Regulations on Certification of the Members of Crews of Seagoing Ships, approved by resolution No. 900 of 4 August 1999, to ensure that a derogation from the certification requirements may only be granted to a master, a chief engineer, a navigating officer in charge of a watch, and an engineering officer in charge of a watch in circumstances of force majeure. In the absence of the Government’s reply, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate how substantial equivalence is ensured with Article 3(2) of the Officers’ Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 (No. 53).

Article 2(a)(iii). Shipboard conditions of employment – Articles of agreement. The Committee has been commenting for a number of years on the legislation in force with respect to the work record book. More concretely, section 66 of the Labour Code, as last amended in 2006, provides that the work record book will specify, among other things, the grounds for termination of the employment agreement. The Committee draws the Government’s attention once more to Articles 14 and 5 of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22), which provide that an entry made in the document issued to the seafarer and the list of the crew in case of the termination or rescission of the agreement should merely state the fact that the seaman had been discharged and not the grounds for such discharge. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that its legislation is substantially equivalent to the standards of Articles 5 and 14(1) of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22).

Article 2(b). Effective jurisdiction. The Committee notes the comments of the Federation of Maritime Transport Trade Unions (FPRMT), dated 12 September 2011, according to which the Government fails to exercise effective jurisdiction over Russian-flagged ships in terms of enforcing legislation on the employment of seafarers. The FPRMT alleges that in the absence of any accountability for such failure, there have been flagrant violations of seafarers’ rights on board Russian seagoing vessels, especially in bareboat chartering or similar arrangements and other joint operations between Russian and foreign partners where the laws of the Russian Federation are simply not applied. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of the FPRMT.

Article 2(d)(ii). Complaints with respect to engagement of seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that complaints of Russian seafarers engaged onboard foreign-flagged vessels are subject to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts, unless otherwise stipulated in the employment contract agreed with the foreign shipowner. However, the Committee has been asking the Government to indicate any arrangements for reporting complaints in connection with the engagement in the Russian Federation of seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country to the competent authority of such country. In the absence of the Government’s reply, the Committee would appreciate receiving further explanations on this point.

Articles 2(f) and 4 and Part IV of the report form. Ship inspections – Practical application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that virtually all Russian ships are obliged to undergo inspection when they arrive at home port, that inspections consist of technical checks as well as an examination of seafarers’ working and living conditions and applicable collective wage agreements, and that ship inspections are carried out by the respective inspectorates, state labour inspectors, technical labour inspectors of the seafarer’s union and the water transport workers’ union and inspectors of the International Transport Workers Federation. The Committee further notes that according to the Paris MOU inspection database, in the period 2005–11, over 5,340 inspections of foreign-flagged ships were carried out in ports of the Russian Federation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up-to-date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, the number of seafarers covered by the relevant legislation, statistics on flag State and port State inspections, the number and nature of any complaints considered and the action taken, copies of any standardized inspections checklist or inspection report form, and copies of official publications, such as activity reports of the maritime administration.

Finally, the Committee recalls that Convention No. 147 together with 36 other international maritime labour Conventions is revised by the MLC, 2006. It also recalls that the notion of substantial equivalence has been incorporated and further defined in Article VI(3) and (4) of the MLC, 2006, while an innovatory and comprehensive inspection regime is established in Title 5 of the Convention. In this latter respect, the Committee wishes to highlight the adoption by an ILO tripartite experts’ meeting in September 2008 of the Guidelines for flag State inspections and the Guidelines for Port State Control Officers, as an essential aspect of ensuring widespread harmonized implementation of the MLC, 2006. While noting the Government’s statement that preparations are currently under way for the ratification of the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments in this respect.