Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Spain (Ratification: 2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), as well as the observations made by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), respectively received on 22 and 29 August 2014. The Committee notes that Spain has previously ratified 22 maritime labour Conventions that were denounced following the entry into force of the MLC, 2006. Following a first review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and (i), 3 and 5 of the Convention. Scope of application. Seafarers and ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article II of the Convention, certain doubts have arisen with regard to the definitions of seafarers and ships, which were resolved pursuant to the Resolution of 18 April 2013 of the Directorate-General for Merchant Shipping. This Resolution provides for a list of workers who are not considered seafarers. The Resolution also includes a definition of seafarer and indicates that even if cadets are technically speaking seafarers, they will only be considered seafarers when they are on board a ship under an apprenticeship contract. The Resolution also determines the ships to which the Convention does not apply, which include, among others, recreational vessels of the sixth and seventh list of the Central Ships Register, as well as ships of the Red Cross.

The Committee further notes that, in its communication of 9 October 2013, the Government indicates that, due to the modification of competencies of the Directorate-General for Merchant Shipping, new definitions of seafarers, shipowners and sheltered waters are being elaborated pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article II of the Convention, that have been submitted for consultation to the relevant organizations of seafarers and shipowners and will be communicated to the ILO’s Director-General. The Committee notes the observations of the CCOO, according to which the Resolution of 18 April 2013 appears to apply the Convention in a narrow way. Referring to the exclusions from the scope of application of the Convention, the trade union indicates that its Maritime Section of the Federation of Citizens Services (FSC) expressed its concern on: (1) the exclusion from the definition of seafarer of catering staff with contracts of short duration which could result in abuses of short-term contracts and thus leave catering staff out of the coverage of the Convention; (2) the limit of three continuous months of work for persons in charge of the protection of the ship and its crew in order to be considered as seafarers; (3) the possible exclusion of cadets from the definition of seafarers; (4) the exclusion of ships of traditional build; (5) the exclusion of ships of the Red Cross, as the Convention applies both to private and public ships; (6) the exclusion of recreational vessels of the sixth list, considering that they are pleasure or sport vessels that are exploited in a lucrative way and carry out a commercial activity; (7) any exclusions from the scope of application due to the tonnage, e.g., tugboats of 150 gross tonnage in service from Spain to ports of other States. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the CCOO. It also requests it to provide information on any definitions that are adopted or determinations that are made with respect to the categories of persons who are considered seafarers and with respect to ships, as provided for in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article II of the Convention after consultation with the organizations of seafarers and shipowners.

Special Register of Ships and Shipping Companies in the Canary Islands. The Committee notes that Supplementary Provision Sixteen of the State Ports and Merchant Marine Act – Royal Legislative Decree No. 2/2011, establishes a Special Register of Ships and Shipping Companies situated in the Canary Islands. It also notes that under paragraph 7 of this provision, the conditions of work and social security of foreign workers employed on board vessels registered on this Special Register are subject to the law agreed upon by the parties on condition that such law complies with ILO standards or, failing such indication, are subject to Spanish labour and social security law without prejudice to the application of European Community law and of international Conventions to which Spain is a party. The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all “seafarers” as defined in paragraph 1(f) of Article II of the Convention that is, all persons who are employed or are engaged or work in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies, regardless of their nationality. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the provisions of the Convention apply to foreign seafarers who work on board ships registered in the Special Register of the Canary Islands, and that they are granted conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed by seafarers working on board other ships to which the Convention applies, when the choice of law clause is used in their employment contracts. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the social security coverage provided under the Convention is based on the principle of residence and not on that of nationality. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that foreign workers who are resident in Spain and work on board ships registered in the Special Register of the Canary Islands enjoy social security coverage not less favourable than that enjoyed by other seafarers residing in Spain.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee notes the Government’s information that labour intermediation may be carried out by both public and private employment services. It also notes that under section 21.1 of Act No. 56/2003, as amended by Act No. 35/2010, placement agencies are profit or no profit public or private entities, which undertake labour intermediation activities, either collaborating with the public employment service or autonomously and in coordination with the public employment service. The Government indicates that placement agencies shall be authorized by the public employment service according to requirements established by regulations. The Committee also notes that section 22 of Act No. 56/2003 expressly provides that intermediary services performed by placement agencies must be provided free of charge and may not involve any counterpart, while section 18 of the same Act qualifies fee charging for placing workers as a very serious violation. Noting that the Government provides no information on the implementation of the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of Standard A1.4 (keeping registers, qualification of seafarers, protection of seafarers in foreign ports, managing complaints, establishing a system of protection by way of insurance to compensate seafarers), the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard. It also requests the Government to provide statistical data on the number of seafarers hired through placement agencies. The Committee notes that, with regard to the implementation of paragraph 9 of Standard A1.4 of the Convention – the obligation to ensure that shipowners on ships flying the Spanish flag, who use seafarer recruitment and placement services based in countries in which the Convention does not apply ensure, as far as practicable, that those services meet the requirements of Standards A1.4 – the Government indicates that the labour inspection monitors the measures taken by shipowners based on the information included in the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part II. Noting that the DMLC, Part II, does not contain information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it implements this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. The Committee notes that under section 8 of the Statute of Workers’ Rights, contracts of employment that must be stipulated in writing are, inter alia, contracts for the accomplishment of a specific task, contracts for those hired in Spain for performing work abroad and contracts for a fixed-term duration of more than four weeks. Under section 8(5) of the Statute of Workers’ Rights, when the duration of the employment contract is more than four weeks, the employer should inform the employee of the essential elements of the employment contract when these elements are not included in the written contract. Royal Decree No. 1659/1998 implements this section. The Committee notes the Government’s information, confirmed by the example of Part II of the DMLC supplied, that seafarers working on board should be employed through a written employment agreement. The Committee also notes the example of the seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA) provided by the Government. Noting, however, that the applicable legislation does not require a written agreement in case of contracts for fixed-term duration of less than four weeks and for contracts for an indefinite period, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not allow for any exception to the principle of written SEAs and provides for the adoption of laws and regulations to comply with the requirements set out by paragraph 1 of Standard A2.1. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure in law and in practice that all seafarers’ employment agreements are in writing (paragraph 1 of Regulation 2.1, and paragraph 1(a) of Standard A2.1) and contain the elements listed under paragraph 4 of Standard A2.1.

Examining and seeking advice on the agreement before signing. The Committee notes that, with regard to the provisions of the Convention aimed at ensuring that seafarers have an opportunity to review and seek advice on terms and conditions in the agreement and that they have easy access, on board, to information on the conditions of their employment (paragraph 2 of Regulation 2.1 and paragraphs 1(b) and (d) of Standard A2.1), the Government refers to the direct application of the Convention and indicates that these elements are checked by inspectors and included in their checklist. The Committee recalls that paragraph 1 of Standard A2.1 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 laws and regulations which give effect to paragraph 2 of Regulation 2.1, and to paragraphs 1(b) and (d) and 2 of Standard A2.1.

Record of employment: Prohibition of statements as to the quality of the seafarers’ work or as to their wages. In its comments under the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22), the Committee noted that section 34(2) of the Order of 18 January 2000 on the dispatch of ships, which provides that the master must enter into the seafarer’s maritime registration document (libreta de inscripción maritima) the reason for the termination of his/her employment agreement, may be inconsistent with Article 5(2) of Convention No. 22 which sets out that an employment record should not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer’s work or as to his/her wages (provision incorporated in paragraph 3 of Standard A2.1 of the MLC, 2006). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the reason for the termination of the seafarer’s agreement does not appear in the maritime registration document.

Conditions of termination and periods of notice. With regard to periods of notice, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 49, 51, 52 and 55 of the Statute of Workers’ Rights. The Committee observes that these provisions are applicable to workers in general but do not necessarily take into account the specific circumstances of seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether and how the need of the seafarer to terminate the contract without penalty on shorter notice or without notice for compassionate or other urgent reasons has been taken into account (paragraph 6 of Standard A2.1). The Government is further requested to provide information on consultations held with respect to the determination of the period of notice as required by paragraph 5 of Standard A2.1.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. Short breaks. In its previous comments under Article 2(c) of the Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180) – consolidated in the MLC, 2006 – the Committee noted the Government’s information that during short breaks workers remain in their workplace and at the disposal of the employer and that consequently these breaks are not included in hours of rest. However, it also noted that under section 34(4) of the Statute of Workers’ Rights, breaks are only counted as being part of hours of work if provided for by collective agreement or in the employment contract. The Committee recalls that, under paragraph 1(b) of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006, short breaks are not included in hours of rest, which are defined as time outside hours of work. Hence, short breaks must count as hours of work, regardless of whether there is a provision to this effect in the applicable collective agreement or employment contract. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the application of this requirement of the Convention.

Application to masters. In its previous comments on Convention No. 180, the Committee noted that, under section 15(2) of Royal Decree No. 1561/1995 on special working days, masters are not subject to the provisions of this Royal Decree inasmuch as they are not obliged to keep watch, their hours of work being regulated by their employment contracts, to the extent that these contracts do not require them to provide services that clearly exceed those that are usual in the sphere of maritime labour. The Committee recalls that the term “seafarer”, as defined by the MLC, 2006, means any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the MLC, 2006, applies, therefore also includes masters. Moreover, the MLC, 2006, does not exclude masters from the scope of the rules regarding limits on hours of work. Paragraph 4 of Standard A2.3 provides explicitly that “in determining the national standards, each Member shall take account of the danger posed by the fatigue of seafarers, especially those whose duties involve navigational safety and the safe and secure operation of the ship”. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to extend the application of the legislation on hours of work on board ship to masters.

Duration of rest periods. The Committee notes that the Government applies the regime of maximum hours of work. It also notes, as previously noted in its comments on Convention No. 180, that, in conformity with paragraph 5(a) of Standard A2.3, section 16(1) of Royal Decree No. 1561/1995 limits daily working time – when at sea – to 12 hours, except in cases of force majeure. It also notes that this limit may be increased to 14 hours – on condition that 72 hours of work per week are not exceeded – for the performance of certain types of work such as manoeuvres on entering or leaving port. The Committee observes that the maximum limit on work of 14 hours in any 24-hour period (paragraph 5(a)(i) of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006) results in ten hours of rest (24-14=10), whereas some of the provisions of Royal Decree No. 1561/1995 provide for rest periods of less than ten hours and even six hours in some instances. In addition, the Committee notes that the example of SEA provided by the Government provides for a rest period of eight hours. The Committee recalls that under paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006, a Member may adopt national laws or regulations or a procedure for the competent authority to authorize or register collective agreements permitting exceptions to the limits set out. Such exceptions shall, as far as possible, follow the provisions of Standard A2.3 but may take account of more frequent or longer leave periods or the granting of compensatory leave for watchkeeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ships on short voyages. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that exceptions to the provisions set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Standard A2.3 other than those justified by the circumstances provided under paragraph 14 of the same Standard, are only provided under the conditions fixed in paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3.

Compensatory rest. In its previous comments on Convention No. 180, the Committee noted that, under section 35(1) of the Statute of Workers’ Rights, a choice can be made in the collective agreement, or, in the absence of such an agreement, in the employment contract between financial compensation and compensatory rest for the overtime worked and that, should no specific arrangement be made on this matter, overtime will be subject to compensatory rest. The Committee therefore noted that the granting of compensatory rest for overtime worked during on-call periods is not ensured in all cases. The Committee recalls that under paragraph 8 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006, (which incorporates Article 5(4) of Convention No. 180), when a seafarer is on call, adequate compensatory rest period shall be provided if the normal rest period is disturbed by call-outs to work. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that compensatory rest is granted to seafarers on call in the situations provided by paragraph 8 of Standard A2.3, and requests it to provide information on any measures taken in this regard. In its comments on Convention No. 180, the Committee further noted that section 16(1) of Royal Decree No. 1561/1995 allows normal limits on hours of work to be exceeded in the cases of force majeure specified in Article 7(1) of Convention No. 180. However, it noted that overtime worked under these circumstances, like hours worked during on-call periods, are compensated in the manner laid down in section 35(1) of the Statute of Workers’ Rights and may therefore, in certain cases, give entitlement only to monetary compensation. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, under paragraph 14 of Standard A2.3 of the MLC, 2006, the master must ensure, as soon as practicable after the normal situation has been restored, that any seafarers who have performed work in a scheduled rest period are provided with an adequate period of rest. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with this provision of the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this regard.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. The Committee notes that the Government refers to legislation regulating social and sanitary assistance provided by the Maritime Social Institute (ISM) to seafarers in a situation of abandonment, shipwreck and other similar circumstances (Order of 19 November 1997; Royal Decree No. 869/2007 and Order TAS/29/2008 implementing Royal Decree No. 869/2007). Such assistance also includes repatriation of seafarers on foreign ships. This system is available for enterprises affiliated to the Special Regime of Social Security for Seafarers and is based on the anticipation of expenses by the ISM without prejudice of the responsibility of the master, shipowner or legal representative. The Committee notes that in its report the Government only refers to repatriation as linked with a possible consequence of shipwreck and other similar events and to social protection coverage linked to these events but does not include details on other circumstances in which seafarers are entitled to repatriation nor on the precise entitlements to be accorded by shipowners for repatriation (paragraphs 1 and 2 of Standard A2.5) or the other requirements provided under Regulation 2.5 and the Code. The Committee also notes that the example of SEA supplied by the Government refers to the circumstances in which seafarers are entitled to repatriation, which are those included under paragraph 1 of Standard A2.5. However, it recalls that under paragraph 2 of Standard A2.5, each Member shall ensure that there are appropriate provisions in its laws or regulations or other measures in collective agreements prescribing the requirements listed under the same paragraph (circumstances under which seafarers are entitled to repatriation, maximum duration of service periods, entitlements to be accorded by shipowners for repatriation). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the implementation of Regulation 2.5 and the Code.

Regulation 2.6 and the Code. Unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. In its comments on the Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8) –consolidated in the MLC, 2006 – the Committee noted the Government’s reference to section 59 of the Statute of Workers’ Rights and the indemnity to be granted in the event of termination of contract in a case of force majeure, such as shipwreck. It noted that such indemnity, limited to 20 days for each year of service, is not consistent with the requirements of Convention No. 8. Moreover, it observed that unemployment insurance benefits for seafarers in case of shipwreck are subject to the payment of contributions for a minimum qualifying period, under section 210 of Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1994 of 20 June 1994. It further noted that the recently enacted legislation, including Act No. 14/2009 of 11 November 2009 on temporary programme for unemployment protection and Act No. 32/2010 of 5 August 2010 on specific protective scheme for the self-employed in the event of termination of activity, also subjects unemployment benefits to a minimum qualifying period. The Committee notes that in its report the Government refers to Royal Decree No. 869/2007, which provides for social benefits in case of special situations during work at sea for seafarers and workers benefiting from the Special Regime of Social Security for Seafarers. The Royal Decree provides for compensation in cases of loss of property, death, loss and repatriation of the body. However, it does not provide for compensation in case of injury or unemployment arising from the ship’s loss or foundering, as required under Regulation 2.6. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure compensation in case of injury or unemployment due to ship’s loss or foundering in conformity with Regulation 2.6.

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and opportunities for seafarers’ employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 4.2(b) of the Statute of Workers’ Rights recognizes the right of workers to their professional training and to the development of training actions and plans. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any concrete measures taken to promote employment in the maritime sector and to encourage career and skill development and greater employment opportunities for seafarers domiciled in its territory.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes that, with regard to the implementation of Regulation 3.1 and the Code, the Government indicates that no specific legislation has been adopted to ensure that ships provide and maintain decent accommodation and recreational facilities for seafarers, and that the provisions of the Convention are directly applicable, as well as those of the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92), for ships built before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006. The Committee recalls that Standard A3.1 calls on Members to adopt laws and regulations in order to ensure that ships flying its flag meet minimum standards for accommodation and recreational facilities and are inspected to ensure initial and ongoing compliance with those standards. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures envisaged to adopt laws and regulations to give effect to Regulation 3.1 and the Code.

Regulation 3.2 and the Code. Food and catering. In its previous comments on the Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68) and the Certification of Ships’ Cooks Convention, 1946 (No. 69), whose main provisions have been incorporated in Regulation 3.2 and the Code of the MLC, 2006, the Committee noted that the national legislation no longer contained any specific provisions giving effect to the requirements of Conventions Nos 68 and 69 on the quantity, nutritive value, quality and variety of food and water supplies, the arrangement and equipment of the catering department and the conditions for granting certificates of qualification for ships’ cooks. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the development of preventive and awareness-raising measures regarding protection of health including courses for catering staff on board ships. However, it notes that national legislation does not appear to contain any specific provisions implementing Regulation 3.2. While the Government refers to the direct application of the MLC, 2006, the Committee recalls that under paragraph 1 of Standard A3.2, Members shall adopt laws or regulations or other measures to provide minimum standards for the quantity and quality of food and drinking water and for the catering standards that apply to meals provided to seafarers on ships that fly its flag, and shall undertake educational activities to promote awareness and implementation of the standards referred to in this paragraph. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the laws, regulations and other measures adopted to give effect to Regulation 3.2.

Ships’ cooks. The Committee notes that Resolution of 20 May 2013 of the Directorate-General for Merchant Shipping recognizes, for the purpose of the MLC, 2006, the right of cooks of merchant ships to obtain a certificate as cook in view of the practical experience accumulated. The Resolution provides that a person who has worked on board as a cook for at least 12 months in the last five years and has a certificate of basic safety training can be recognized as cook and apply for the respective diploma. The Committee reminds the Government that in order to be qualified as ships’ cooks, the Convention requires the completion of an approved training course for cooks (paragraphs 3 and 4 of Standard A3.2). It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure conformity with these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. In its comments on the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134) – now consolidated in the MLC, 2006 – the Committee recalled the obligation to adopt laws and regulations, as well as other measures such as national guidelines on health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there is no specific legislation on the occupational safety and health management with regard to seafarers working on ships flying the Spanish flag. It therefore mainly refers to the direct application of international Conventions ratified, in particular this Convention, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) and the International Safety Management (ISM) Code. The Government also refers to Act 31/1995 on prevention of occupational risks as well as to its Regulations, which also apply to ships flying the Spanish flag and provide for minimum occupational and safety standards in different technical domains. The Committee further notes the Government’s information, according to which the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (INSHT) has not developed specific occupational safety and health guidelines for ships (paragraph 2 of Regulation 4.3) but that general guidelines developed by the INSHT for the prevention of occupational risks may be used. In this respect, it notes the observation of the UGT according to which there are no specific national guidelines on health and safety for the shipping sector. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that paragraph 2 of Regulation 4.3 calls on Members to develop national guidelines for the management of occupational safety and health on board ships flying its flag after consultation with representative shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee also recalls that paragraph 3 of the same Regulation provides that Members shall adopt laws and regulations and other measures addressing the matters specified in the Code, which shall be regularly reviewed in consultation with representatives of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee notes that the example of approved DMLC, Part II, provided by the Government does not outline shipowners’ practices or on-board programmes for preventing occupational accidents, injuries and diseases (see paragraphs 1(c), 2(b) and 8 of Standard A4.3), and therefore the Committee is not in a position to assess compliance with these requirements of the Convention. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether the national guidelines required under paragraph 2 of Regulation 4.3 have been adopted after consultation with the representative shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. It also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of paragraph 3 of Regulation A4.3, including details on shipowners’ practices and on-board programmes for preventing occupational accidents, injuries and diseases provided under paragraph 1(c) of Standard A4.3

Ship’s safety committee. With regard to paragraph 2(d) of Standard A4.3 on the ship’s safety committee, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that compliance with the requirements of paragraph 5.1.1 of the ISM Code (safety meetings) of SOLAS also implies compliance with that paragraph. In this regard, the UGT indicates that provisions in the Act No. 31/1995 on prevention of occupational risks may be insufficient because the representative is not always on board and there could be an insufficient number of representatives vis-à-vis the crew members. The UGT also indicates that the Act does not provide for a safety committee for ships unless where this includes 50 or more than 50 workers (section 38 of the Act). The Committee recalls that paragraph 2(d) of Standard A4.3 requires the establishment of a safety committee on board a ship where there are five or more seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the implementation of this provision, as well as its comments with regard to the UGT’s observations.

Reporting of occupational accidents. With regard to the notification of occupational accidents, injuries and illnesses (paragraphs 5(a) and 6 of Standard A4.3), the Committee notes that the Government refers to Order TAS/2926/2002, which provides for a system of electronic notification of occupational accidents. However, it is not clear whether this system is concretely used for the notification of accidents on board ships. Referring to its comments on Convention No. 134, consolidated in the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to give full particulars on the measures taken or envisaged in order to give effect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of Standard A4.3. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the documents used for reporting unsafe conditions or occupational accidents on board ship (paragraph 1(d) of Standard A4.3).

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. Application to residents working on ships flying a foreign flag. The Committee notes that, in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 10 of Standard A4.5, the Government has specified the following branches of social security: medical care; sickness benefit; unemployment benefit and employment injury benefit. The Committee notes that Act No. 47/2015 provides for the social protection of workers in the maritime and fishing sector. The Government indicates that the benefits provided to seafarers resident in its territory are the same as those provided to shoreworkers resident in Spain. The Committee notes that under sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 47/2015, the special regime applies to persons included under section 7 of the Social Security Law (Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1994), who work, inter alia, as seafarers employed in merchant shipping and undertake their activity in Spain. Under section 7 of the Social Security Law – which has been substantially incorporated in section 7 of Royal Legislative Decree No. 8/2015, which repeals Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1994 and will enter into force on 2 January 2016 – the social security system covers Spanish nationals resident in Spain and foreign nationals who reside or are legally based in Spain and undertake their activity in Spain. The Committee notes that under section 6 of Act No. 47/2015, the special social security regime for seafarers also applies to workers residing in Spain who work on board a ship flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union or a State with which Spain has signed a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement containing an exception to the principle of territoriality, and who are remunerated by an enterprise or a person with domicile in Spain. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to the existence of bilateral and multilateral agreements, but provides no details on such agreements. The Committee notes that the Special Social Security Regime for Seafarers does not extend to seafarers ordinarily resident in Spain who may be working on ships flying the flag of a country that is not a member of the agreements signed by Spain, or who are not covered under section 6 of Act No. 47/2015 cited above. It recalls that under paragraph 3 of Standard A4.5, each Member shall take steps to provide the complementary social security protection referred in paragraph 1 of the Standard to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the social security protection provided to seafarers ordinarily resident in Spain that are not covered by reciprocal social security agreements and are not covered under section 6 of Act No. 47/2015. It also requests the Government to provide further details on social security coverage of seafarers under the mentioned bilateral and multilateral agreements.

Regulation 5.1 and the Code – Inspection. The Committee notes that the main legislation implementing this Regulation is Royal Decree No. 357/2015 on compliance and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, on ships flying the Spanish flag, which transposes Directive 2013/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain flag State responsibilities for compliance with and enforcement of the MLC, 2006. The Government indicates that the competent authority for issuing and renewing the Maritime Labour Certificate and the DMLC, upon advice of the Inspection of Labour and Social Security and of the ISM, is the Directorate-General for Merchant Shipping and that responsibility for inspection related to the MLC, 2006, of ships flying the Spanish flag is divided between the Inspection of Labour and Social Security, the Directorate-General for Merchant Shipping and the ISM (sections 3 and 4 of Royal Decree No. 357/2015). The Committee notes that section 5(2) of Royal Decree No. 357/2015 provides that for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages, the Ministry of Employment and Social Security, in consultation with the concerned organizations of seafarers and shipowners may adapt, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Article II of the Convention, the supervisory mechanisms, including inspections, in order to take into account the specific characteristics of such ships. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any determination made under section 5(2) of Royal Decree No. 357/2015 pursuant to paragraph 6 of Article II of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.2 – Authorization of recognized organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s information that recognized organizations are authorized to act under other international conventions, but not under the MLC, 2006. However, the Government mentions the authorization to “Bureau veritas” as a recognized organization. The Committee notes the UGT’s observation according to which it has received no information from the competent authority on whether it will delegate the competency on inspections and issuance of certificates nor on whether it will regulate such matters. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these observations and to provide clarifications on this matter.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2017.]