Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Latvia (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 notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for Latvia on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. It further notes that the Government’s report was received before the entry into force of these amendments. 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) and 2. Definition and scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, noting that, pursuant to section 272(4)(b) of the Maritime Code, persons who provide passenger entertainment-related services (such as performers) are excluded from the definition of “seafarer”, the Committee requested the Government to provide further information in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the determinations regarding the non-applicability of the Convention to specific categories of persons, including performers, was extensively discussed with seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations. The Committee recalls that the 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 the Convention regardless of their position on board. Accordingly, the Committee considers that no question of doubt can arise concerning the fact that persons providing passenger entertainment-related services who regularly spend more than short periods aboard are to be considered seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that a distinction is drawn between persons who provide passenger entertainment-related services for short periods on board (defining such periods) and those who work on board on a more permanent basis, the latter being considered as seafarers for the purposes of the Convention.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee noted that while section 12 of Cabinet Regulation No. 364 of 17 May 2011, entitled “Procedures for Licensing and Supervision of Merchants – Providers of Recruitment and Placement Services in Ship Crew Manning” (hereafter CR No. 364), prohibits recruitment and placement services from charging seafarers, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, fees or other charges for their services, section 11.6 of CR No. 364 states that recruitment and placement services must, among other requirements, inform seafarers regarding potential expenses which may occur during the recruitment and placement process. The Committee requested the Government to identify what those costs may consist of and how it is ensured that seafarers are not charged, directly or indirectly, for the costs other than those provided for in paragraph 5(b) of Standard A1.4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of section 11.6 of CR No. 364 is to ensure that recruitment and placement services are responsible for informing seafarers regarding potential expenses which may occur during the recruitment and placement process with respect to the costs of obtaining a national statutory medical certificate, the national seafarer’s book and a passport or other similar personal travel documents. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(a) and (c). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signed original by both the seafarer and shipowner or a representative. The Committee requested the Government to identify the national laws or regulations which require that the seafarers’ employment agreement is signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or representative of the shipowner and that both have an original of the agreement as required under paragraphs 1(a) and (c) of Standard A2.1. With respect to the requirement that the employment agreement be signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or representative of the shipowner, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the expression “agreement entered into in the writing” in the English version of the Maritime Code stands for the expression in Latvian “rakstveida noslegts darba LĪgums” which means that the agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. With respect to the requirement of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(c), that both the shipowner and the seafarer have a signed original of the agreement, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the expression “one copy” in the English version of the Maritime Code stands for the expression in Latvian “viens darba liguma eksempliirs” which refers to the original of the agreement. Section 40(5) of the Labour Law also states that an employment contract shall be prepared in duplicate, one copy to be kept by the employee, the other by the employer. The Government indicates that the national provisions above-mentioned therefore require that the seafarers’ employment agreement shall be signed by the seafarer and the shipowner in two originals and one original of the agreement shall be submitted to the seafarer and the other original to the shipowner. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment? (if yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond?; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation?; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2–I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9?; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2–I of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7).

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to provide updated information concerning the implementation of career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers, including within the framework of the “Transport Development Guidelines 2014–2020”, which give effect to Regulation 2.8 and the Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the national policy planning document “Transport Development Guidelines 2014–2020” aims to improve the Latvian seafarers’ vocational training system and therefore increase the conformity of Latvian seafarers’ professional competences with respect to the needs and requirements of the labour market. In this context, measures have been taken with respect to (i) promoting the rank-up activities among ratings by using modern distance learning possibilities; (ii) reviewing the vocational maritime school concept by improving attractiveness of maritime school programmes therefore strengthening linkage with labour market needs and development tendencies, and; (iii) promoting the seafarer’s profession attractiveness among youngsters, initiating events aimed at popularization of maritime education and seafarer occupation. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 2. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Implementation. The Committee noted that, while Cabinet Regulation No. 18 of 14 January 2014 entitled “Regulations on the applicable requirements of Maritime Labour Convention regarding accommodation and recreational facilities on board and compliance conditions” (hereafter CR No. 18), implements the provisions of Regulation 3.1 and the Code, the Government’s Declaration of maritime labour compliance (DMLC) Part I does not refer to CR No. 18 under the applicable provisions for accommodation or on-board recreational facilities. The Committee accordingly requested the Government to include a reference to CR No. 18 in the DMLC Part I, to avoid uncertainty with respect to the applicable national legislation. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that in accordance with Regulation 3.1, paragraph 2, CR No. 18 is only applicable to ships constructed on or after the date when the Convention came into force and does not apply to existing ships which were constructed before 20 August 2013. The Government indicates that given that there are no ships constructed on or after 20 August 2013 registered under the Latvian flag, the DMLC Part I provided is intended for existing ships and does not contain reference to CR No. 18. The reference to CR No. 18 will be included in the DMLC Part I in case it will be issued for the ship constructed on or after 20 August 2013. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that according to Regulation 3.1, paragraph 2, the requirements in the Code implementing this Regulation which relate to ship construction and equipment apply only to ships constructed on or after the date when this Convention comes into force for the Member concerned. Other requirements, such as those provided for in Standard A3.1, paragraphs 16, 17 and 18, apply to all ships regardless of their date of construction. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that all ships flying its flag comply with these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2. Food and catering. Minimum standards. Noting the absence of applicable national provisions, the Committee requested the Government to provide information with respect to: (i) the catering standards that apply to meals provided to seafarers on ships that fly its flag (Standard A.3.2, paragraph 1); (ii) the training and instruction of catering staff (paragraph 2(c) of Standard A.3.2.); (iii) the frequency of inspections regarding food and catering; and (iv) the provision of food and drinking water of appropriate nutritional value as well as quality and quantity. With respect to Standard A.3.2, paragraph 2(c), the Government indicates that a crew of a Latvian ship shall be recruited in conformity with the specifications of the minimum manning certificate. This certificate shall be issued to Latvian ships by the Maritime Administration of Latvia in accordance with Cabinet Regulation No. 80 adopted on 24 January 2006, entitled “Regulation on minimum manning of ships”, paragraph 7, which requires that there shall be a fully qualified cook on ships with ten or more than ten crew members. On ships operating with a prescribed manning of less than ten crew members and without a fully qualified cook, anyone processing food in the galley shall be trained or instructed in areas including on MLC, 2006 standards on food and personal hygiene as well as handling and storage of food on board ship. With respect to the requirement that seafarers are provided food and drinking water of appropriate nutritional value as well as quality and quantity, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law on the Supervision of the Handling of Food adopted on 19 February 1998 and several Cabinet Regulations for catering services on hygiene and quality of food, requirements for personnel, and traceability of food apply and that the Food and Veterinary Service controls the enforcement of these requirements. The Committee, however, observes that it is not clear how the above-mentioned provisions apply to ships and also notes that those provisions are not mentioned in the DMLC, Part I. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate: (i) how these provisions, which are not specific to seafarers apply to ships; and (ii) how the Food and Veterinary Service controls the enforcement of these requirements on board ships. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1. Medical care on board ship and ashore. Dental care. Noting that the existing legislation does not appear to provide for essential dental care, as required under Standard A4.1, paragraph 1, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to this requirement of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 298 of the Maritime Code prescribes that a seafarer is entitled to receive emergency medical assistance and the shipowner has a duty to compensate the expenditures that may arise. The treatment expenses of the seafarer shall be borne by the shipowner if not provided by the state in accordance with general arrangements or is not covered by health insurance. The expenses shall be borne by the shipowner if (1) a seafarer has suffered injuries on board – until he/she has completely recovered, or when the doctor admits the seafarer to be incapable of work; (2) a seafarer has become ill on board – not less than 16 weeks from the date when a seafarer has become ill. The Government indicates that the above-mentioned provisions also covers the shipowner’s obligation to provide essential dental care to the seafarer, although not explicitly mentioned. The Committee observes that the LSUMF Uniform “TCC” Collective Agreement for crews on fag of convenience ships submitted by the Government incorporates in paragraph 21.1 the right to dental care. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2, Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8 to 14, and Standard A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned?; (b) how do national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay, (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount, (iii) interim payments (while situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship, (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident, and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary)?; (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4–I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease, (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated, and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated?; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4–I of the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14).

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to the requirement under Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d), that a safety committee be established on board a ship on which there are five or more seafarers. It also requested the Government to provide information with regard to the adoption, after consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, of national guidelines relevant to occupational safety and health protection of seafarers in accordance with paragraph 2 of Regulation 4.3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the main principles and guidelines for the management of occupational safety and health on board Latvian ships are prescribed by Cabinet Regulation No. 359 adopted on 1 July 2003, entitled “Regulations with respect to Safety and Health Protection Requirements and Medical Treatment on board Vessels” (hereinafter CR No. 359). The Government indicates that CR No. 359 is currently in the process of being revised and will introduce the requirements of Standard A.4.3, paragraph 2(d), with respect to the ship’s safety committee. The new CR will specify the obligation of the shipowner with respect to occupational safety and health, taking into account Guideline B4.3.1, paragraph 1, and relevant ILO guidelines and other international standards. The new CR will also require that the matters specified by paragraph 2 of Guideline B4.3.1 be described in the regulations on the ship’s safety prepared by the shipowner. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard to ensure full compliance with the Convention.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 6. Social security. Comparable benefits for seafarers in the absence of adequate coverage. The Committee requested the Government to clarify the manner in which social security protection is extended to seafarers ordinarily resident in Latvia who are working on ships flying another flag. It also requested information with respect to any arrangements that have been adopted to provide protection to seafarers ordinarily resident in Latvia when working on board ships flying the flag of another European Union member or Switzerland or a member of the European Economic Area. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government stating that seafarers who are ordinarily resident in Latvia and employed on ships flying the flag of Latvia or from another European Union member, Switzerland or a member of the European Economic Area are covered by the system of Latvian social security laws and regulations, based on mandatory contributions by the employer and the employee. For seafarers resident in Latvia who are employed on foreign ships flying other flags, they can join social insurance on a voluntary basis. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that no measure has been adopted for providing benefits to non-resident seafarers working on ships flying its flag who do not have adequate social security coverage.

Regulations 5.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. The Committee observes that Cabinet Regulation No. 439 adopted on 7 June 2011, entitled “Regulations Regarding the Implementation of Flag State Supervision of Ships” (hereafter CR No. 439) provides in section 3.6 that the inspectorate shall implement the flag State supervision of Latvian ships by performing the following activities: … supervision of the compliance with the requirements of the MLC, 2006, Convention. The Committee observes, however, that no information has been provided with respect to the national provisions giving effect to the detailed requirements of Standard A5.1.1, A5.1.3 and A5.1.4. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime labour certificate and declaration of maritime labour compliance. The Committee requested the Government to specify how it ensures the inspection of all ships and not just ships engaged in international voyages and with a gross tonnage of 500 and higher, who are required to carry and maintain a maritime labour certificate and declaration of maritime labour compliance. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that CR No. 439 regulates flag State supervision of all ships registered under the Latvian flag. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the CR No. 439, the inspection and certification of the Latvian ships of 500 gross tonnage and over, engaged in international voyages, is performed by a recognized organization authorized by the Maritime Administration of Latvia. paragraph 5 of CR No. 439 states that Latvian ships under 500 gross tonnage which do not engage in international voyages should also be inspected and certified. The shipowner can however choose for his/her ship to be inspected and certified by the Maritime Administration of Latvia or a recognized organization. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.3 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Declaration of maritime labour compliance. Noting that the Declaration of maritime labour compliance (DMLC) Part I that was submitted sets out a list of references to the implementing legislation without providing concise information on the main content of the national requirements, the Committee requested the Government to consider amending the DMLC Part I to better implement the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has reconsidered the Latvian DMLC Part I from the point of view of Guideline B5.1 .3 and considers that no additional explanation should be included in the DMLC Part I. The Committee notes however that the DMLC Part I does not provide enough information on national requirements, where they relate to matters for which the Convention envisages some differences in national practice. For example, in connection with minimum age, the DMLC Part I, refers to “Maritime Code (Part G), Cabinet Regulation No. 206 adopted 28 May 2002, ‘Regulations regarding Work in which Employment of Adolescents is prohibited and Exceptions when Employment in such Work is Permitted in Connection with Vocational Training of the Adolescent’”, but does not actually state what the minimum age is or what period is considered as night. Concerning the DMLC Part II, the Committee also noted that although the example of an approved DMLC Part II provided by the Government sets out some additional information, in a number of cases it simply confirms compliance with the requirements and refers to other documents concerning internal system manuals and procedures. The Committee also suggested that the Government instruct its inspectors to review DMLC Part IIs to ensure that they provide more information on the ways in which the national requirements are to be implemented between inspections. The Committee observes that the Government has not provided other examples of approved DMLC, Part II, drawn up by a shipowner. The Committee recalls that unless all the referenced documents are carried on board ship and easily accessible, it would be difficult for port State control officers or seafarers to understand what the national requirements are on these matters. The Committee reiterates that the DMLC Part I as currently drafted does not appear to fulfil the purpose for which it, along with the DMLC Part II, is required under the Convention, which is to help all persons concerned, such as flag State inspectors, authorized officers in port States and seafarers, to check that the national requirements on the 16 listed matters are being properly implemented on board ship. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to review the DMLC Part I to fully implement Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10, and to submit examples of DMLC, Part II approved by the competent authority.