Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2021, Publicación: 110ª reunión CIT (2022)

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act (sections 129(b) and (c); 131(a) and (b) and 135), under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the amendment of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has undertaken to advice stakeholders, inclusive of shipowners’ and seafarers’ representatives of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring amendment in order to ensure full application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that under sections 129 (b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 penalties of imprisonment are still applied for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, desertion and absence without leave. It further notes the adoption of the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 2012, amending the First Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Chapter 268). The Committee observes, however, that the 2012 Regulations do not contain any provision with regard to disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether or not sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 have been amended. If these provisions have been amended, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the new provisions applicable to breaches of discipline by seafarers.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited. Under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act, violation of the prohibition is being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above). The Committee has further noted the non-conformity with the Convention of section 76(1), according to which, a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act have been amended in 2012. The Committee observes, however, that sections 73, 74(3), 77(2)(a), 76(1), and 76(2)(b) under consideration, have not been amended yet. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Supreme Court decision of 3rd October 2014, in which inter alia the interpretation and application of sections 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the Industrial Relations Act were considered. It also notes the Government’s indication that the decision reflects the approach typically taken by employers in such matters, that is, to seek an injunction restraining unlawful strike action and not to seek the imposition of penalties under sections 74(3), 76(2)(b) or 77(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act. The Government also indicates that it will further review the provisions of the domestic law with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act are amended, so as to ensure that persons organizing or participating in a peaceful strike are not liable to imprisonment involving an obligation to work.