Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 8) sur les indemnités de chômage (naufrage), 1920 - Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée (Ratification: 1976)

Autre commentaire sur C008

Observation

1996

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. Further to its previous comment, the Committee refers to the two implementing texts, i.e., the Merchant Shipping Act of 1975, as last amended in 1996, and the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act 1951, and recalls that certain discrepancies exist between these two texts. More concretely, whereas section 123(2)(a) of Merchant Shipping Act provides that a seafarer is not entitled to unemployment compensation in case of shipwreck if it is proven that he/she has not made reasonable efforts to save the ship, no similar exception is to be found in the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act. The Committee recalls, in this regard, that under this Convention, the payment of unemployment indemnity may not be subject to such conditions as the seafarer’s efforts to save the vessel. The Committee further recalls that the same provision has been incorporated in Standard A2.6(1) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), which requires the payment of an indemnity against unemployment resulting from the ship’s loss or foundering “in every case of loss or foundering of any ship”.

In addition, whereas section 100(2)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act generally excludes seafarers employed on board pleasure craft from the application of Part V, which governs the payment of unemployment benefits in the event of shipwreck, and section 101(1) empowers the Minister to exempt particular ships or classes of ships from the obligations of Part V of the Merchant Shipping Act, no similar provisions are contained in the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the Convention applies to “all ships and boats of any nature whatsoever”, while the MLC, 2006, provides for an equally broad scope of application under Article II(1)(i) and (4). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to take all appropriate steps in order to remove the existing discrepancies between the two implementing instruments and to transmit a copy of the amended text of the Merchant Shipping Act once it has been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to keep the Office informed of the outcome of the series of meetings that are scheduled between the Department of Labour and Industrial Relations and the National Maritime Safety Authority (NMSA) concerning further amendments to the maritime legislation.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, statistical information concerning the number of seafarers covered by the relevant legislation, any maritime casualties involving Papua New Guinean-registered vessels and the payments which may have been made to the seafarers concerned as well as full particulars on any cases in which seafarers, including non-nationals and non residents, have had recourse to legal remedies in order to recover the unemployment indemnity under the relevant legislation.

Finally, the Committee wishes to recall that the main provisions of the Convention are now reflected in Regulation 2.6 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006. It therefore considers that compliance with Convention No. 8 will facilitate the implementation of the respective provisions of the MLC, 2006. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of any developments regarding the process of ratification of the MLC, 2006.