CMNT_TITLE

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Thailand (RATIFICATION: 2016)

Other comments on C186

Direct Request

2023
2019

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

Previous comment

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). It also notes the observations of the State Enterprises Workers’ Relations Confederation (SERC), received with the Government’s report, and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code of the Convention adopted by the International Labour Conference in 2018 entered into force for Thailand on 29 December 2020. It recalls that the Government has not submitted a declaration of acceptance of the 2014 amendments and is therefore not bound by them.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes that it did not have the opportunity to examine the application of the MLC, 2006, by Thailand during the peak of the pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue. It also requests the Government to ensure that any remaining restrictions are lifted to ensure full observance of the MLC, 2006.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government states that: (1) no specific criteria have been defined to classify a person temporarily working on board under section 3 of the Maritime Labour Act B.E. 2558, 2015 (hereafter the MLA) besides taking into consideration the purpose of the work assigned, which is not routine or of permanent nature on board. The Government also indicates that a person temporarily working on board is provided labour protection under the Labour Protection Act, B.E. 2541 (1998); (2) this determination has been made after consultations with representatives of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations; and (3) no other category of persons has been excluded from the application of the MLC, 2006, under section 3 of the MLA. The Committee considers that, in order to avoid legal uncertainties as to the categories of persons covered by the Convention, clear criteria should be adopted to determine what is to be considered “temporary work on board”. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to specify these criteria.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that the determination made under ministerial regulation B.E. 2561 prescribing ships to be excluded from the MLA, was made after consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. It also notes the information provided by the Government concerning the definition of “ships engaged in Local Trade voyage”, which are excluded from the application of the Convention. It notes that such vessels are characterized as vessels navigating within Thai water, including between islands or ports in Thailand. The Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006, defines a ship in Article II, paragraph 1(i), as “a ship other than one which navigates exclusively in inland waters or waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply”. The Committee considers that the concept of “ships engaged in Local Trade voyage”, as defined in the case of Thailand, goes clearly beyond the exclusion contained in Article II, paragraph 1(i). Recalling that the application of the Convention is not limited to ships engaged in international voyage, the Committee requests the Government to provide explanations on how the exclusion of “ships engaged in Local Trade voyage”are justified under Article II, paragraph 1(i) of the Convention, taking fully into account the Convention’s object and purpose of ensuring protection of all seafarers, including on ships engaged in domestic voyages.

Article II, paragraphs 6 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships under 200 gross tonnage. Noting that Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2561 excludes from the application of the MLA a “vessel of less than 200 gross tonnage with a domestic maritime area”, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships under 200 gross tonnage. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the MLA, which implements the MLC, 2006, protects seafarers working on ships under 200 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages or near-coastal voyages across countries, whereas the provisions of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) and the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) cover ships under 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages and offer protection no less favourable than the rights prescribed in the MLA. The Committee recalls that the flexibility provided for in Article II, paragraph 6, for ships under 200 gross tonnage only concerns certain details of the Code (Standards and Guidelines) but not the Regulations. The Committee notes in this regard, for example in connection with minimum age, that section 44 of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 provides that the minimum age of employment is 15 years, whereas Regulation 1.1 of the Convention provides that no person below the minimum age (of 16 years) shall be employed or engaged or work on a ship and that no exceptions are permitted in this respect. Recalling that ships under 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages may not be excluded from the application of the requirements established in Regulations and that any exemption has to be limited to “certain details of the Code” (Standards and Guidelines), the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government: (i) to indicate the specific provisions of the MLC, 2006, that do not apply to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages; and (ii) to provide detailed information on the alternative national provisions that apply to this category of ships for each Standard of the MLC, 2006, which is not applicable to them.

Article III. Fundamental rights and principles. Concerning the fundamental right to freedom of association, noting that section 94 of the MLA deprives seafarers from the right to take industrial action, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it has satisfied itself that these provisions respect the fundamental right to freedom of association. The Committee notes that SERC indicates in this regard that the Government must ratify the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), so that all workers, including seafarers, can benefit from these fundamental rights, and that it should develop a unified Labour Relations Law that complies with both Conventions. In response to SERC’s observations, the Government indicates that the two current labour relations laws, applicable to the private sector and the state enterprise sector aim to provide labour protection to workers in both sectors which have different natures and characteristics. Both Acts are currently being amended to better reflect developments in labour relations and socioeconomic changes. The draft amendments adhere to principles and provisions of Conventions No. 87 and 98 with a view to preparing for their possible ratification in the future. The Government further indicates that the MLA, chapter 12, section 90 to 94, the Notifications of the Ministry of Labour on the right to organize and collective bargaining for seafarers dated 17 September B.E. 2564 (2021) and the Ministerial Regulation on Dispute Settlement, Lock-out, Strike, and Unfair Conduct Related to Seafarers and Shipowners, B.E. 2564 (2021) specifically ensure the right to organise and collectively bargain for seafarers, in accordance with Article III of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour has issued Ministerial Notification on Dispute Settlement, Lock-out, Strike, and Unfair Conduct Related to Seafarers and Shipowners, B.E. 2564 (2021) for the purpose of promoting the fundamental rights in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining in accordance with the Convention and that clauses 14 and 15 prescribe the rules and conditions under which seafarers and shipowners can strike or lock-out. The Committee observes however that the Government has not transmitted a copy of the said Ministerial Notification. The Committee accordingly requests the Government: (i) to provide further information on the rules and conditions set under clauses 14 and 15 of Ministerial Notification on Dispute Settlement, Lock-out, Strike, and Unfair Conduct Related to Seafarers and Shipowners, B.E. 2564 (2021); and (ii) to amend section 94 of the MLA to ensure full conformity with Article III of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government indicates that section 16 of the MLA prescribes the conditions under which seafarers under 18 years of age may be exempted from the prohibition of night work on board, as part of field training program in accordance with the curriculum of the merchant navy certified by the Marine Department of Thailand. The Government also indicates that, according to the MLA, the notification of such training program shall be approved by the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare or the person appointed by the Director-General, responsible for the supervision and the protection of labour rights, to ensure that it shall not have a negative effect on the health and good living conditions of seafarers. The Government further indicates that when the training program was developed by the Marine Department, the curriculum was subject to consultations with representatives of shipowners’ organizations, seafarers’ organizations, and relevant agencies based on tripartite composition. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. Noting that section 35 of the MLA refers to other expenses which may be borne by the seafarer, as prescribed in ministerial regulations, the Committee requested the Government to identify what the expenses may consist of and how it is ensured that seafarers are not charged, directly or indirectly, for any other costs than those provided for in Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(b). Noting that the Government does not provide information on this point, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. Observing that it is unclear if the provisions of the MLA cover monetary loss that seafarers may incur, once they have started working, as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), the Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations with respect to the protection provided under the MLA when the monetary loss incurs as a result of the failure of a recruitment and a placement service or of a shipowner in relation to an employment agreement of a job seeker. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how the system of protection operates in practice.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(a) and 4. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. Content. The Committee notes that section 43 of the MLA provides that a shipowner shall ensure that an employment agreement of a seafarer, in writing, with the signature of the shipowner and the seafarer and a copy of such agreement is held on board and one copy of such agreement for the seafarer is to be stored. It also notes that section 43(8) of the same Act prescribes that a seafarers’ employment agreement (hereafter SEA) must contain, the name and surname including title of the shipowner, in the case where the shipowner is a juristic person, names of members of the juristic person who are authorized to act on behalf of the juristic person shall be specified. The Committee however notes that the two sample SEAs provided by the Government do not indicate the name of the shipowner, and only refer to the name of the shipping company, and are made between the seafarer and the company’s representative in the first case and between the seafarer and the company’s manager in the second case, and do not provide concrete information on the identity of the shipowner and whether any signatory of the SEA other than a shipowner should produce a signed “power of attorney” or other document showing that he/she is authorized to represent the shipowner. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), the SEA is to be signed by or on behalf of the shipowner who is responsible for ensuring compliance with all the requirements of the Convention relating to the working and living conditions of the seafarers and who, by such signature, becomes legally responsible vis-à-vis the seafarer for compliance with all those requirements, whether or not the shipowner is considered to be the employer of the seafarer. The Committee stresses the importance of the basic legal relationship that the MLC, 2006, establishes between the seafarer and the person defined as ‘shipowner’ under Article II. The Committee also recalls that Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(b), requires that SEAs shall contain the shipowner’s name and address. Recalling that any signatory of the seafarers’ employment agreement other than a shipowner should produce a signed “power of attorney” or other document showing that he/she is authorized to represent the shipowner, theCommitteerequests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure: (i) that the company’s representative or employer, areauthorized to act as a representative of the shipowner when signing the seafarers’ employment agreement, as required by Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a); and (ii) that seafarers’ employment agreements signed by the shipowner’s representative provide concrete information on the identity of the shipowner as required by Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(b).

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Record of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that the record of employment of seafarers is contained in a seaman book, as required under section 285/1 of Navigation in the Thai Waters Act B.E. 2456 (1913), amended by Navigation in the Thai Waters Act (No.17) B.E. 2560 (2017). The Committee also notes that the Government has provided a sample of the seaman book which does not contain space for any statements as to the quality of the seafarer’s work or as to their wages. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. The Committee notes that there are currently no legal provisions giving effect to the 2018 amendments to the MLC, 2006. The Committee however observes that the most recent SEA provided by the Government refers to these amendments. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: a) do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; b) how are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and c) do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legislative measures taken or envisaged to give full effect to the 2018 amendments to the MLC, 2006, and to reply to the above-mentioned questions.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3 to 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that the transfer of money to seafarers’ family, dependents, or legal beneficiaries including the transfer of the proportion of money at specified intervals (instalments) is prescribed under the SEA. The Government further indicates that this matter has been discussed at a meeting on 9 September 2022 with representatives of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations and that in case where the payment is made in another currency which is different from the currency specified in the employment agreement, section 52(4) of the MLA prescribes that the exchange rate shall be in accordance with that of the Bank of Thailand, and such rate shall be used for calculating the fees or expenses to be charged from seafarer due to the money transfer. The Committee understands that section 52(4) of the MLA also applies to situations of transfer of a seafarer’s earnings to a person specified by the seafarer provided for under Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3 to 5. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Normal working hours’ standard. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it is ensured that the normal working hours standards for seafarers include one day of rest per week and rest on public holidays, as required by this provision of the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication that the provision of the MLA in relation to a day of rest per week and rest on public holidays is in the process of amendment in order to comply with Standard A2.3, paragraph 3, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to this requirement of the Convention and to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 to 9. Hours of work and hours of rest. Drills and on-call work. Noting the Government’s indication that there are no collective agreements containing provisions on compensatory rest to be granted in case of call-outs to work or minimizing disturbance of rest periods during drills, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to establish such provisions, as required by Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 to 9. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while there are currently no national provisions granting compensatory rest in the case of call-outs to work or drills, in practice a shipowner adopts general measures to compensate for rest period such as cancellation of overtime work on the following day. While noting this information, the Committee observes that this provision does not seem to apply in the case of call-outs to work, such as when a machinery space is unattended and does not ensure that the seafarers concerned have sufficient rest. Recalling, that in the absence of collective agreement or arbitration award, or if the competent authority considers the protection granted inadequate, it shall determine itself such provisions to ensure that seafarers have adequate compensatory rest period if the normal period of rest is disturbed by call-outs to work, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give full effect to Standard A2.3, paragraphs 8 and 9.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government states that there is no standardized format for recording seafarers’ daily hours of work or of their daily hours of rest and that each vessel may have its own format, while nonetheless taking into account ILO guidelines. Noting the Government’s indication that the Marine Department is considering drafting a provision which prescribes a standardized format for recording hours of work or hours of rest of seafarers, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard and to ensure that such provision also ensures that seafarers shall receive a copy of the records pertaining to them.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that section 45 of the MLA provides that if there is a necessary or emergency reason or it conforms to the agreement between a seafarer and a shipowner or other reasons as prescribed by the Director-General of Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, the seafarer or the shipowner may terminate an employment agreement of a seafarer, in which case the seafarer shall not be liable for any damages occurred from a breach of contract. The Government also states that Notification of Marine Department no. 110/2560 on Criteria, Methods, and Conditions for Repatriation of Seafarers dated 22 June B.E. 2560 (2017) has been adopted in application of section 67 of the MLA, according to which a shipowner is required to provide insurance for each seafarer in relation de repatriation, and clause 4 of that notification provides that a seafarer has the right to be repatriated, including in the case where the employment agreement of a seafarer is terminated by a shipowner or by a seafarer based on reasonable grounds. Clause 3 of that same Notification provides that the seafarer is free of any expenses under the conditions as specified in this announcement. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that seafarers only pay the costs of repatriation where they have been found to be in serious default of their obligations, pursuant to the conditions set out in Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 68 of the MLA prescribes that the shipowner does not have to pay for the expenses of repatriation of seafarer according to section 66 of the MLA in cases where the contract is terminated or when a seafarer commits an offence against the law of the flag state, or commits a serious offence on duty, or fails to comply with a seafarer’s employment agreement. The Committee further requested the Government to provide information on provisions setting out the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers’ employment obligations”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that, in the event of an alleged breach of the seafarers’ obligations under the employment agreement, to which the seafarer disagrees, the seafarer is entitled to file a complaint to the competent official under the MLA who will examine and make a decision, based on the facts. If the seafarer is not satisfied with the official’s decision or a dispute cannot be settled, the seafarer can exercise the right to take it to the labour court for further investigation and consideration. The Committee however notes that the first sample SEA provided by the Government stipulates that in case of “crew repatriation”, the company will refuse to pay for any damage and/or all expenditure caused by crew infringement; the second sample SEA indicates that the seafarer has to pay the pro rata cost of the repatriation expenses based on the remaining un-served portion of the period of the agreement on board the vessel if the seafarer is found to have committed an offence which calls for immediate termination of the agreement. The Committee also observes that the second sample SEA provides that where the employee terminates the agreement on board a vessel, he/she agrees and shall bear all cost of his/her repatriation and replacement. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, while the shipowner may recover from the seafarer the cost of the repatriation under the limited circumstances provided for under Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3, this situation does not release the shipowner from the obligation to pay for the repatriation in the first instance. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to this provision of the Convention ensuring that the shipowner can only recover the cost of the repatriation when the seafarer has been found to be in serious default of the employment obligations, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures of applicable collective bargaining agreements. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate whether the inquiry procedure takes place before the reimbursement of the repatriation expenses by the shipowner.

Regulation 2.7 and Standard A2.7, paragraph 3. Manning levels. Food and catering. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that the provisions concerning the minimum safe manning in relation to food and catering are prescribed under clauses 3(3) and 4(5) of Notification of Marine Department no. 23/2562 on the Provision of Manning for Marine Vessels dated 13 February B.E. 2562 (2019). The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 3. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Flag State inspections. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government refers to various national provisions establishing that the seafarer’s accommodation facilities and its maintenance on a ship shall be verified during the initial, intermediate, renewal and more detailed inspections associated with the maritime labour certificate. The Committee recalls that every ship, within the meaning of the Convention shall be inspected and not only ships to which a maritime labour certificate shall be issued. It also observes that there does not seem to be information as to inspections to be carried out when a ship is registered or re-registered. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions that ensure that inspections required under Regulation 5.1.4 (inspections and enforcement) apply to every ship, within the meaning of the MLC, 2006, and are carried out when a ship is registered or re-registered and/or when seafarer accommodation is substantially altered,as provided by Standard A3.1, paragraph 3.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 20. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Exemptions for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage. Noting that clause 2 of Notification of Marine Department No. 112/2560 on the Standards of Accommodations, Spaces and Facilities for Seafarers excludes ships of less than 200 gross tonnage engaged in domestic voyages from its scope of application, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that exemptions are only made in compliance with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this exemption was subject to a consensus agreement by a tripartite committee, composed of government sectors, representatives of seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations, and relevant stakeholders. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, as foreseen in Article VI, paragraph 3, governments, in consultation with social partners, could also agree on substantial equivalent measures with respect to accommodation provisions if a Member is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code. Recalling that the Convention does not contain a general or overall exclusion of ships below a certain gross tonnage, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Regulation 3.1 and the Code in relation to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage engaged in domestic voyages.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 5 and 6. Food and catering. Dispensation of a fully qualified cook. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government states that, in the absence of provisions defining the circumstances under which dispensations may be issued to permit a non-fully qualified cook to serve as ship’s cook, it will recommend the legislative subcommittee to amend the necessary laws and regulations under the MLA in order to comply with this requirement of the Convention. The Committeeaccordingly requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3. Medical care on board and ashore. Access to on-shore medical facilities for seafarers on board foreigner ships. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3, including how this requirement is applied in practice, regarding the obligation as a port State to ensure that seafarers on board ships in Thai territory who are in need of immediate medical care are given access to the Member’s medical facilities on shore. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that health care service providers in Thailand generally provide health care services to all seafarers who enter the territory of Thailand regardless of nationality, without discrimination, similar to the one afforded to Thai citizens. The Government further states that, in general, a shipowner provides insurance that covers health care services for a seafarer, and in the case where a seafarer has an illness or needs to have a treatment on shore, a shipowner will coordinate with the ship’s agent to take the seafarer to shore for treatment, and the seafarer will not be responsible for any charges or fees. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. Shipowners’ liability. Safeguarding of property left on board. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government indicates that representatives of shipowners’ organization confirmed, during a meeting of relevant stakeholders including representatives of the seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations, and government agencies held on 9 September 2021, that the compulsory insurance that a shipowner needs to provide a seafarer already covers the obligation to safeguard the personal property of a sick or injured seafarer with a view to return it to the seafarer and/or his or her next of kin. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to implement this Regulation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers specifically are not prescribed in any laws or regulations because, in practice, an employer or a shipowner of each vessel provides seafarers welfare facilities on shore as needed or requested by the seafarers. The Government also indicates that the officials of the Marine Department also enquire seafarers about welfare facilities provided during inspection to ensure the implementation. Recalling that each Member shall promote the development of welfare facilities in appropriate ports of the country and determine, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, which ports are to be regarded as appropriate, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on its future plans for the establishment of seafarer welfare facilities in its ports, in accordance with Regulation 4.4 and the Code.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government’s indicates that section 4 of the MLA provides that employment relations between a shipowner and a seafarer under this Act are not subject to the Law on social security and the Law on Workmen’s Compensation and that shipowners are required to provide social security and compensation protection for seafarers in accordance with rules, procedures and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Labour. The Government recognizes that as a result, seafarers working on commercial vessels who are ordinary resident in Thailand were deprived of social security benefits. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that clause 2 of Notification of the Ministry of Labour on Rules, Procedures and Conditions on Protection of Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation for Seafarers of 5 April B.E. 2559 (2015) provides that seafarers under the MLA are entitled to receive some benefits that go beyond the insurance provided by the shipowners and that they receive social security and compensation for the following three cases: (1) in case of death or missing unrelated to work (2) in case of encounter with danger or illness related to work and (3) compensation in case of encounter with danger or illness related to work, or loss of organs or abilities to work, or disability, or death or missing. Such benefits are however not equal to the benefits provided to onshore workers who are resident in Thailand. The Government also indicates that shipowners, despite having paid social security contributions, and seafarers working on ships excluded from the scope of application of the MLA, as listed under section 3(4) of the MLA, Ministerial Regulation B.E. 256,1 are deprived of such minimum social security benefits. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a draft amendment to the relevant provisions of the MLA is in the process of public hearing through the website of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare with a view to gathering information from stakeholders and processing further legislative procedures. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made towards amending the MLA to ensure that all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory and their dependents are covered by social security protection in the branches of medical care; employment injury benefit; family benefit; invalidity benefit and survivors’ benefitand that the resulting protection is not less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers resident in Thailand.

Regulation 5.1.3 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. Content. Observing that the DMLC, Part II, provided by the Government is a blank form, the Committee requested the Government to provide one or more examples of an approved DMLC, Part II in accordance with Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10(b). The Committee notes that the example provided by the Government essentially contains references to other documents, without providing further details as to their content and thus does not identify the concrete measures adopted by the shipowner to ensure ongoing compliance with the national requirements between inspections on board of a given vessel. The Committee observes that the DMLC Part II does not appear to achieve the objective which is set under the Convention, namely to help all persons concerned, such as port State inspectors, authorized port State officials and seafarers, to ensure that the national requirements in the 16 areas set out in the list are duly implemented on board the ship (see Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10, and Guideline B5.1.3, paragraphs 4 and 5). The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to fully implement the requirements of the Convention as noted above and to provide new examples of DMLC, Part II with its next report.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Intervals of inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that the applicable legislation with respect to ship inspection is Regulation for Vessel Inspection (No. 15) B.E. 2528 (1985) which prescribes under clause 14 that the annual inspection shall be performed every 12 months. While noting this information, the Committee observes that inspections conducted on the basis of this Regulation refer to inspection requirements in application of a number of international conventions to which Thailand is a party, but does not refer to inspections of working and living conditions given that this Regulation was adopted prior to the MLC, 2006. The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or taken to ensure that inspections of working and living conditions prescribed by the MLC, 2006, are conducted at least every three years including for ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate, as required by Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Powers of inspectors. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government indicates that in accordance with section 95 of the MLA, the competent officials shall have the authority to step on board or enter into a shipowner’s office and inspect working and living conditions; to require documents relating to employment conditions and to issue a letter inquiring or summoning a shipowner, seafarer or any related person to provide a statement or submit relevant document; and to order, in writing, a shipowner or seafarer to comply with this Act. The Government further indicates that Notification of the Ministry of Transport on Rules, Procedures and Conditions for Competent Officials in Inspecting a Thai Ship or Entering a Shipowner’s Office or Workplace to Inspect Maritime Labour of 21 June B.E. 2560 (2017) provides under Clause 12 that in case any deficiencies is found, the competent official shall record it and determine the duration for rectification of such deficiencies in accordance with the Maritime Labour Inspection Report Form. If the shipowner does not correct the deficiencies within the specified time, the official shall conduct proceedings as prescribed under the MLA. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 16. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Compensation in case of wrongful exercise of the inspectors’ powers. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to give effect to the requirement of Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 16, which requires compensation to be paid for loss or damage suffered as a result of the wrongful exercise of the inspectors’ powers. The Committee notes the Governments’ indication that in such cases section 157 of the Criminal Code applies, which prescribes that “any person, being an official, who abuses or neglects the function to cause damage to anyone, or dishonestly exercises or neglects exercising the function, shall be penalized by being sentenced to 1-10 years’ imprisonment or fined 2,000 – 20,000 baht, or both”. The Government further indicates that in cases where the loss or damage causes civil liability, the victim can exercise the right to request a civil lawsuit according to the national laws. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5. Flag State responsibilities. On board complaint procedures. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government states that each vessel has a complaint form and procedures on board to follow in case there is a complaint. The Government further states that if the seafarer is not satisfied with the company’s decision, the seafarer is entitled to complain to the government agencies. In this regard, section 89 of the MLA also prescribes that the complaint shall not waive the right of seafarers to file a complaint to a state where a ship flies its flag, or a port state or relevant governmental organizations of which such seafarer holds the nationality. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the Government has not indicated how it gives effect to Regulation 5.1.5, paragraph 2 (prohibition of victimization), and to Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 4 in practice (arrangements to ensure that seafarers are provided with a copy of the on-board complaint procedures). The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to implement these requirements of the Convention, and to provide a copy of the model for on-board complaint procedures or of typical procedures that are followed on ships and provided to seafarers.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous request, the Government indicates that section 96 of the MLA prescribes the port State inspection and monitoring system for reviewing compliance with the requirements of the Convention relating to the working and living conditions of seafarers on foreign ships calling at its ports. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Transport also issued a detailed Ministerial Regulation on Inspection, Detention, Proposal of Correction Plan, and Inspection Expense for a Foreign Ship Entering Thai Water B.E. 2563 (2020) enacted on 23 October B.E. 2563 (2020), which prescribes the provisions for inspection of foreign ships in accordance with the MLC, 2006. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures.In the absence of available information regarding the functioning of the onshore complaint-handling procedure in Thailand, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it implements the provisions of Regulation 5.2.2 and Standard A5.2.2, including steps taken to safeguard confidentiality for seafarers calling at its ports who bring a complaint alleging a breach of the requirements of the Convention.