Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 4 of the Convention. Non-departure from the rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Labour Code contains provisions respecting the determination of the competence of labour tribunals. It further notes that, according to the Government, these rules are so imperious that section 675 of the Labour Code renders null procedural measures which are not referred to the competent tribunal, with a view to protecting workers against abuse. It also notes that, in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 8 of 26 February 1998 issuing the regulations governing work at sea and on other navigable waterways, the Department responsible for maritime labour issues is under the obligation to verify and approve all fishers’ articles of agreement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Department responsible for maritime labour issues ensures, in the framework of such control, that fishers’ articles of agreement do not contain any stipulation providing for a departure from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction, as established by the Labour Code.

Article 8. Information as to the conditions of employment on board the fishing vessel. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments on this point the Government indicates that measures have not yet been adopted so that the fisher may satisfy her or himself on board as to the precise nature of the conditions of employment. It hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report the adoption of measures for this purpose and requests it to keep the Office informed of any development in this respect.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government concerning the number of workers and fishing vessels covered by the Convention. In view of the broad discrepancy between the data provided for 2008 and for 2009 (1,639 and 253, respectively), it requests the Government to specify whether the data in the table on the number of fishers indicates the total number of fishers covered by Convention No. 114 or the number of newly recruited fishers each year. The Committee also notes the model inspection reports attached to the Government’s report, which make explicit reference to several ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 114, and the indication of the measures adopted to remedy the contraventions identified. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of the Convention in practice, including information on the number of inspections carried out on board fishing vessels each year and the percentage of cases in which contraventions of the provisions of Convention No. 114 have been identified. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the list of points that maritime labour inspectors have to verify during inspections carried out on board fishing vessels.

Finally, the Committee understands that the tripartite representatives of Panama participated in a seminar to promote the ratification of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188), which was organized by the ILO in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in August 2009. It requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any measures taken, in the context of the follow-up to this seminar, with a view to the ratification of Convention No. 188, which revises and consolidates most ILO Conventions on work in the fishing sector, including Convention No. 114.