Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8) - Peru (Ratification: 1962)

Other comments on C008

Direct Request

2016
2011

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. The Committee understands that the national legislation that previously gave effect to the Convention, including Supreme Decree No. 028-81-MA of 29 September 1981 and Supreme Decree No. 009-74-TR of 27 May 1974, has either been repealed or no longer contains provisions relevant to the application of the Convention. In its last report, the Government refers to Supreme Decree No. 001-97-TR of 21 February 1997 establishing a system of compensation on the basis of the length of service as implementing the requirements of the Convention. The Committee is bound to observe, however, that the system of compensation on the basis of the length of service – on which the Committee has been commenting for the last 20 years under the Unemployment Provision Convention, 1934 (No. 44) – bears little relevance to the specific unemployment protection for shipwrecked seafarers envisaged by the Convention. In this connection, the Committee notes the comments made by the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) concerning the absence of legislation expressly providing for unemployment indemnity of seafarers in case of the ship’s loss or foundering.

The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires shipowners, in the event of shipwreck, to pay to each seafarer an indemnity for the days during which the seafarer remains in fact unemployed. The unemployment indemnity is payable at the same rate as the contractual wages but the total indemnity may be limited to two months’ wages. The Committee further recalls that Article 3 of the Convention seeks to ensure that seafarers have the same remedies for recovering the unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck as they have for recovering any unpaid wages during their service. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take appropriate measures in order to give full effect to the Convention, for instance by amending section E-040203 of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MGP of 25 May 2001 on Regulations on Ports and Activities at Sea and on Inland Waterways.

Finally, the Committee takes note of the comments made by the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions (CONFIEP) and the Chamber of Commerce of Lima (CCL) concerning the need for revision of the Convention. The Committee wishes to recall, in this respect, that Convention No. 8 together with 36 other international labour Conventions is revised by the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and as a result, most of the provisions of the present Convention have been incorporated in Regulation 2.6, Standard A2.6 and Guideline B2.6 of the MLC, 2006. The Committee therefore considers that ensuring compliance with Convention No. 8 would facilitate compliance with the corresponding requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments regarding the process of ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.