ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Display in: French - Spanish

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports on the application of the maritime Conventions ratified. In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues to be addressed in relation to the application of maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine these matters in a single comment, as follows.
The Government has been reporting for a number of years, that the national merchant navy, defined as privately or publicly owned seagoing ships engaged in the commercial transportation of goods or persons, is very limited in size. According to the National Property Register, the country had a total of 151 registered vessels as of 2012. Registered tugboats (three vessels) only operate in port zones within the national territory, and coastal trade (cabotage) (32 vessels) is limited to the transportation of groups of more than five persons or of 2 tonnes of cargo between two national, coastal or river ports on the same coast. The only fleet of considerable size in the country is made up exclusively of fishing vessels which fall outside the scope of application of the Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976 (No. 145), and the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147). The Committee notes that, irrespective of the limited size of the national merchant navy, the Government remains bound to the obligations contained in the maritime Conventions it has ratified.
Recalling that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), revises the Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8), the Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921 (No. 16), and Conventions Nos 145 and 147, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Executive Power presented the bill on the adoption of the MLC, 2006, before the Legislative Assembly and that the bill is not currently included on the agenda of the plenary of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on any progress towards ratification and implementation of the MLC, 2006.
Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8). Article 1(2). Definition of “vessel”. The Committee refers to its 1999 comment in which it mentioned the need to define precisely in the second Title, 11th Chapter of the Labour Code, dealing with “work at sea and on navigable waterways”, the terms “ship” or “vessel” to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government’s reports received since 1999 indicate that there have not been substantive changes in law and practice in relation to the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that the Labour Code has not been amended in accordance with the indications made by the Committee. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to amend without delay the second Title, 11th Chapter, of the Labour Code by adding a precise definition of the terms “ship” or “vessel” in conformity with this Article of the Convention.
Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921 (No. 16). Article 2. Prohibition to employ young persons under 18 years of age without a medical certificate. The Committee refers to its 2001 comments in which it noted that, under section 5(m) of the regulations concerning the hiring and conditions of occupational health of adolescents, adopted by Decree No. 29220-MTSS of 30 October 2000 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, persons between 15 and 18 years of age are prohibited from working on the high seas. The Committee once again requests the Government to clarify whether persons between 15 and 18 years of age are permitted to work on vessels engaged in coastal navigation.
Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976 (No. 145). Articles 2–6. National policy to promote continuity of employment for seafarers. In its latest report, the Government indicates that there have not been substantive changes in either law or practice in the application of the Convention and that it undertakes to report any progress achieved in the promotion and development of a maritime industry and the adoption of the general policy envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide information on this subject in the very near future.
Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147). Article 2(a)(i). Safety standard. Medical examination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of an administrative resolution adopted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on medical examinations carried out by private medical practitioners. The Committee notes that the resolution provided by the Government refers to fishers. While it notes that the national legislation does not appear to include provisions on medical certificates for seafarers, the Committee requests the Government to adopt acts or regulations which prescribe: (i) the period of validity of the seafarers’ medical certificate; (ii) the nature of the medical examination to be made and the particulars to be included in the medical certificate; and (iii) the arrangements for re-examination in the event of refusal of a certificate, so as to attain substantial equivalence with the provisions of Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73).
Article 2(a)(iii). Shipboard conditions of employment. Articles of agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the national legislation does not contain specific provisions determining the circumstances in which the shipowner or master may immediately discharge a seafarer, nor those in which the seafarer may demand immediate discharge. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection of the seafarer in case of early termination of employment in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of Articles 10–14 of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). The Government indicates that the national legislation, particularly the Labour Code, contains specific provisions for the discharge of the worker when the shipowner or captain decide to terminate the seafarer’s agreement or when the worker decides to terminate his employment. The Government refers to sections 120 (seafarers’ agreement), 121 (obligation of the employer to return the worker to the destination established in the agreement prior to its conclusion) and 123 (prohibition to terminate the seafarer’s agreement during the voyage) of the Labour Code and indicates that in the event that, in accordance with section 123, regardless of where the ship is docked, the ship’s master may find a substitute for the seafarer wishing to put an end to the agreement and can terminate it, the shipmaster must comply with the legal provisions on severance and termination notices, payment of damages and compensation, and return of the worker to the destination established in the seafarer’s agreement. The Government indicates that sections 120, 121 and 123 of the Labour Code are substantially equivalent to the criteria in Articles 11 and 12 of Convention No. 22. The Committee nevertheless notes that the provisions mentioned by the Government do not provide for termination of the articles of agreement, nor for the circumstances in which the shipowner or master may immediately discharge a seafarer, nor those in which the seafarer may demand immediate discharge. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection of the seafarer in case of early termination of employment in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of Articles 10–14 of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22).
Article 2(a)(iii). Shipboard living arrangements. Food and catering. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the legislation mentioned by the Government is unrelated to the food supply and catering arrangements on board merchant ships. Moreover, the Committee noted that although in section 118 of the Labour Code mention is made of an adequate quality of food, this is insufficient to ensure substantial equivalence with the specific requirements of Article 5 of the Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68). The Government indicates that the national merchant navy is mainly composed of vessels engaged in coastal trade, which encompasses the transport of persons and cargo between national ports. This service is regulated by the Coasting Trade Act of the Republic, No. 2.220, and its regulations. In accordance with section 14(g) of this Act, each vessel engaged in coastal trade is required to carry food and fuel to last 48 hours longer than the normal duration of the voyage, and to provide the authorities with a list. While it notes the information provided by the Government, the Committee observes that the legislative provisions in force are insufficient to ensure substantial equivalence with Article 5 of the Convention No. 68, which establishes that national legislation must require, for all seagoing vessels, that the provision of food and drinking supplies is suitable in respect of quantity, nutritional value, quality and variety, having regard to the size of the crew and the duration and nature of the voyage, and also that the arrangement and equipment of the catering department in every vessel permits the service of proper meals to the members of the crew. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure substantial equivalence with the food and catering standards set out in Convention No. 68.
Article 5(2). Ratification requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to meet the requirements of this Article of the Convention which it assumed through ratification. In this respect, the Government indicates that the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, is incorporated into the legal framework through Act No. 8708 of 23 December 2010. The International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, was before the national authorities with a view to its incorporation into the national legal system. Regarding the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1960, and the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, the Government indicates that these instruments have not yet been presented to the Legislative Assembly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on compliance with the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966. Given that Article 5(1) of the Convention provides, in relation to the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1960, and the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, that the implementation of those by members is sufficient, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes with interest the information communicated by the Government to the effect that captains are also entitled to the unemployment indemnity provided for in the legislation in case of shipwreck.

Article 1, paragraph 2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that section 122 of the Labour Code, which provides for payment of an unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck, contained no definition of the term "vessel". In this regard, the Government indicates in its report that it has not maintained any register listing the cases where, following a shipwreck, unemployment indemnity has been denied to seamen on vessels on the ground that section 122 of the Labour Code was deemed inapplicable.

The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that at the next revision of the Labour Code, the Government will be able to re-examine the question and include in the section of the Labour Code dealing with "work at sea and on navigable waterways", a precise definition of the term "vessel" so as to ensure conformity of the provisions with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee requests further information on the following points.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under sections 118 and 122 of the Labour Code, workers who have a right to an indemnity in case of shipwreck include all workers who offer services specific to those carried out on board a vessel and who work under the authority of a captain in return for remuneration. The Committee recalls that, under the provisions of the Convention, captains also shall have a right to an unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck. It requests the Government to indicate whether section 122 of the Labour Code is interpreted in practice to include captains, or whether captains are covered under separate provisions.

Article 1, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that the above-mentioned section 122 of the Labour Code does not contain a definition of the term vessel. It also notes the Government's explanation in its 1992 report that there is no merchant fleet in Costa Rica and consequently that many lacuna exist in this respect. The Committee would appreciate information on whether there have been in practice cases of denial of unemployment indemnity in case of shipwreck to seamen on vessels which have been deemed to be outside the scope of Article 122 of the Labour Code.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer