Social security protection for seafarers including those serving

Transcription

International Labour Conference
74th (Maritime) Session 1987
Report III (2)
Social security protection for seafarers
including those serving
in shipsflyingflagsother than those
of their own country
Third item on the agenda
International Labour Office
Geneva
ISBN 92-2-105790-9
ISSN 0074-6681
First published 1987
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations
practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country,
area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely
with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour
Office of the opinions expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their
endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm,
commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.
ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or
direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. A
catalogue or list of new publications will be sent free of charge from the above address.
Printed in Switzerland
PCL
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
REPLIES FROM GOVERNMENTS AND COMMENTARIES
3
PROPOSED TEXT
Proposed Convention concerning Social Security for Seafarers
(revised)
Projet de convention concernant la sécurité sociale des gens de mer
(révisée)
APPENDIX: Classification of late replies
22
23
47
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with article 38 of the Standing Orders of the International
Labour Conference, the International Labour Office submitted to the
governments of member States a report ' containing the Proposed Conclusions
prepared by the Office for the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference
(Geneva, May 1986) in respect of social security protection for seafarers
including those serving in shipsflyingflagsother than those of their own country,
together with a review of the proceedings of the Preparatory Conference in
respect of that item and the text of the proposed Convention prepared by the
Office on the basis of those Conclusions.
The report also contained a questionnaire designed to obtain the views of
governments. Governments were requested to send their replies to the
questionnaire so as to reach the Office not later than 15 March 1987.
When the present report was drafted the Office had received replies from the
following 36 member States: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Burundi,
Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of
Germany, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Liberia,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United States.
The first part of this report contains the general observations made by
governments and a summary and analysis of their replies.
The second part contains the English and French versions of the proposed
text, drafted on the basis of the replies furnished by governments. If the
Conference so decides, this proposed text will serve as a basis for the discussion
at its 74th (Maritime) Session of the question of social security protection for
seafarers including those serving in shipsflyingflagsother than those of their own
country.
• ILO : Social security protection for seafarers including those serving in ships flying flags other
than those of their own country, Report III (1), International Labour conference, 74th (Maritime)
Session, Geneva, 1987.
1
REPLIES FROM GOVERNMENTS AND COMMENTARIES
The substance of the replies received from the governments of member States
to the questions contained in the questionnaire on social security protection for
seafarers including those serving in shipsflyingflagsother than those of their own
country is given below. The replies are followed, where appropriate, by brief
Office commentaries.
The Government of Burundi stated that it had no observations to put
forward as the subject matter was of no concern to it.
The Government of Guyana indicated that since it had not ratified the
Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56), and the Social Security
(Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 70), it did not feel called upon to respond to
the questionnaire.
The Governments of the remaining 34 member States (Australia, Austria,
Bahrain, Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Djibouti,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal
Republic of Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Liberia,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United States) made
observations, the substance of which is given in the present report.
The Governments of Austria, Cuba, Ethiopia, Finland, Hungary, Norway,
Sweden, the Ukrainian SSR and the United States stated that the shipowners' and
seafarers' organisations had been consulted.
With their replies, the Governments of Colombia, Cyprus, the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom transmitted, separately from the governments' replies, the
views of the shipowners' and/or seafarers' organisations on the questions. The
Standing Orders of the Conference provide for the preparation of proposed
instruments "on the basis of the replies from the governments", it being for the
governments concerned to take account of the views of their employers' and
workers' organisations. However, in view of the number of replies of shipowners'
and seafarers' organisations submitted separately, the preponderant role played
by these organisations in many of the countries concerned as regards the subjects
covered by the item and the controversial nature of some of the questions under
consideration, it has seemed appropriate to give delegates to the Conference a
preliminary indication of the views of the organisations concerned. A section
summarising their comments has therefore been included at the end of each
question.
General observations
Hungary. The Government has no objection to the inclusion in the proposed text of
provisions concerningfishermenand ships engaged in fishing.
3
New Zealand. The Government points out that, although New Zealand was among the
first nations to introduce social welfare benefits, the philosophy of extending those benefits
extra-territorially has not yet been considered acceptable, mainly because of the enormous
administrative burden involved. This burden would be particularly heavy in the case of
migrant seafarers who in the course of their sea-going career have worked under many
different flags of registry. A way round the administrative difficulties might be, however, to
consider the setting up of an international welfare fund for seafarers which, with the
facilities afforded by modern communications, could be situated anywhere. Both employer
and employee could contribute and a single beneficial account would accrue to each
individual regardless of where he was employed or under which flag. A problem might be
created by the need to persuade administrations which already have a domestic welfare
programme to make additional contributions, but there may be no need for
administrations to contribute as the seafarer would be entitled to the domestic social
welfare benefits. In the case of migrant seafarers, administrations could be asked to pay an
amount into the fund in recognition of there being no continuing liability for them to make
extra-territorial payments. Such an arrangement would concentrate the administrative
effort and thus reduce its total cost, thereby contributing to an efficient, individually
oriented organisation.
Switzerland. In the Government's view the proposed instrument appears to be
complicated. It considers that the diversity of national social security systems cannot be
covered by such technical and complex provisions as those proposed. It would have
preferred a more flexible instrument of a purely promotional character which interested
member States could easily ratify.
United States. The United States Government generally supports the proposed
Convention because of its flexibility regarding the categories of protection to be provided
and because the basic application scheme is generally in conformity with the United States
social security system. In addition, an amendment to the Convention envisages the
possibility of private insurance schemes providing some of the benefits listed. It was clear
from the lengthy, heated debates and the lack of real progress on the subject in 1986 that it
would be very difficult to arrive at a Convention, let alone one that would be ratified by
many countries. The Government would therefore oppose any complicating amendments
or changes that would lessen theflexibilityof the original proposal, particularly with regard
to the types of benefits to be covered or provided.
Comments of shipowners' and seafarers' organisations
The Finnish Seamen's Union and the Finnish Ship Officers' Union consider that the
revision should be aimed at the improvement of social security for seafarers in general, and
in all countries, in order to bring it up to at least the level that now prevails in the so-called
developed seafaring countries.
The Portuguese Federation of Fishermen's Trade Unions considers that the instrument
should cover high-sea fishermen.
In the view of the Union of Swiss Commercial Transport and Food Workers, Seafarers'
Section, the proposed Convention is a good text which will at last make it possible to
provide a minimum social protection for all seafarers serving under foreign flags.
The United Kingdom's National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport
Officers indicates that its response to the questionnaire is based upon the direct experience
of those of its members who have been obliged to seek employment in foreign-flag ships as
a result of the severe decline in the United Kingdom flag fleet. Its replies have been framed
in the belief that its members (and their dependants) in foreign-flag employment need
adequate social security protection, that the level of the protection should be not less than
applies in the United Kingdom at the relevant time, that protection must include
procedures to ensure that entitlements are protected on moving from or to foreign-flag
employment and United Kingdom shore-based employment, that contributions are
actually paid and recorded and that areas covered by shipowners' liability are not allowed
4
Replies from governments and commentaries
Qu. 1
to go by default due to owner's bankruptcy, receivership, etc. At the Preparatory Technical
Maritime Conference the Union argued for, and it continues to uphold, the principle that
social security protection should be linked to the seafarer's country of residence and not the
flag of the ship. Its reasons for adhering to this principle are: first, that the seafarer may
take employment in a number of ships of different flags; second, the seafarer may have
periods of shore-based employment in his country of residence; and, third, that the
seafarer's dependants will almost invariably be in his country of residence. These
considerations are relevant to the Union's response to the various questions.
Replies to questionnaire
The Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference did not take any
decision as to whether the proposed instrument should include
standards on the liability of the shipowner. The draft initially
prepared by the Office provided for such standards in fields where the
obligations of the shipowner are allied to social security protection.
This is the case in particular when they replace social security benefits
where these are absent or cannot be provided at sea or during periods
spent ashore overseas, making it advisable to co-ordinate their
application with the intervention of social security.
Qu. 1
Do you consider that related standards should be included in the
proposed Convention (cf. Part III, alternative I), or do you prefer a
standard laying down solely that the provisions of the Convention do
not affect the obligations of the shipowner under the laws and
regulations of a Member (cf. Part III, alternative II)?
Total number of replies: 34.
In favour of alternative 1: 15. Austria, Bahrain, Cyprus, German Democratic
Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, New Zealand,
Nigeria, Porgual, El Salvador, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
In favour of alternative II: 17. Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Cuba,
Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Greece, Hungary, Liberia,
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
Other: 2. Ecuador, Finland.
Australia. A standard laying down solely that the provisions of the Convention do not
affect the obligations of the shipowner under the laws and regulations of a Member would
seem preferable. However, alternative II needs to be strengthened. There is room for a
compromise text which would oblige Members to have laws and regulations "requiring a
shipowner to make adequate provisions... etc." without spelling out the detail.
Bahrain. Since standards governing the obligations of shipowners usually reflect the
most basic obligations incumbent upon them, the Convention could usefully include such
standards, provided they do not affect the obligations of shipowners under national laws
and regulations where they are more stringent than those laid down in the Convention.
5
Qu. 1
Belgium. The related standard of the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No.
56), would also be acceptable.
Denmark. Alternative I goes too far.
Ecuador. The obligations of the shipowner should be established in such a way that he
is liable for the provision to seafarers on board, and to those no longer on board, of all
social security benefits covered by the minimum standards, unless such benefits are
provided under the legislation of the Member whose flag the ship is flying.
Ethiopia. The Government's preference for alternative II is based on principle rather
than on merit. It appreciates that provisions concerning shipowners' liabilities are in
principle necessary and that such obligations need to be determined in detail, but doubts
whether the proposed Convention is an appropriate place for them, as it is meant to revise
Conventions Nos. 56 and 70 which have nothing to do with shipowners' liabilities. The
subject is dealt with in Convention No. 55, and shipowners' liabilities should be considered
only when envisaging the revision of that Convention. As the Office report indicates,
Convention No. 55 did not receive the expected number of ratifications and, if provisions
concerning shipowners' liabilities are inserted in the present proposed Convention, it is
therefore likely that it would meet a similar fate.
Finland. The Government has no definite view on this question.
Federal Republic of Germany. If provisions in this field are to be included at all, it
would seem preferable, also for reasons of competitiveness, to choose alternative I.
Alternative II seems to be superfluous, and the "clarification" it is aiming at might be
misleading. Member States should not be hindered from satisfying the obligations of the
Convention by the adoption of equivalent legislation.
Greece. The Convention should not include detailed and specific standards on the
liability of the shipowner in matters of social security protection for seafarers; on the
contrary, it would be desirable to state in the Convention that its provisions do not affect
the shipowner's obligations resulting from the national legislation of any member State.
This view is justified by the following considerations. Any State which has ratified the
Convention will be bound to make provision for social security protection for seafarers in
accordance with the Convention's provisions, such protection being afforded both by the
shipowner and by the competent State by means of social security institutes for seafarers.
The extent to which social security protection is provided by the shipowner should be
defined by the State in the light of the prevailing circumstances, provided that the seafarer's
rights are in no way affected.
Iraq. Given the extended employment of non-national seafarers and in order to
establish a true relationship between the ship and the country whose flag it isflyingand to
hold the owner responsible for the social security protection of seafarers, clear standards on
the liability of the shipowner should be included in Part III of the Convention.
Netherlands. The draft provisions initially prepared by the Office are very similar to
the obligations of shipowners under the Dutch Code of Commerce; they can, in fact, to a
certain extent, be considered even more far-reaching than corresponding legislation in the
Netherlands. The Netherlands Government proposed at the time an amendment to the text
which is now known as alternative II. The proposal was made not only to ensure that the
Convention does not entail obligations which, in relation to the legislation in force in the
Netherlands, would seem too far-reaching but also because it was felt that the drafting of
the relevant regulations is beyond the scope of a Convention on social security and should
therefore not be dealt with in this instrument.
Nigeria. Related standards should be included in the proposed Convention so that
seafarers can receive sickness, injury and old-age benefits and shipowners are made aware
of their responsibilities.
Sweden. Swedish legislation does not fully satisfy the requirements of Articles 12 to 14
of the proposed Convention concerning the responsibilities of the shipping company and
the Government therefore prefers alternative II. (See also reply to Question 5.)
6
Qu. 1
Switzerland. Swiss legislation satisfies to a large extent the conditions set out in Articles
12 to 14 of alternative I, but certain features of Switzerland's sickness insurance scheme
pose some difficulties. Preference therefore goes to alternative II which leaves room for
more flexibility.
Turkey. Provisions concerning the liability of the shipowner have already been
included in Turkish labour law and various collective agreements. For this reason, but also
for reasons of reciprocity, the Government opts for alternative I.
United States. The issue as to whether a social security instrument is a proper vehicle
in which to include provisions regarding the liability of the shipowner was the second most
vigorously debated question at the Preparatory Conference. While the United States has
already ratified Convention No. 55 from which this provision is adopted, few other
countries have done so and many participants felt very strongly that it was improper for a
proposed Convention on social security to contain such a liability provision. The
Government's position paper at the 1986 meeting supported its inclusion because it
entailed no additional obligations for it, but it considers that the continued attempt to
include this arguably unrelated provision may preventfinalisingthe Convention at all or, if
it is included, will greatly limit the number of ratifying countries.
The Colombian Shipowners' Company AGROMAR is in favour of the inclusion of
specific standards on the liability of the shipowner that reflect the obligations provided for
under national legislation.
The Employers' and Industrialists' Federation of Cyprus believes that any inclusion of
shipowners' liability in the proposed text would make ratification of the Convention very
difficult. A standard laying down solely that the provisions of the text do not affect the
obligations of the shipowner under the laws and regulations of a member State is
acceptable.
The Finnish Shipowners' Association favours alternative II.
The Confederation of German Employers' Organisations of the Federal Republic of
Germany prefers alternative II. The obligations of the shipowner in respect of medical care
for crew members are independent of those under social security legislation and are the
subject of separate ILO Conventions and Recommendations. Both aspects should remain
separate. As was pointed out at the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference, the social
security Conventions had not been ratified by many countries, whereas the Conventions
concerning shipowners' liabilities had obtained broad acceptance.
The Federation of Netherlands Industry sees this question as an attempt to restate and
enhance the provisions of Conventions Nos. 55 and 70 concerning shipowners' liabilities in
respect of seafarers who are sick or injured aboard. It is opposed to such inclusion on the
grounds that this is not a social security issue and that the Convenions in question have
received only a small number of ratifications. Preference is therefore given to alternative
II.
The Confederation of Portuguese Industry is in favour of alternative II because the
provisions of alternative I are too detailed; such detailed provisions have impeded wider
ratification of Conventions Nos. 55 and 70.
In the view of the General Council of British Shipping it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to include detailed references to shipowners' obligations regarding the payment
of wages, provision of board and lodging, repatriation arrangements, etc. in an instrument
concerned with seafarers' social security arrangements and benefits. The two subjects are
quite separate and distinct. It is concerned that the proposals contained in alternative I
restate, and in certain respects enhance, the obligations set out in the Social Security
(Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 70), whose deficiencies are demonstrated by the fact
that it has received only seven ratifications in over 40 years and has not entered into force.
Alternative II should therefore be adopted.
7
Qu.2
The American Institute of Merchant Shipping agrees with alternative II, considering
that the issues addressed in alternative I are not social security issues and do not belong in
the Convention.
The Pancyprian Federation of Labour, the Finnish Seamen's Union and Finnish Ship
Officers' Union, the Seafarers' Organisation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Portuguese General Workers' Union and Portuguese Federation of Fishermen's Trade
Unions and the United Kingdom's National Union of Seamen, are in favour of alternative
I.
The Union of Swiss Commercial Transport and Food Workers, Seafarers' Section, is of
the opinion that certain minimum standards have to be included in the instrument. Many
shipowners register their ships in countries other than their own in order to benefit from
fiscal advantages or to obtain a better distribution of freight agreements. Social costs for
seafarers are an important factor, too, and ships are nowadays sometimes registered in
foreign countries because there are no social charges to pay. Switzerland is a case in point,
where 90 undertakings carry on sea transport activities but only four or five provide a
minimum of social protection for the seafarers serving in their ships. For these reasons,
preference is given to alternative I.
Offices, recognising that an increasing number of seafarers are obliged to seek employment
on ships registered in other maritime countries and under flags of countries operating open
registers, prefers the inclusion of standards covering shipowners' liability within a
Convention; it is therefore in favour of alternative I.
The United Kingdom's Transport and General Workers' Union supports the view that
related standards should be included in the proposed Convention where the obligations of
the shipowner are allied to social security standards.
Each alternative received about the same number of favourable replies. This,
and the fact that each alternative has the full support of either the shipowners or
the seafarers, has induced the Office to retain both of them in the proposed
Convention.
Qu. 2
As regards the protection to be provided to seafarers under the
legislation of any Member, do you consider that, like the provisions of
Article 4 of Convention No. 70, a provision should be included in the
proposed Convention laying down that where a member ensures the
protection of seafarers wholly or partly through a special scheme,
co-ordinating arrangements with the general social security scheme for
shore workers should be made for the maintenance of rights in course
of acquisition by a person who, having ceased to be subject to the
special scheme, becomes subject to the general scheme, or vice versa?
Affirmative: 26. Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Djibouti, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Federal Republic of
Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, Nigeria,
Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United
States.
8
Qu. 2
Negative: 2. Norway, Turkey.
Other: 3. Ecuador, German Democratic Republic, Hungary.
Cuba. Such a provision is not necessary for Cuba, which has no special seafarers'
scheme as all employed persons are covered by a single general scheme.
Ecuador. The social security protection of seafarers should be in every respect equal to
that enjoyed by shore workers.
Hungary. Seafarers should be covered by the general social security scheme, and the
Government is therefore not in favour of creating a special scheme for them.
German Democratic Republic. For the German Democratic Republic there is no need
for a provision aiming at the co-ordination of social security schemes as its legislation
ensures full equality of treatment between seafarers and shore workers.
Japan. The Government is prepared to accept the inclusion of such a provision on
condition that the co-ordinating arrangements for the protection of rights are determined
by national legislation.
Netherlands. The Government is prepared to accept such a provision, provided that its
text is identical to that of Article 4 of Convention No. 70.
Norway. This provision should not be included in the Convention. However, should a
majority be in favour of its inclusion, it should be made clear that it aims at the
co-ordination of Members' internal arrangements and not at co-ordination arrangements
between States.
Switzerland. The Government states that, although seafarers are subject to a special
unemployment insurance scheme, no co-ordinating arrangements are required. The
inclusion of a provision like that of Article 4 of Convention No. 70 could, however, be
considered as long as it allowed governments to decide whether co-ordinating
arrangements were or were not required under their legislation.
Turkey. The inclusion of a provision concerning the protection to be provided to
seafarers under the legislation of any Member would have the effect of mixing up all the
acquired rights provided under special social security schemes under general schemes. A
provision to this effect should therefore not be included in the Convention.
United States. One of the basic principles on which the Government's position has
been based is that the Convention should provide seafarers with the same type and level of
protection as those received by shore workers. The proposal to make protection schemes
compatible and portable as workers move from seafarer jobs to shore jobs and vice versa is
a logical extension of that position.
The Colombian Shipowners' Company AGROMAR is in favour of including a standard
for the total or partial co-ordination of special seafarers' schemes and general social security
schemes.
The Employers' and Industrialists' Federation of Cyprus agrees that a provision should
be included in the proposed Convention for the co-ordination of special seafarers' schemes
and general social security schemes.
Germany is not opposed to the inclusion of such a provision, although there is no need for
it in respect of national social security legislation.
The Federation of Netherlands Industry supports the inclusion of such a provision
provided the exact wording of Article 4 of Convention No. 70 is used. The proposal
underlying this question confirms its opinion that the social security scheme of the
seafarer's country of permanent residence should be applied. As it indicated at the
9
Qu. 3
Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference, it objects to the adoption of any other
principle in matters of social security.
The General Council of British Shipping considers that the setting up of co-ordinating
arrangements between special seafarers' social security schemes, where these are available,
and other national schemes would not appear to raise any difficulties as far as the United
Kingdom is concerned and it would thereore be prepared to support the proposal.
The American Institute of Merchant Shipping considers that there should be a link
between the social security schemes if a country has different schemes for seafarers and
shore workers.
The Pancyprian Federation of Labour, the Seafarers' Organisation of the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Portuguese General Workers' Union and Portuguese Federation
of Fishermen's Trade Unions and the United Kingdom's National Union of Seamen are in
favour of such a provision.
The Union of Swiss Commercial Transport and Food Workers, Seafarers' Section,
considers that such co-ordination is absolutely necessary because there are too many
differences between the various schemes within the social security systems of the different
countries.
Officers considers that account must be taken of the career patterns of seafarers which
reveal periods of shore-based employment which can occur prior to, between, or after,
sea-going employment. It is therefore essential that the proposed Convention require
Members to ensure that whole or partial protection under a special scheme is co-ordinated
with the general social security scheme for shore workers so as to maintain the rights and
entitlements of seafarers and their dependants when they cease to be covered by a special
scheme.
The United Kingdom's Transport and General Workers' Union is in favour of such a
provision. It observes that seafarers are subject to periods of unemployment because in
many instances they sign on articles and work on a voyage-by-voyage basis and because,
for a variety of reasons, they often do not complete a full working life at sea and that they
therefore need alternative protection.
This question received a very large majority of affirmative replies, and this
general support by governments is endorsed by the shipowners and seafarers. The
Office has therefore added a new Article to the proposed Convention which, in
response to a point made by the Government of the Netherlands, is identical with
Article 4 of Convention No. 70, thus covering co-ordination between a
compulsory social insurance scheme for seafarers with any such scheme for shore
workers.
Qu. 3
10
The Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference could not reach an
agreement on the fundamental question of which social security
legislation should apply to seafarers, in particular those serving in
ships flying flags other than those of their own country. The original
Office draft proposed as the basic rule the flag criterion, while
providing for possible derogations either for certain categories of
seafarers with a view to their submission to the legislation of their
country of residence, or in the interest of the persons concerned. To
Qu. 3
this proposal, which was retained by the Conference as alternative I,
it added as alternative II a proposal which leaves it to the Members
concerned to determine by mutual agreement the legislation
applicable in conformity with certain alternative formulas.
To which of the two alternatives of Article 16 of the proposed
Convention do you give preference, or do you want to suggest other
criteria or other formulas for the determination of the legislation
applicable?
{Total number of replies: 34.
In favour of alternative 1:14. Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark,
Djibouti, Ecuador, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Iraq, Nigeria,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United States.
In favour of alternative II: 15. Australia, Bahrain, Cuba, Czechoslovakia,
Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Other: 5. Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, El Salvador,
Switzerland.
Australia. Australia would be unable to comply with alternative I as the Federal Social
Security Act has residence requirements for most benefits and there is no guarantee that a
seafarer on a ship registered in Australia would be resident in Australia. As to alternative
II, clause (c) would be suitable for the branches of social security set out in Article 3,
paragraph 1 (b), (c), (d), (f, (h) and (i) of the proposed Convention. Residence
requirements under the Act may, however, be more restrictive than the "ordinary
residence" required by the proposed Convention.
Austria. It would be desirable to include in alternative I the possibility for members to
agree mutually on the application of the legislation of the employer's place of residence
instead of that of the flag State.
Bahrain. The Government gives preference to alternative II, provided that the benefits
offered under the legislation applicable are at least in conformity with the standards set by
the Convention.
Denmark. Alternative II presupposes the conclusion of mutual agreements between the
member States concerned and this might lead to a "legal vacuum" in cases where no
agreement is concluded. This would be avoided if alternative I is chosen as it includes a
main provision (the legislation of the flag State). Under Danish law Danish rules apply on
board a Danish ship irrespective of the nationality of the seafarer, and the Government
therefore prefers alternative I.
Ecuador. The rules to be established should be based on the flag principle but should
not exclude other formulas in the interest of the persons concerned.
El Salvador. Both alternatives are suitable and should be adopted, the alternative most
favourable to the worker being applied in each case.
Ethiopia. Alternative I is preferable, as alternative II which suggests that it should be
left to the Members concerned to determine by mutual agreement the legislation applicable
is hardly practicable.
Finland. Under the Finnish social insurance scheme the principle of the flag State is
applied as a general rule. The so-called bare-boat cases are an exception, however, but these
11
Qu. 3
seem to have been taken into consideration in both alternatives. The seamen's pension
scheme also provides for the possible transfer of Finnish shipowners' activity to a
flag-of-convenience country. An amendment to Finnish legislation came into force at the
beginning of 1987, making it possible on certain conditions for a Finnish citizen, or an
employee residing in Finland who is employed by a foreign subsidiary of a Finnish
company or on a ship owned by a foreign company under the authority of Finnish
companies, to be covered by seamen's pensions insurance. Finland considers that this
special arrangement may more appropriately apply to the regulations referred to in
alternative II, which should possibly be further supplemented.
Federal Republic of Germany. The Government would prefer an alternative which
gave each member State a free choice between theflagprinciple and the residence principle,
leaving open the possibility of concluding agreements with other member States. The flag
principle, which is the basic rule in alternative I, has the advantage of formal clarity. On the
other hand, the residence principle, which is recognised as equivalent in alternative II,
seems to be more appropriate in many respects.
Greece. Alternative II serves best the interests of seafarers. If the legislation of the
ship's flag State or of the place where the shipowning company has its registered office is
considered applicable, the problem arises that the social security protection of seafarers
who serve in ships of different nationalities will be ensured by social security institutions of
different countries. Which of these institutions shall then be responsible for the provision
of the pension rights or other entitlements of seafarers who do not satisfy the conditions for
the provision of these benefits in any one institution? On the other hand, there is no
problem if the legislation applicable is the legislation of the seafarer's country or the
seafarer's country of residence, because all the rights he acquires while serving on board
ships of different countries will be those provided for under the social security legislation of
his country or his country of residence.
Iraq. Iraqi seafarers enjoy the same social security protection as shore workers and the
Government therefore prefers the flag criterion as the basic rule.
Japan. The Government suggests the adoption of clause (b) of alternative II as a
general standard. In addition, it considers that alternative II should have the same wording
as Point 21 of the Proposed Conclusions adopted by the Preparatory Technical Maritime
Conference.
Liberia. The Government is opposed to either of the alternatives proposed by the
Office but, for alternative II, prefers the wording of Point 21 proposed at the Preparatory
Technical Maritime Conference by the Government member of Sweden. The Preparatory
Conference did not decide in favour of binding and mutually exclusive rules but opted for
certain alternatives to be taken into account when adopting national legislation.
Netherlands. One of the most important discussions held during the Preparatory
Technical Maritime Conference concerned the question of which social security legislation
should apply. The original Office draft (now retained as alternative I), which proposes the
flag criterion as the basic rule, will be unconditionally rejected by the Government, as
acceptance would make it impossible for the Netherlands to ratify the Convention. The
Swedish proposal (now known as alternative II) has a number of positive aspects, as the
ratifying member States would be free to determine, through bilateral or multilateral
agreements, their choice of either the flag criterion, the criterion based on the place of
registration of the employing office or the place of residence of the employer, or the
criterion based on the territory of residence of the seafarer. However, the original wording
of the Swedish proposal made it possible to determine the legislation applicable by mutual
agreement between the Members concerned in accordance not only with one, but also with
a combination of the rules given under (a), (b) and (c). The possibility of combining the
various criteria afforded a flexibility which, given the many different social security
schemes existing in the various member States, is considered necessary. On the
understanding that the above shall be taken into consideration, the Government favours
the Swedish proposal (alternative II).
12
Qu. 3
New Zealand. The Government would prefer alternative II, clause (b), although the
residential requirements of the social welfare legislation would have to be met.
Norway. The Government prefers alternative II, but there are other possible solutions
to the question of which legislation should apply.
Portugal. Neither of the two alternatives is suitable. The Government proposes that
clause (b) of alternative I be amended so as to read "this legislation shall be that of the
Member whose flag the ship is flying, unless the legislation of the Member in whose
territory seafarers are resident is more favourable", in order to introduce greater flexibility,
and that clause (c) be deleted.
Sweden. The main rule in Sweden's National Insurance Act is that Swedish law applies
on board Swedish-registered ships. "Bare-boat charter" is an exception to this rule: if a
Swedish shipping company charters a virtually unmanned, foreign-registered ship, Swedish
law applies to the crew members hired by that company; conversely, on board a
Swedish-registered ship chartered unmanned by a foreign shipping company, Swedish law
does not apply to the crew hired by the company. If alternative I comes into force, Sweden
will be unable to apply the above-mentioned exception in relation to other ratifying States.
In most of the bilateral agreements which Sweden has concluded in the field of social
insurance, Sweden has refrained from applying the exceptional provision of its legislation,
with the result that the flag rule has been strictly applied instead. In a bilateral situation,
however, Sweden is in a position to evaluate the protection afforded by the other country's
legislation and can at the same time make sure that the pension earned under the other
country's system is actually paid in Sweden. No such facilities would exist in relation to
States ratifying the future ILO Convention. To ratify the Convention, for example, it is
sufficient under Article 3 for the State concerned to satisfy the minimum obligations of the
Convention as regards three of the nine branches of social security mentioned therein.
Moreover, no security would exist for the disbursement in Sweden of accrued pension
rights. For these reasons, the Government is in favour of alternative II.
Switzerland. A distinction must be made between countries with a concentrated social
security system linking all branches and those with a system where the different branches
are more or less independent of each other. The text should therefore beflexibleenough to
cover all contingencies: i.e. alternative I for sickness insurance, accident insurance and
occupational pensions insurance, and alternative II, clauses (b) and (c) for unemployment
insurance.
United Kingdom. The Government cannot follow the implication that a member State
can accept a unilateral obligation to make mutual agreements. It therefore proposes that the
phrase "on mutual agreement" be left out completely or that the phrase "shall be
determined" be followed by "as far as possible". The Government also sees no point in
having agreements where no reciprocation is possible, i.e. with States which do not have
social security benefits which they can make available to United Kingdom seafarers in
return for the United Kingdom opening up its system to their seafarers. The Government is
also unhappy about the phrase "in accordance with one of the following rules" in the fifth
and sixth lines of alternative II. The original Swedish proposal spoke of "taking into
account the following alternatives". The Government prefers the Swedish original, as it
sees the alternatives which follow as concepts rather than rules. Finally, the Government
suggests that the phrase "or present at the time of taking up a contract of employment" be
added after the word "resident" in clause (c) of alternative II.
United States. The fundamental question of which country's social security scheme
should apply to a seafarer, particularly when the registry of the ship and the nationality of
the seafarer involve different countries, was the most critical and debated issue of the last
session. The United States supports the Office proposal that the system applied be that of
the flag State. However, a great number of governments are strongly opposed to that
approach and favour alternative II which would leave the decision to bilateral agreements
between specific countries. This may result in a hollow Convention, as such bilateral
treaties could conceivably never be negotiated and certainly not negotiated with every
13
Qu. 3
possible country, thus leaving major gaps in coverage even where ratifications have
occurred. Indeed, one Government member, who favoured that alternative at the
Preparatory Conference, candidly stated that such an approach was almost impossible to
implement.
The Colombian Shipowners' Company AGROMAR prefers alternative I, provided the
contract of employment has been concluded in the country concerned.
The Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation considers that the choice between the
application of the social security legislation of the country of residence or that of the flag
State is a serious problem. Both alternatives entail difficulties of implementation and
practicability. If a choice has to be made, the Corporation prefers the application of the flag
criterion for the following reasons. Firstly, the residence criterion would be less practicable.
Secondly, the residence criterion would entail the application of the social security
legislations of different countries to members of the same crew. Thirdly, the application of
different legislations to members of the same crew would, especially in Third World
countries, be very difficult to administer and no doubt create awkward situations among
crew members. Fourthly, maritime rules and/or conventions are governed by the flag
criterion, and the same principle should be adopted in determining the social security
legislation to be applied, leaving some room for necessary derogations.
Germany is in favour of alternative II.
The Finnish Shipowners' Association does not support either of the alternatives
submitted and prefers the text of alternative II of Point 21 of the Proposed Conclusions
adopted by the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference.
The Federation of Netherlands Industry notes that the Office has amended the original
Swedish proposal by adding the word "or" in clauses (a) and (b) of alternative II. It regards
this amendment as most undesirable because it reduces the flexibility of the original
wording by providing that member States must adopt one, and only one, of the three
specified rules. This is the key question as far as the shipowners are concerned and one
which takes on particular relevance in view of the amendment to the text adopted by the
Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference. In the light of this amendment they cannot
support either of the alternatives in the new Office text. They would, however, be prepared
to accept alternative II as a basis for discussion in the original wording submitted by the
Government member of Sweden to the Preparatory Conference.
The Norwegian Shipping and Offshore Federation has put forward the following
proposal :
Resident nationals of theflagState serving in nationalflagvessels should enjoy social security
protection under the legislation ofthat State.
Temporarily resident non-nationals serving on flag State vessels of the country of temporary
residence should have social security protection under the legislation of theflagState or exceptionally,
in accordance with bilateral agreements, under that of the country of ordinary residence (home
country, the country of which he is a national).
Non-resident non-nationals serving on foreign-flag vessels should have social security protection
under the legislation of their country of residence if they are seafarers from "labour-supplying
countries" recruited in and with repatriationrightsto their country of residence.
Non-resident non-nationals who are not seafarers from labour-supplying countries, but are
serving on foreign-flag vessels with or without right of repatriation to their country of residence,
should have social security protection "available" to them under the legislation of the country of
residence.
The Confederation of Portuguese Industry considers that neither alternative is
satisfactory. Alternative II, however, might be a better basis for discussion because of its
greater flexibility.
In the view of the General Council of British Shipping, this is the key question to be
determined. At the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference the Shipowners' Group
14
Qu. 3
made it clear that they were anxious to see the adoption of an instrument that was simple,
flexible and capable of widespread ratification. Furthermore, it was emphasised that, whilst
shipowners were prepared to play their proper part in ensuring that seafarers were covered
by appropriate social security protection, they were not prepared to assume more onerous
obligations than those which applied to shore workers. With these objectives in mind the
Shipowners' Group was prepared to drop its original proposals that the applicable social
security legislation should be that of the seafarer's country of residence, and to support the
proposal put forward by the Government member of Sweden. This was to the effect that
countries should mutually agree on the applicable social security legislation "taking into
account" three alternative approaches, i.e. theflagState, the seafarer's country of residence,
and the country in which the employer is based. It was considered that this approach was
flexible enough to take account of the wide variety of differing social security regimes and,
in particular, would accommodate fully the position in the United Kingdom where the
basic scheme is residence-based. The General Council is therefore particularly concerned
that the proposed text of alternative II has modified the Swedish proposal in a critical
respect. The Office text significantly restricts the flexibility of the original proposal by
providing that the applicable legislation "shall" be determined by mutual agreement "in
accordance with one of the following rules", i.e. the flag State, etc. This amendment is
wholly undesirable and unlikely to encourage widespread ratification of any eventual
instrument which may embody it. It is particularly important in the field of social security,
which is subject to a large and complex array of international, regional and national
provisions, that attempts such as this to upgrade standards do not impose rigid and
inflexible requirements that will only prove counter-productive. The General Council
therefore does not support either alternative of Article 16. They would, however, be
prepared to accept alternative II of the original wording of Point 21 of the Proposed
Conclusions adopted at the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference as a basis for
discussion.
For the American Institute of Merchant Shipping this question poses a problem, as the
Office asks for a statement of preference between the alternative versions of Article 16 but
without using the language for alternative II that was adopted by the Preparatory Technical
Maritime Conference. In its original wording alternative II allows countries to discuss
coverage "taking into account the following alternatives", thus allowing a variety of
solutions, whereas the Office text reads "in accordance with one of the following rules . . . "
The original wording of alternative II was submitted to the Preparatory Conference by the
Government delegate of Sweden and the United States would consider supporting that
alternative as providing the greatest flexibility. The concern should be with United States
citizens sailing in foreign-flag ships, and the United States Government should be allowed
the greatest flexibility in including seamen in its social security scheme if they so desire.
The Pancyprian Federation of Labour and the Seafarers' Organisation of the Federal
Republic of Germany give preference to alternative I.
The Finnish Seamen's Union and the Finnish Ship Officers' Union favour alternative I.
Moreover, the Finnish Seamen's Union considers that it should be supplemented by
alternative II, to the effect that the agreement shall be applied if it is not otherwise
determined between the member States.
The Portuguese General Workers' Union prefers alternative I because alternative II
leaves the determination of the applicable legislation to bilateral agreements which are
difficult to conclude.
The Portuguese Federation of Fishermen's Trade Unions shares this view. It is in
favour of clear and self-executing rules. (Which rule should apply if no agreement is
reached?) Moreover, the residence principle is not acceptable because seafarers on the
same ship would be subject to different legislations, a situation which is acceptable only in
exceptional cases.
The Union of Swiss Commercial Transport and Food Workers, Seafarers' Section,
states that for practical reasons it prefers alternative II. There must, however, be clear rules
15
Qu. 4
so that they can be published in the form of a leaflet, informing seafarers about the social
security system of theflagState.
The United Kingdom's National Union of Seamen is in favour of alternative II.
The United Kingdom's National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transpor
Officers maintains that social security protection should be linked to the seafarer's country
of residence and therefore prefers alternative II. However, it does not believe that the text
gives sufficient strength to that principle. The Union is therefore in favour of a text linking
social security protection to the country of residence, failing which it believes that
alternative II should be retained as a less than ideal solution.
The United Kingdom's Transport and General Workers' Union wishes to retain
existing United Kingdom provisions as the standard objective and recommends that, in
any event, United Kingdom nationals come under those provisions. Alternatively, it could
support the proposal that the basic rule be theflagcriterion, with possible derogations in
the interest of the person concerned.
The replies to this question show no majority preference for either
alternative. Both received an almost equal number of favourable replies. Taking
into account the highly controversial discussions on the subject during the
Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference, the Office has therefore decided to
retain alternative I of Article 16 in the proposed Convention, to replace, at the
request of several countries (Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, United Kingdom),
alternative II of Article 16 by alternative II of Point 21 of the Proposed
Conclusions as adopted by the Preparatory Conference, and to submit a third
alternative which aims at satisfying the essentials of the divergent interests
involved through a compromise solution that might be acceptable to all.
Qu. 4
As regards equality of treatment of nationals and non-nationals in
social security, the original Office text proposed two alternatives
designed to guarantee equality of treatment either to all foreign
seafarers irrespective of nationality, or only to those foreign seafarers
who are nationals of a Member, or are refugees or stateless persons, as
regards both their coverage by social security and their right to
benefits, without any condition of residence in the territory of the
competent Member. The Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference
could not reach a decision as to which alternative of the text should
be adopted.
To which of the two alternatives of Article 17 of the proposed
Convention do you give preference, or do you want to suggest other
formulas of equality of treatment?
In favour of alternative I: 15. Australia, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, Ecuador, German Democratic Republic, Indonesia,
Iraq, Nigeria, Portugal, El Salvador, Turkey, USSR.
16
Replies front governments and commentaries
Qu. 4
In favour of alternative II: 9. Bahrain, Ethiopia, Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Greece, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, Sweden.
Other: 9. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland,
Ukrainian SSR, United Kingdom, United States.
Australia. As far as the country's Social Security Act is concerned, Australia might
have difficulty in complying with either alternative. In the absence of a reciprocal social
security agreement which modifies the normal residence requirements for pensions and
benefits, Australia will impose the condition of residence in its territory before a pension or
benefit will be granted. No residential qualifications apply to seamen covered by the
Seamen's Compensation Act, 1911. Australia would have no objection to the overall
concept of guaranteeing equality of treatment to nationals, non-nationals, refugees and
stateless persons.
Austria. The Government would prefer an alternative under which, as far as possible,
no foreign seafarer would become subject to the legislation of the Member concerned. If
this cannot be obtained, preference is given to alternative II.
Belgium. Alternative II would be acceptable if the words "without any condition of
residence on its territory" were deleted.
Denmark. Neither of the alternatives is acceptable as they provide for complete
equality of treatment in social security of seafarers and their dependants and survivors
irrespective of residence. Both would be in conflict with the principles laid down in Danish
social security legislation, which is based mainly upon the residence criterion. However, it
is not possible at the present time to indicate a third alternative.
Ecuador. The Government considers that a Member allowing a ship to use its flag
should be liable for the social security protection of the whole crew without any exceptions.
That Member should guarantee equality of treatment, in respect of the right to benefits, to
all seafarers irrespective of their nationality or their status of refugee or stateless person,
without any condition of residence on its territory.
Ethiopia. The alternatives differentiate between refugees or stateless persons, on the
one hand, and other non-nationals, on the other, and it seems reasonable to make some
difference in the treatment of these two groups. Non-nationals other than refugees or
stateless persons have a country or a State from which they may be able to secure some
social security benefits or rights. Refugees or stateless persons, on the other hand, have no
such privileges. Accordingly, alternative II which restricts non-nationals to refugees and
stateless persons is preferred.
Finland. The principle of so-called equal treatment has been implemented in the
Finnish social insurance system. This is not the case in many other countries. In Finland it
is considered that the principle concerned should be adopted as widely as possible, and
alternative II may therefore lead to a more favourable final outcome.
Federal Republic of Germany. The Government is in favour of the principle of
reciprocity contained in alternative II which makes it possible to urge other States to
become party to an agreement. In addition, the principle of reciprocity does not prevent
any State from introducing unilaterally the unconditional principle of equality of treatment,
if this is in its interest.
New Zealand. The Government could not agree to cither alternative I or alternative II
as social security benefits are payable only to those deemed to be ordinarily resident in New
Zealand. The period of residence required in order to receive a benefit differs in respect of
each benefit: one year for unemployment and sickness benefit, three to five years for
domestic purposes benefit and widow's benefit and ten years for invalid's benefit and
national superannuation.
Norway. Equality of treatment should be confined to seafarers who are resident in the
Member's territory.
17
Qu. 4
Portugal. The Government favours alternative I which is in line with the latest social
security Conventions of the ILO.
Sweden. It is essential that as many countries as possible apply generally the principle
of foreign seafarers' parity of status with the country's own seafarers in matters of social
insurance. Although alternative I would be preferable in this respect, such equality of
treatment is far from being generally implemented in national legislations. Alternative II,
which makes equal treatment a matter of reciprocity, is better calculated to induce even
States not already applying such equality of treatment to ratify the Convention and is
therefore preferred. Ratification of the Convention will have a positive impact on the status
of a country's own seafarers in relation to the systems of other States.
Switzerland. It is necessary to make a distinction between unemployment insurance
and the other branches of social security. In the field of unemployment insurance, both
alternatives would oblige Switzerland to pay benefits abroad without being able to control
whether the person concerned is at the disposal of the employment exchange and has
satisfied the other conditions for entitlement to benefit. For the other branches of social
security, alternative II is acceptable. It would therefore seem appropriate to prepare a
provision that is sufficiently flexible to cover all the different national systems.
Ukrainian SSR. The Government can agree with the principal provisions laid down in
alternative I but prefers to submit its final proposals to the Conference.
United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom scheme does not discriminate by nationality
and as residence is not a consideration in entitlement to contributory benefits, the
Government has no preference as to which alternative is adopted.
United States. The United States social security system treats nationals and
non-nationals serving on United States ships equally, and so the country's domestic laws
appear to meet either alternative. The first requires ratifying countries to treat nationals
and all non-nationals equally for purposes of coverage and rights to benefits. That is
broader than the second alternative, which requires ratifying countries to treat equally only
those non-nationals who either are nationals of other ILO members or are refugees or
stateless persons. The ILO should therefore clarify exactly what purpose would be served
by the second alternative.
The Colombian Shipowners' Company AGROMAR prefers alternative I.
The Employers' and Industrialists' Federation of Cyprus, the Finnish Shipowners'
Association, the Confederation of German Employers' Organisations of the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Federation of Netherlands Industry and the Confederation of
Portuguese Industry are in favour of alternative II.
The General Council of British Shipping considers that it would be unreasonable and
unrealistic to expect governments to provide full equality of treatment to all non-national
seafarers, including nationals of countries which, through inadequate national social
security arrangements or otherwise, have failed to ratify the proposed instrument. Indeed,
such a provision might well discourage early ratification. It therefore prefers alternative
II.
The American Institute of Merchant Shipping considers that the alternatives could be
made clearer. It believes the choice is between covering all foreign nationals or covering
only those who are nationals of ratifying countries. For reasons of flexibility and in view of
the basic lack of interest of non-ratifying countries, nationals of non-ratifying countries
should not be included in the Convention. Any nation would then be free to cover them as
it deems appropriate.
The Austrian Federation of Workers' Chambers considers that preference should be
given to equality of treatment for all seafarers, irrespective of their nationality. This
solution would be more favourable not only for seafarers who are nationals of non-member
18
Qu. 5
States but also for those who are nationals of member States. Under a different solution,
the former would suffer from more restricted social protection and the latter might be
exposed to unfair competition on the employment market.
The Pancyprian Federation of Labour, the Finnish Seamen's Union and Finnish Ship
Officers' Union, the Seafarers' Organisation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
United Kingdom's National Union of Seamen and Transport and General Workers' Union
are in favour of alternative I.
The Norwegian Seamen's Union advocates equality of treatment irrespective of the
seafarer's place of residence.
The Portuguese General Workers' Union and Portuguese Federation of Fishermen's
Trade Unions give preference to alternative I because it is less discriminatory than
alternative II.
The Union of Swiss Commercial Transport and Food Workers, Seafarers' Section, is in
favour of alternative II.
Officers prefers alternative II, provided it does not prejudice its strongly held view that
social security protection should be linked to the country of residence.
Although there is a majority of replies in favour of alternative I, the Office
has maintained both alternatives in the proposed Convention as each has the
support either of the shipowners or of the seafarers. Regarding the proposal of
two countries (Belgium, Norway) to delete the words "without any condition of
residence on its territory", and in order to avoid possible misunderstanding, it is
pointed out once more that these words are contained in both Conventions Nos.
19 and 118 on equality of treatment. They mean that the legislation of a Member
cannot discriminate to the prejudice of non-resident foreigners if nationals are
covered without any condition of residence. In reply to a question raised by the
United States, it is indicated that alternative II is based on the principle of
reciprocity between member States bound by the Convention.
Do you have other comments on the proposed Convention prepared by
the Office on the basis of the Proposed Conclusions as adopted by the
Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference?
Qu. 5
Total number of replies: 8. Bahrain, Belgium, Cyprus, Ecuador, New Zealand,
Portugal, Sweden, Turkey.
Bahrain. The Government proposes that the text of Article 13 and Article 14 of the
proposed Conventon be completed by inserting the following before the last sentence: "If
the prescribed period expires before the seafarer is able to obtain suitable employment or is
repatriated, he or his dependants shall be entitled to any benefit under a scheme of
compulsory social security or workmen's compensation which would be payable if the
seafarer were present in the territory of registration."
Belgium. Article 24 of the proposed Convention cannot be accepted in respect of
guaranteed income for the aged, as this non-contributory special benefit is provided only to
persons who are actually resident in Belgium. No reciprocity agreement can derogate from
this principle. Furthermore, during the Preparatory Conference, the Government members
19
Qu. 5
of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and
the United Kingdom submitted the following amendment: "Members may derogate from
the provisions of this Convention by special arrangements, within the framework of
bilateral or multilateral instruments concluded amongst two or more of them, on condition
that they do not affect the rights and obligations of other members and provide for the
maintenance of seafarers' social security rights under provisions which, in the aggregate, are
at least as favourable as those required by this Convention." A representative of the
Secretary-General accepted the amendment but limited its scope, pointing out that the new
provision "should be related precisely to the maintenance of rights". In conformity with
this position, Article 29 of the proposed Convention allows derogation by bilateral or
multilateral agreements from Articles 21 to 25, which relate to the maintenance of rights in
course of acquisition (including the adding together of periods and the calculation of
benefits) and to the provision of cash benefits without any condition of residence
(including special rules for non-contributory benefits). This Article of the proposed
Convention does not, however, refer to the determination of the applicable legislation,
which is an essential element of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 and would be settled
differently in the Convention. The Belgian Government therefore suggests that the scope of
the afore-mentioned amendment be enlarged either by a reference to Part IV (Protection of
foreign or migrant seafarers) as a whole, or by adding Articles 15 to 20, 27 and 28 to those
already referred to. Article 26 should in any case be excluded because it concerns only the
relationship between the proposed Convention and other ILO Conventions.
Cyprus. Irrespective of the provisions to be finally included in the Convention, a great
number of seafarers will not in practice be protected at all or will be inadequately protected.
Thought should be given to the possibility of establishing an international fund for the
protection of those seafarers who, despite the protection afforded by national legislation
and/or bilateral agreements, remain in essence unprotected.
Ecuador. Seafarers serving in ships flying flags other than those of their own country
should be entitled to repatriation in case of sickness, accident, occupational disease,
invalidity, old age and unemployment, at the expense of the Member whoseflagthe ship is
flying or of the shipowner. Such a provision should be included in the Convention.
New Zealand. For New Zealand to be able to consider ratification of the Convention,
all references to "without any conditions of residence" would have to be deleted. New
Zealand legislation is quite specific in requiring residential qualification for every benefit.
Portugal. In order to take into account the situation of countries which are already
bound by other bilateral or multilateral instruments, the Government proposes to draft
Article 29 as follows:
Members already bound by bilateral or multilateral instruments concluded with other Members may
derogate from the provisions of Articles 21 to 25, 27 and 28, on condition that this does not aftect the
rights and obligations of Members not bound by these instruments and provide for the maintenance of
seafarers' social security rights either within the framework of these instruments or by special
arrangements under conditions which, in the aggregate, are at least as favourable as those required
under these Articles.
Sweden. If Articles 12 to 14 concerning the responsibilities of the shipping company
are retained in their present or a modified form, it will inevitably create difficulties for
Sweden in respect of Article 20. Through its social insurance agreements, Sweden may
undertake to extend or restrict the application of its social insurance legislation to seafarers
in particular situations, but such agreements do not per se aftect the scope of the Merchant
Seamen Act. A binding connection of this kind between social insurance legislation and
seafarers' legislation, as proposed in Article 20, could seriously complicate Sweden's
present and future social security agreements with other countries. In the Government's
view, therefore, Article 20 should be deleted, even if Articles 12 to 14 are retained in the
Convention.
Turkey. On the basis of the Proposed Conclusions as adopted by the Preparatory
Technical Maritime Conference, the Government proposes that, with the exclusion of the
captain and other officers of a ship, no seafarer should be employed at sea after he has
20
Replies front governments and commentaries
Qu. 5
reached the age of 65. Such a provision would facilitate the employment of young
persons.
The Office has examined the various suggestions put forward under this
question.
Among them, the Swedish proposal that Article 20 be deleted, even if Articles
12 to 14 are retained in the Convention, is of general interest. In fact, as is rightly
pointed out, a binding connection between the applicable social security
legislation, on the one hand, and the laws and regulations on shipowners'
liability, on the other, would complicate the conclusion of agreements on the
basis of the provisions of Article 16 (regardless of which alternative is finally
retained). In addition, it is difficult to imagine that the provisions of different
countries concerning shipowners' liabilities should be applicable on board the
same ship. For these reasons, the Office has deleted Article 20 in the proposed
Convention.
Regarding the proposal made by Portugal to modify the text of Article 29, the
Office considers that the point raised is already taken care of by the present
wording which covers not only future bilateral or multilateral instruments but
also existing instruments.
Concerning the Belgian proposal to add Articles 15 to 20 and 28 to those
referred to in Article 29, the Office sees no major objection to their inclusion,
which possibly improves the flexibility of that provision without reducing
globally the rights of foreign or migrant seafarers. It considers, however, that the
question of the adoption of the Belgian proposal should be left to a majority
decision of the Conference.
None of the other suggestions appears to reflect a more generally perceived
concern, and the Office therefore considers that they should not be embodied in
the proposed Convention at this stage. It may, however, be worth submitting
them to the Conference as amendments, if the Government members concerned
so wish.
21
PROPOSED TEXT
(English version)
The following is the English version of the proposed Convention concerning
social security for seafarers (revised), which has been prepared taking into account
the replies from governments summarised and commented upon in the preceding
section. The differences in drafting between this text and the proposed text in
Report III ( 1 ), Chapter III, are the introduction of a new article after Article 7, the
introduction of an additional alternative to Article 16 (now Article 17), and the
deletion of Article 20.
The proposed Convention is submitted as a basis for the single discussion of
the third item on the agenda of the 74th (Maritime) Session of the Conference.
Proposed Convention concerning social security for seafarers
(revised)
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International
Labour Office, and having met in its Seventy-fourth Session on 24 September 1987, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the
revision of the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936, and the Social
Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946, which is the third item on the
agenda of the session, and
Having determinde that these proposals shall take the form of an international
Convention;
adopts this
day of October of the year one thousand nine
hundred and eighty-seven the following Convention, which may be cited as the
Social Security (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1987.
PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
a)
b)
22
In this Convention the term "Member" means any Member of the International Labour Organisation that is bound by the Convention;
the term "legislation" includes any social security rules as well as laws and
regulations;
PROPOSED TEXT
(French version)
The following is the French version of the proposed Convention concerning
social security for seafarers (revised), which has been prepared taking into account
the replies from governments summarised and commented upon in the preceding
section. The differences in drafting between this text and the proposed text in
Report III ( 1 ), Chapter III, are the introduction of a new article after Article 7, the
introduction of an additional alternative to Article 16 (now Article 17), and the
deletion of Article 20.
The proposed Convention is submitted as a basis for the single discussion of the
third item on the agenda of the 74th (Maritime) Session of the Conference.
Projet de convention concernant la sécurité sociale des gens de mer
(révisée)
La Conférence générale de l'Organisation internationale du Travail,
Convoquée à Genève par le Conseil d'administration du Bureau international
du Travail, et s'y étant réunie le 24 septembre 1987, en sa soixantequatorzième session;
Après avoir décidé d'adopter diverses propositions relatives à la révision de la
convention sur l'assurance maladie des gens de mer, 1936, et de la
convention sur la sécurité sociale des gens de mer, 1946, question qui
constitue le troisième point à l'ordre du jour de la session;
Après avoir décidé que ces propositions prendraient la forme d'une convention internationale,
adopte, ce
jour d'octobre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-sept, la
convention ci-après, qui sera dénommée Convention sur la sécurité sociale des gens
de mer (révisée), 1987.
PARTIE I. DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES
Article 1
a)
b)
Aux fins de la présente convention:
le terme «Membre» désigne tout Membre de l'Organisation internationale du
Travail lié par cette convention;
le terme «législation» comprend les lois et règlements, aussi bien que les
dispositions statutaires en matière de sécurité sociale;
23
c)
the term "seafarers" means persons employed in any capacity on board a
seagoing ship registered in the territory of a Member, which is engaged in the
transport of cargo or passengers for the purpose of trade, is employed for any
other commercial purpose, is engaged in deep-sea fishing or is a seagoing tug,
with the exception of persons employed on (i) ships engaged in coastwise fishing;
(ii) small vessels including vessels primarily propelled by sail, whether or not
they are fitted with auxiliary engines;
(iii) oil rigs and drilling platforms when not engaged in navigation;
d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
f(i)
(j)
(k)
(I)
the decision as to which vessels and installations are covered by subclauses (ii)
and (iii) being taken bay the competent authority of each Member in consultation with the most representative organisations of shipowners and seafarers;
the term "dependant" has the meaning assigned to it by national legislation;
the term "survivors" means persons defined or recognised as such by the
legislation under which the benefits are awarded; where persons are defined or
recognised as survivors under the relevant legislation only on the condition
that they were living with the deceased, this condition shall be deemed to be
satisfied in respect of persons who obtained their main support from the
deceased;
the term "competent Member" means the Member under whose legislation
the person concerned can claim benefit;
the terms "residence" and "resident" refer to ordinary residence;
the term "temporarily resident" refers to a temporary stay;
the term "repatriation" means transportation to a place to which seafarers are
entitled to be returned under national laws and regulations or collective
agreements applicable to them;]
the term "non-contributory" applies to benefits the award of which does not
depend on direct financial participation by the persons protected or by their
employer, or on a qualifying period of occupational activity;
the term "refugee" has the meaning assigned to it in Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and in paragraph 2
of article 1 of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967;
the term "stateless person" has the meaning assigned to it in Article 1 of
the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 28 September 1954.
Article 2
The Convention applies to all seafarers and, where applicable, their dependants and their survivors.
24
Proposed text
c)
d)
e)
j)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
l'expression «gens de mer» désigne les personnes employées en quelque capacité que ce soit à bord d'un navire de mer immatriculé dans le territoire d'un
Membre, qui est affecté au transport de marchandises ou de passagers, pour
des fins commerciales, est utilisé à toute autre fin commerciale, est affecté à la
pêche en haute mer ou est un remorqueur de mer, à l'exception des personnes
employées à bord:
i) de navires affectés à la pêche côtière;
ii) de navires de faible tonnage, y compris ceux dont la voile est le principal
moyen de propulsion, qu'ils soient ou non équipés d'une machine auxiliaire;
iii) de plates-formes de forage et d'exploitation, quand elles ne sont pas utilisées pour la navigation,
la décision relative aux navires et plates-formes visés aux alinéas ii) et iii)
devant être prise par l'autorité compétente de chaque Membre, en consultation avec les organisations les plus représentatives des armateurs et des gens de
mer;
l'expression «personne à charge» a la signification qui lui est attribuée par la
législation nationale;
le terme «survivants» désigne les personnes définies ou admises comme survivants par la législation au titre de laquelle les prestations sont accordées;
toutefois, si cette législation ne considère comme survivants que les personnes
qui vivaient sous le toit du défunt, cette condition est réputée remplie lorsque
les personnes dont il s'agit étaient principalement à la charge du défunt;
l'expression «Membre compétent» désigne le Membre au titre de la législation
duquel l'intéressé peut faire valoir un droit à prestations;
le terme «résidence» désigne la résidence habituelle;
le terme «séjour» désigne le séjour temporaire;
le terme «rapatriement» désigne le transport à un endroit auquel les gens de
mer ont le droit d'être ramenés conformément aux lois et règlements ou aux
conventions collectives qui leur sont applicables;
l'expression «à caractère non contributif» s'applique aux prestations dont
l'octroi ne dépend ni d'une participation financière directe des personnes
protégées ou de leur employeur, ni d'une condition de stage professionnel;
le terme «réfugié» a la signification qui lui est attribuée à l'article premier de la
convention du 28 juillet 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés et au paragraphe 2
de l'article premier du Protocole relatif au statut des réfugiés du 31 janvier
1967;
le terme «apatride» a la signification qui lui est attribuée à l'article premier de
la convention du 28 septembre 1954 relative au statut des apatrides.
Article 2
La convention s'applique à tous les gens de mer et, le cas échéant, aux personnes à leur charge et à leurs survivants.
25
Article 3
1. Members are bound to comply with the provisions of Article 9 or Article 11
in respect of at least three of the following branches of social security:
(a) medical care;
(b) sickness benefit;
(c) unemployment benefit;
(d) old-age benefit;
(e) employment injury benefit;
(j) family benefit;
(g) maternity benefit;
(h) invalidity benefit;
(i) survivors' benefit;
including at least one of the branches specified in clauses (c), (d), (e), (h) and (i).
2. For any Member having accepted the obligations of the Social Security
(Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952, the number of branches accepted in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 may not be less than the number of
branches in respect of which that Member has accepted the obligations of that
Convention.
Article 4
Each Member shall specify in its ratification in respect of which of the
branches mentioned in Article 3, paragraph 1, it accepts the obligations of Article 9
or Article 11, and shall indicate separately in respect of each of the branches
specified whether it undertakes to apply the minimum standards of Article 9 or the
superior standards of Article 11 to that branch.
Article 5
Each Member may subsequently notify the Director-General of the International Labour Office that it accepts, with effect from the date of the notification,
the obligations of this Convention in respect of one or more of the branches
mentioned in Article 3, paragraph 1, not already specified in its ratification, indicating separately in respect of each of these branches whether it undertakes to apply
to that branch the minimum standards of Article 9 or the superior standards of
Article 11.
Article 6
A Member may by a notification to the Director-General of the International
Labour Office, which shall take effect as from the date of the notification, subsequently replace the application of the provisions of Article 9 by that of the
provisions of Article 11 in respect of any branch accepted.
26
Proposed text
Article S
1. Les Membres sont tenus d'appliquer les dispositions de l'article 9 ou de
l'article 11 à l'égard de trois au moins des branches de sécurité sociale suivantes:
a) soins médicaux;
b) indemnités de maladie;
c) prestations de chômage;
d) prestations de vieillesse;
e) prestations d'accident du travail et de maladie professionnelle;
fi
prestations familiales;
g) prestations de maternité;
h) prestations d'invalidité;
i) prestations de survivants;
comprenant l'une au moins des branches mentionnées aux alinéas c), d), e), h) et i).
2. Toutefois, pour tout Membre ayant accepté les obligations de la convention
concernant la sécurité sociale (norme minimum), 1952, le nombre de branches
acceptées en application des dispositions du paragraphe précédent ne peut être
inférieur au nombre de branches pour lesquelles ce Membre a accepté les obligations de ladite convention.
Article 4
Tout Membre doit spécifier dans sa ratification quelles sont celles des branches mentionnées à l'article 3, paragraphe 1, pour lesquelles il accepte les obligations découlant de l'article 9 ou de l'article 11 et doit indiquer, séparément à l'égard
de chacune des branches spécifiées, s'il s'engage à appliquer à cette branche la
norme minimum de l'article 9 ou la norme supérieure de l'article 11.
Article 5
Tout Membre peut, par la suite, notifier au Directeur général du Bureau
international du Travail qu'il accepte, avec effet dès la date de notification, les
obligations découlant de la présente convention en ce qui concerne l'une ou plusieurs des branches mentionnées à l'article 3, paragraphe 1, qui n'ont pas déjà été
spécifiées dans sa ratification, en indiquant, séparément à l'égard de chacune de ces
branches, s'il s'engage à appliquer à cette branche la norme minimum de l'article 9
ou la norme supérieure de l'article 11.
rxi l i t t e \J
Un Membre peut remplacer ultérieurement, par une notification au Directeur
général du Bureau international du Travail, qui prendra effet dès la date de cette
notification, l'application des dispositions de l'article 9 par celle des dispositions de
l'article 11 à l'égard de toute branche pour laquelle ce Membre a accepté les obligations de la convention.
27
PART II. PROTECTION PROVIDED
GENERAL STANDARDS
Article 7
The legislation of each Member shall provide for seafarers to whom the
legislation ofthat Member is applicable social security protection not less favourable than that enjoyed by shore workers in respect of each of the branches of social
security mentioned in Article 3, paragraph 1, for which it has legislation in
force.
Article 8
Arrangements for the maintenance of rights in course of acquisition by a
person who, having ceased to be subject to a scheme of compulsory social security
for seafarers, becomes subject to such a scheme for shoreworkers, or, having ceased
to be subject to such a scheme for shoreworkers, becomes subject to such a scheme
for seafarers, shall be made between the schemes concerned.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Article 9
When a Member has undertaken to apply the provisions of this Article to any
branch of social security, seafarers and, where applicable, their dependants and
survivors who are protected by the legislation ofthat Member shall be entitled to
social security benefits not less favourable in respect of contingencies covered,
conditions of award, level and duration than those specified in the following provisions of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952, for the
branch in question (a) for medical care in Articles 8, 10 (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3); 11 and 12 (paragraph 1);
(b) for sickness benefit in Articles 14, 16 (in conjunction with Article 65 or 66 or
67), 17 and 18 (paragraph 1);
(c) for unemployment benefit in Articles 20, 22 (in conjunction with Article 65 or
66 or 67), 23 and 24;
(d) for old-age benefit in Articles 26, 28 (in conjunction with Article 65 or 66 or
67), 29 and 30;
(e) for employment injury benefit in Articles 32,34 (paragraphs 1,2 and 4), 35, 36
(in conjunction with Article 65 or 66) and 38;
if)
for family benefit in Articles 40, 42, 43, 44 (in conjunction with Article 66,
where applicable) and 45;
(g) for maternity benefit in Articles 47, 49 (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3), 50 (in
conjunction with Article 65 or 66), 51 and 52;
28
Proposed text
PARTIE II. PROTECTION GARANTIE
NORME GÉNÉRALE
Article 7
La législation de tout Membre doit accorder aux gens de mer auxquels la
législation de ce Membre est applicable une protection en matière de sécurité
sociale non moins favorable que celle dont bénéficient les travailleurs à terre, à
l'égard de toute branche de sécurité sociale mentionnée à l'article 3, paragraphe 1,
pour laquelle il possède une législation en vigueur.
Article 8
Des mesures de coordination des divers régimes de sécurité sociale doivent
être prises afin de maintenir les droits en cours d'acquisition des personnes qui
cessent d'être soumises à un régime obligatoire spécial aux gens de mer pour
être soumises à un régime analogue s'appliquant aux travailleurs à terre, ou vice
versa.
NORME MINIMUM
Article 9
Lorsqu'un Membre a accepté d'appliquer les dispositions du présent article à
l'une quelconque des branches de sécurité sociale, les gens de mer et, le cas échéant,
les personnes à leur charge et leurs survivants, qui sont protégés par la législation de
ce Membre, doivent bénéficier de prestations de sécurité sociale non moins favorables en matière d'éventualités couvertes, de conditions d'octroi, de niveau et de
durée que celles qui sont prévues par les dispositions suivantes de la convention
concernant la sécurité sociale (norme minimum), 1952, pour la branche en question, à savoir:
a) pour les soins médicaux aux articles 8, 10 (paragraphes 1, 2 et 3), 11 et 12
(paragraphe 1);
b) pour les indemnités de maladie aux articles 14, 16 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 65, 66 ou 67), 17 et 18 (paragraphe 1);
c) pour les prestations de chômage aux articles 20, 22 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 65, 66 ou 67), 23 et 24;
d) pour les prestations de vieillesse aux articles 26, 28 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 65, 66 ou 67), 29 et 30;
e) pour les prestations d'accident du travail et de maladie professionnelle aux
articles 32,34 (paragraphes 1,2 et 4), 35,36 (en relation avec l'un des articles 65
ou 66) et 38;
j)
pour les prestations familiales aux articles 40, 42, 43, 44 (en relation, le cas
échéant, avec l'article 66) et 45 ;
g) pour les prestations de maternité aux articles 47, 49 (paragraphes 1, 2 et 3), 50
(en relation avec l'un des articles 65 ou 66), 51 et 52;
29
(h) for invalidity benefit in Articles 54, 56 (in conjunction with Article 65 or 66
or 67), 57 and 58;
(i) for survivors'benefit in Articles 60, 62 (in conjunction with Article 65 or 66 or
67), 63 and 64.
Article 10
For the purpose of compliance with the provisions of clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (g),
(as regards medical care), (h) or (i) of Article 9, a Member may take account of
protection effected by means of insurance which is not made compulsory for
seafarers by its legislation when this insurance (a) is supervised by the public authorities or administered, in accordance with
prescribed standards, by joint operation of shipowners and seafarers;
(b) covers a substantial proportion of the seafarers whose earnings do not exceed
those of a skilled employee; and
(c) complies, in conjunction with other forms of protection where appropriate,
with the relevant provisions of the Social Security (Minimum Standards)
Convention, 1952.
SUPERIOR STANDARDS
Article 11
When a Member has undertaken to apply the provisions of this Article to any
branch of social security, seafarers and, where applicable, their dependants and
survivors who are protected by the legislation ofthat Member shall be entitled to
social security benefits not less favourable in respect of contingencies covered,
conditions of award, level and duration than those specified (a) for medical care in Articles 7 (a), 8,9,13,15,16 and 17 of the Medical Care and
Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969;
(b) for sickness benefit in Articles 7 (b), 18,21 (in conjunction with Article 22 or 23
or 24), 25 and 26 (paragraphs 1 and 3) of the Medical Care and Sickness
Benefits Convention, 1969;
(c) for old-age benefit in Articles 15, 17 (in conjunction with Article 26 or 27 or
28), 18, 19 and 29 (paragraph 1) of the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors'
(d) for employment injury benefit in Articles 6,9 (paragraphs 2 and 3 (introductory
sentence)), 10, 13 (in conjunction with Article 19 or 20), 14 (in conjunction
with Article 19 or 20), 15 (paragraph 1), 16, 17, 18 (paragraphs 1 and 2), (in
conjunction with Article 19 or 20) and 21 (paragraph 1) of the Employment
Injury Benefits Convention, 1964;
30
Proposed text
h)
i)
pour les prestations d'invalidité aux articles 54, 56 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 65, 66 ou 67), 57 et 58;
pour les prestations de survivants aux articles 60, 62 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 65, 66 ou 67), 63 et 64.
Article 10
En vue d'appliquer les dispositions des alinéas a), b), c), d), g) (en ce qui
concerne les soins médicaux), h) ou i) de l'article 9, un Membre peut prendre en
compte la protection résultant d'assurances qui, en vertu de sa législation, ne sont
pas obligatoires pour les gens de mer, lorsque ces assurances :
a) sont contrôlées par les autorités publiques ou administrées en commun,
conformément à des normes prescrites, par les armateurs et les gens de
mer;
b) couvrent une partie substantielle des gens de mer dont le gain ne dépasse pas
celui de l'ouvrier qualifié;
c) satisfont, conjointement avec les autres formes de protection, s'il y a lieu, aux
dispositions de la convention concernant la sécurité sociale (norme minimum), 1952, qui leur sont relatives.
NORME SUPÉRIEURE
Article 11
Lorsqu'un Membre a accepté d'appliquer les dispositions du présent article à
l'une quelconque des branches de sécurité sociale, les gens de mer et, le cas échéant,
les personnes à leur charge et leurs survivants, qui sont protégés par la législation de
ce Membre, doivent bénéficier de prestations de sécurité sociale non moins favorables en matière d'éventualités couvertes, de conditions d'octroi, de niveau et de
durée que celles qui sont prévues pour la branche en question, à savoir:
a) pour les soins médicaux aux articles 7, alinéa a), 8, 9, 13, 15, 16 et 17 de la
convention concernant les soins médicaux et les indemnités de maladie,
1969;
b) pour les indemnités de maladie aux articles 7, alinéa b), 18,21 (en relation avec
l'un des articles 22, 23 ou 24), 25 et 26 (paragraphes 1 et 3) de la convention
concernant les soins médicaux et les indemnités de maladie, 1969 ;
c) pour les prestations de vieillesse aux articles 15,17 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 26, 27 ou 28), 18, 19 et 29 (paragraphe 1) de la convention concernant
les prestations d'invalidité, de vieillesse et de survivants, 1967;
d) pour les prestations d'accident du travail et de maladie professionnelle aux
articles 6, 9 (paragraphe 2 et paragraphe 3 (phrase introductive)), 10, 13 (en
relation avec l'un des articles 19 ou 20), 14 (en relation avec l'un des articles 19
ou 20), 15 (paragraphe 1), 16, 17, 18 (paragraphes 1 et 2) (en relation avec l'un
des articles 19 ou 20) et 21 (paragraphe 1) de la convention sur les prestations
en cas d'accidents du travail et de maladie professionnelle, 1964;
31
(e) for maternity benefit in Articles 3 and 4 of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952;
(f) for invalidity benefit in Articles 8, 10 (in conjunction with Article 26 or 27 or
28), 11, 12,13 and 29 (paragraph 1) of the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors'
(g) for survivors' benefit in Articles 21, 23 (in conjunction with Article 26 or 27 or
28), 24, 25 and 29 (paragraph 1) of the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors'
[(h) for unemployment benefit and family benefit in any future Convention laying
down standards superior to those specified in clauses (c) and (f) of Article 9, if
and when such a Convention shall have come into force.]
Article 12
For the purpose of compliance with the provisions of clauses (a), (b), (c), (e), (f),
(g), or (h) (unemployment benefit) of Article 11, a Member may take account of
protection effected by means of insurance which is not made compulsory for
seafarers by its legislation when this insurance (a) is supervised by the public authorities or administered, in accordance with
prescribed standards, by joint operation of shipowners and seafarers;
(b) covers a substantial proportion of seafarers whose earnings do not exceed
those of a skilled employee; and
(c) complies, in conjunction with other forms of protection, where appropriate,
with the provisions of the Conventions referred to in the above-mentioned
clauses of Article 11.
PART III. SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY
[Alternative I:
Article 13
The shipowner shall be required to provide to seafarers whose condition
requires medical care while they are on board or who are left behind by reason of
their condition in the territory of a State other than the competent Member (a) proper and sufficient medical care until their recovery or until their repatriation, whichever first occurs;
(b) board and lodging until they are able to obtain suitable employment or are
repatriated, whichever first occurs; and
(c) repatriation.
32
Proposed text
e)
pour les prestations de maternité aux articles 3 et 4 de la convention sur la
protection de la maternité (révisée), 1952 ;
fi
pour les prestations d'invalidité aux articles 8, 10 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 26, 27 ou 28), 11, 12, 13 et 29 (paragraphe 1) de la convention concernant les prestations d'invalidité, de vieillesse et de survivants, 1967;
g) pour les prestations de survivants aux articles 21, 23 (en relation avec l'un des
articles 26,27 ou 28), 24, 25 et 29 (paragraphe 1) de la convention concernant
les prestations d'invalidité, de vieillesse et de survivants, 1967 ;
[h) pour les prestations de chômage et les prestationsfamiliales dans toute convention future prévoyant des normes supérieures à celles qui sont mentionnées
aux alinéas c) et fi de l'article 9, lorsqu'une telle convention entrera en
vigueur.]
Article 12
En vue d'appliquer les dispositions des alinéas a), b), e), e), fi, g) ou h) (prestations de chômage) de l'article 10, un Membre peut prendre en compte la protection résultant d'assurances qui, en vertu de sa législation, ne sont pas obligatoires
pour les gens de mer, lorsque ces assurances:
a) sont contrôlées par les autorités publiques ou administrées en commun,
conformément à des normes prescrites, par les armateurs et les gens de
mer;
b) couvrent une partie substantielle des gens de mer dont le gain ne dépasse pas
celui de l'ouvrier qualifié;
c) satisfont, conjointement avec les autres formes de protection, s'il y a lieu, aux
dispositions des conventions mentionnées dans les alinéas précités de l'article 11.
PARTIE III. OBLIGATIONS DE L'ARMATEUR
[ Variante I
Article 13
L'armateur doit être tenu d'accorder aux gens de mer dont l'état requiert des
soins médicaux pendant qu'ils se trouvent à bord ou qui, en raison de leur état, sont
débarqués en cours de route sur le territoire d'un Etat autre que le Membre compétent:
a) des soins médicaux appropriés et suffisants jusqu'à leur guerison ou leur
rapatriement, selon le cas qui se présente en premier lieu;
b) le logement et la nourriture jusqu'à ce qu'il leur soit possible d'obtenir un
emploi convenable ou qu'ils soient rapatriés, selon le cas qui se présente en
premier lieu;
c) le rapatriement.
33
Article 14
Seafarers who by reason of their condition are left behind in the territory of a
State other than the competent Member shall continue to be entitled to their full
wages (exclusive of bonuses) from the time when they are left behind until they
receive an offer of suitable employment, or until they are repatriated, or until the
expiry of a period of a length (which shall not be less than 16 weeks) prescribed by
the national laws or regulations of that Member or by collective agreement,
whichever event first occurs. The shipowner shall cease to be liable for the payment of wages from the time such seafarers receive cash benefits under the legislation of the competent Member.
Article 15
Seafarers who by reason of their condition are repatriated or are landed in the
territory of the competent Member shall continue to be entitled to their full wages
(exclusive of bonuses) from the time when they are repatriated or landed until their
recovery, or until the expiry of a period of a length (which shall not be less than
16 weeks) prescribed by the national laws or regulations of that Member or by
collective agreement, whichever event first occurs. The shipowner shall cease
to be liable for the payment of wages from the time such seafarers receive cash
benefits under the legislation of the competent Member.]
[Alternative II:
Article 13
The provisions of this Convention do not affect the obligations of the
shipowner under the laws and regulations of a Member.]
PART IV. PROTECTION OF FOREIGN OR MIGRANT SEAFARERS
Article 16
The following rules shall apply to seafarers who are or have been subject to the
legislation of one or more Members, as well as, where applicable, to their dependants and their survivors, in respect of any branch of social security specified in
Article 3, paragraph 1, for which any such Member has legislation applicable to
seafarers in force.
Article 17
[Alternative I:
With a view to avoiding conflicts of laws and the undesirable consequences
that might ensue for those concerned either through lack of protection or as a result
of undue plurality of contributions or other liabilities or of benefits, the legislation
applicable in respect of seafarers shall be determined in accordance with the following rules:
34
Proposed text
Article 14
Les gens de mer qui, en raison de leur état, sont débarqués en cours de route sur
le territoire d'un Etat autre que le Membre compétent continuent à avoir droit à la
totalité de leur salaire (à l'exclusion des primes supplémentaires) jusqu'à la survenance de celui des cas suivants qui se présente en premier lieu: offre d'un emploi
convenable; rapatriement; expiration d'un délai prescrit par les lois et règlements
de ce Membre ou par convention collective, mais qui ne peut être inférieur à seize
semaines. L'armateur cesse d'être responsable pour le paiement du salaire à partir
du moment où les gens de mer considérés reçoivent des prestations en espèces au
titre de la législation du Membre compétent.
Article 15
Les gens de mer qui, en raison de leur état, sont rapatriés ou débarqués sur le
territoire du Membre compétent continuent à avoir droit à la totalité de leur salaire
(à l'exclusion des primes supplémentaires) jusqu'à la survenance de celui des cas
suivants qui se présente en premier lieu: guérison; expiration d'un délai prescrit par
les lois et règlements de ce Membre ou par convention collective, mais qui ne peut
être inférieur à seize semaines. L'armateur cesse d'être responsable pour le paiement du salaire à partir du moment où les gens de mer considérés reçoivent des
prestations en espèces au titre de la législation du Membre compétent.]
[Variante II
Article 13
Les dispositions de la convention n'affectent pas les obligations qui incombent
à l'armateur en vertu des lois et règlements d'un Membre.]
PARTIE IV. PROTECTION DES GENS DE MER ÉTRANGERS OU MIGRANTS
Article 16
Les règles suivantes s'appliquent aux gens de mer qui sont ou ont été soumis à
la législation de l'un ou de plusieurs des Membres, ainsi qu'aux personnes à leur
charge et à leurs survivants, à l'égard de toute branche de sécurité sociale mentionnée à l'article 3, paragraphe 1, pour laquelle un tel Membre possède une législation en vigueur applicable aux gens de mer.
Article 17
[ Variante I
En vue d'éviter les conflits de lois et les conséquences indésirables qui pourraient en résulter pour les parties concernées, soit par défaut de protection, soit par
suite d'un cumul indu de cotisations ou autres contributions et de prestations, la
législation applicable en ce qui concerne les gens de mer est déterminée conformément aux règles suivantes:
35
(a) seafarers shall be subject to the legislation of one Member only;
(b) this legislation shall in principle be that of the Member whoseflagthe ship is
flying, irrespective of the seafarers' place of residence, even if the undertaking
which employs them has its registered oflice, or their employer has his place of
residence, in the territory of another Member;
(c) notwithstanding the rule set forth in clause (b) of this Article, Members concerned may agree that certain categories of seafarers shall be subject to the
legislation of the Member in whose territory they are resident;
(d) Members concerned may determine by mutual agreement other exceptions to
the rule set forth in clause (b) of this Article, in the interest of the persons
concerned. ]
[Alternative II:
The legislation applicable in respect of the seafarers covered by the Convention shall be determined by mutual agreement between the Members concerned,
with a view to avoiding conflicts of law and undesirable consequences that might
ensue for those concerned either through lack of protection, or as a result of undue
plurality of contributions or other liabilities or of benefits, taking into account the
following alternatives:
(a) a seafarer should be subject to the legislation of the Member whose flag the
ship is flying, irrespective of his place of residence, even if the undertaking
which employs him has its registered office, or his employer has his place of
residence, in the territory of another Member;
(b) a seafarer should be subject to the legislation of the Member in whose territory
the undertaking which employs him has its registered office or his employer
has his place of residence;
(c) a seafarer should be subject to the legislation of the member in whose territory
he is resident for all or specified branches of social security. ]
[Alternative III:
1. With a view to avoiding conflicts of laws and the undesirable consequences
that might ensue for those concerned either through lack of protection or as a result
of undue plurality of contributions or other liabilities or of benefits, seafarers shall
be subject to the legislation of the Member whoseflagthe ship isflying,even if the
undertaking which employs them has its registered office, or their employer has his
place of residence, in the territory of another Member.
2. However, seafarers who are resident in the territory of another Member than
the Member whose flag the ship is flying shall be subject to the legislation of the
Member in whose territory they are resident, in the cases where (a) the undertaking which employs them has its registered office or a representation, or their employer has his place of residence, in the territory of that
Member, or
(b) the contract of employment has been concluded in the territory of that
Member.
36
Proposed text
a)
b)
les gens de mer sont soumis à la législation d'un seul Membre ;
cette législation est en principe celle du Membre dont le navire bat pavillon,
quel que soit le lieu de leur résidence, même si l'entreprise ou l'employeur qui
les emploie a son siège ou sa résidence sur le territoire d'un autre Membre;
c)
nonobstant la règle énoncée à l'alinéa b) du présent article, les Membres
intéressés peuvent convenir que certaines catégories de gens de mer sont
soumises à la législation du Membre sur le territoire duquel ils résident;
les Membres intéressés peuvent déterminer d'un commun accord d'autres
exceptions à la règle énoncée à l'alinéa b) du présent article, dans l'intérêt des
personnes concernées.]
d)
[Variante II
En ce qui concerne les gens de mer auxquels s'applique la convention, la
législation applicable sera déterminée d'un commun accord entre les Membres
intéressés, en vue d'éviter les conflits de lois et les conséquences indésirables qui
pourraient en résulter pour les parties concernées, soit par défaut de protection, soit
par suite d'un cumul indu de cotisations ou autres contributions et de prestations,
compte tenu des règles suivantes:
a) les gens de mer devraient être soumis à la législation du Membre dont le navire
bat pavillon, quel que soit le lieu de leur résidence, même si l'entreprise ou
l'employeur qui les emploie a son siège ou sa résidence sur le territoire d'un
autre Membre;
b) les gens de mer devraient être soumis à la législation du Membre sur le
territoire duquel l'entreprise ou l'employeur qui les emploie a son siège ou sa
résidence;
c) les gens de mer devraient être soumis à la législation du Membre sur le
territoire duquel ils résident, pour toutes les branches de sécurité sociale ou
pour des branches spécifiées.]
[ Variante III
1. En vue d'éviter les conflits de lois et les conséquences indésirables qui
pourraient en résulter pour les parties concernées, soit par défaut de protection, soit
par suite d'un cumul indu de cotisations ou autres contributions et de prestations,
les gens de mer sont soumis à la législation du Membre dont le navire bat pavillon,
même si l'entreprise ou l'employeur qui les emploie a son siège ou sa résidence sur le
territoire d'un autre Membre.
2. Toutefois, si les gens de mer résident sur le territoire d'un Membre autre que
celui dont le navire bat pavillon, ils sont soumis à la législation du Membre sur le
territoire duquel ils résident, dans les cas où:
a) l'entreprise ou l'employeur qui les emploie a son siège, sa résidence ou une
représentation sur le territoire de ce Membre, ou
b)
le contrat d'engagement est conclu sur le territoire de ce Membre.
37
3. Notwithstanding the rules set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Members
concerned may determine by mutual agreement other rules concerning the legislation applicable to seafarers, in the interest of the persons concerned.]
Article 18
Alternative I:
Seafarers who are subject to the legislation of a Member without being nationals ofthat Member shall enjoy under that legislation equality of treatment with the
nationals of that Member, both as regards coverage and as regards the right to
benefits, without any condition of residence on its territory. This requirement shall
also apply, where appropriate, as regards the right to benefit of seafarers' dependants and survivors who are not nationals of the Member concerned.
Alternative II:
Seafarers who are subject to the legislation of a Member and are nationals of
another Member or are refugees or stateless persons resident in the territory of a
Member shall enjoy under that legislation equality of treatment with the nationals
of the first Member, both as regards coverage and as regards the right to benefits,
without any condition of residence on its territory. This requirement shall also
apply, where appropriate, as regards the right to benefit of seafarers' dependants
and survirors irrespective of their nationality.
Article 19
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18, the award of non-contributory
benefits may be made conditional on the beneficiary having resided in the territory
of the Member concerned or, in the case of survivors' benefit, on the deceased
having resided there for a period which may not be set at more than (a) six months immediately preceding the lodging of the claim, for unemployment
benefit and maternity benefit;
(b) five consecutive years immediately preceding the lodging of the claim, for
invalidity benefit, or immediately preceding the death, for survirors' benefit;
(c) ten years between the age of 18 and the pensionable age, of which it may be
required that five years shall immediately precede the lodging of the claim, for
old-age benefit.
Article 20
[The laws and regulations of each Member relating to shipowners' liability
provided for in Articles 13 to 15 shall ensure equality of treatment to seafarers
irrespective of their place of residence.]
38
Proposed text
3. Nonobstant les règles énoncées aux paragraphes précédents, les Membres
intéressés peuvent déterminer d'un commun accord d'autres règles concernant la
législation applicable aux gens de mer, dans l'intérêt des personnes concernées.]
Article 18
Variante I
Les gens de mer qui sont soumis à la législation d'un Membre sans être
ressortissants de ce Membre bénéficient de l'égalité de traitement au regard de cette
législation avec les ressortissants de ce Membre, sans condition de résidence sur son
territoire, en ce qui concerne tant l'assujettissement que le droit aux prestations. Il
en est de même, le cas échéant, pour les personnes à charge des gens de mer et pour
leurs survivants qui ne sont pas des ressortissants dudit Membre, en ce qui concerne leur droit à prestations.
Variante II
Les gens de mer qui sont soumis à la législation d'un Membre et qui sont des
ressortissants d'un autre Membre, ou bien des réfugiés ou des apatrides résidant sur
le territoire d'un Membre, bénéficient de l'égalité de traitement au regard de cette
législation avec les ressortissants du premier Membre, sans condition de résidence
sur son territoire, en ce qui concerne tant l'assujettissement que le droit aux prestations. Il en est de même, le cas échéant, pour les personnes à la charge des gens de
mer et pour leurs survivants, en ce qui concerne le droit aux prestations, sans
condition de nationalité.
Article 19
Nonobstant les dispositions de l'article 18, le bénéfice des prestations à caractère non contributif peut être subordonné à la condition que le bénéficiaire ait
résidé sur le territoire du Membre compétent ou, s'il s'agit de prestations de survivants, que le défunt y ait résidé pendant une durée qui ne peut, selon le cas, être
fixée à plus de:
a) six mois, immédiatement avant la demande de prestation, en ce qui concerne
les prestations de chômage et les prestations de maternité;
b) cinq années consécutives, immédiatement avant la demande de prestation, en
ce qui concerne les prestations d'invalidité, ou immédiatement avant le décès,
en ce qui concerne les prestations de survivants;
c) dix années entre l'âge de dix-huit ans et l'âge d'admission à pension de vieillesse, dont cinq années consécutives peuvent être exigées immédiatement
avant la demande de prestation, en ce qui concerne les prestations de vieillesse.
Article 20
[Les lois et règlements de tout Membre relatifs aux obligations de l'armateur
mentionnées aux articles 13 à 15 doivent garantir aux gens de mer l'égalité de
traitement, quel que soit le lieu de leur résidence.]
39
Article 21
Each Member shall endeavour to participate with every other Member concerned in schemes for the maintenance of rights in course of acquisition, as regards
each branch of social security specified in Article 3, paragraph 1, for which each of
these Members has legislation in force, for the benefit of persons who have been
subject successively or alternately, in the capacity of seafarers, to the legislation of
the said Members.
Article 22
The schemes for the maintenance of rights in course of acquisition referred to
in Article 21 shall provide for the adding together, to the extent necessary, of
periods of insurance, employment or residence, as the case may be, completed
under the legislation of the Members concerned for the purposes of acquisition,
maintenance or recovery of rights and, as the case may be, calculation of
benefits.
Article 23
The schemes for the maintenance of rights in course of acquisition referred to
in Article 21 shall determine the formula for awarding invalidity, old-age and
survivors' benefits, as well as the apportionment, where appropriate, of the costs
involved.
Article 24
Each Member shall guarantee the provision of invalidity, old-age and survivors' cash benefits, pensions in respect of employment injuries and death grants, to
which a right is acquired under its legislation, to beneficiaries who are nationals of a
Member or refugees or stateless persons, irrespective of their place of residence,
subject to measures for this purpose being taken, where necessary, by agreement
between the Members or with the States concerned.
Article 25
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 24, in the case of non-contributory
benefits the Members concerned shall determine by mutual agreement the conditions under which the provision of these benefits shall be guaranteed to beneficiaries resident outside the territory of the competent Member.
Article 26
A Member having accepted the obligations of the Equality of Treatment
(Social Security) Convention, 1962, for one or more of the branches of social
security referred to in Article 24 above, but not those of the Maintenance of Social
Security Rights Convention, 1982, may, in respect of each branch for which it has
accepted the obligations of the first-mentioned Convention, derogate from the
40
Proposed text
Article 21
Tout Membre doit s'efforcer de participer à un système de conservation des
droits en cours d'acquisition avec tout autre Membre intéressé dans toute branche
de sécurité sociale mentionnée à l'article 3, paragraphe 1, pour laquelle chacun de
ces Membres possède une législation en vigueur, en faveur des personnes soumises
successivement ou alternativement aux législations desdits Membres en qualité de
gens de mer.
Article 22
Le système de conservation des droits en cours d'acquisition visé à l'article 21
doit prévoir, dans la mesure nécessaire, la totalisation des périodes d'assurance,
d'emploi ou de résidence, selon le cas, accomplies sous les législations des Membres
en cause, en vue de l'acquisition, du maintien ou du recouvrement des droits et, le
cas échéant, du calcul des prestations.
Article 23
Le système de conservation des droits en cours d'acquisition visé à l'article 21
doit déterminer les formules d'octroi des prestations d'invalidité, de vieillesse et de
survivants, ainsi que la répartition éventuelle des charges afférentes.
Article 24
Tout Membre doit garantir le service des prestations en espèces d'invalidité,
de vieillesse et de survivants, des rentes d'accident du travail et de maladie professionnelle ainsi que des allocations au décès, auxquelles le droit est acquis en
vertu de sa législation, aux bénéficiaires qui sont des ressortissants d'un Membre,
des réfugiés ou des apatrides, quel que soit le lieu de leur résidence, sous réserve des
mesures à prendre à cet effet, en tant que de besoin, d'un commun accord entre les
Membres ou avec les Etats intéressés.
Article 25
Nonobstant les dispositions de l'article 24, s'il s'agit de prestations à caractère
non contributif, les Membres intéressés doivent déterminer d'un commun accord
les conditions dans lesquelles le service de ces prestations sera garanti aux bénéficiaires qui résident hors du territoire du Membre compétent.
Article 26
Un Membre qui a accepté les obligations de la convention sur l'égalité de
traitement (sécurité sociale), 1962, pour l'une ou plusieurs des branches de sécurité
sociale dont il s'agit à l'article 24 ci-dessus, mais non celles de la convention sur la
conservation des droits en matière de sécurité sociale, 1982, peut déroger aux
dispositions de cet article au regard de toute branche pour laquelle il a accepté les
41
provisions of Article 24 above and apply in its place the provisions of Article 5 of
that Convention.
Article 27
Members concerned shall endeavour to participate in schemes for the maintenance of rights acquired under their legislation as regards each of the following
branches of social security for which each of these Members has legislation applicable to seafarers in force : medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit,
employment injury benefits other than pensions and death grants, family benefit
and maternity benefit. These schemes shall gurarantee such benefits to persons
resident or temporarily resident in the territory of one of these Members other than
the competent Member, under conditions and within limits to be determined by
mutual agreement between the Members concerned.
Article 28
The provisions of this Part do not apply to social and medical assistance.
Article 29
Members may derogate from the provisions of Articles 21 to 25 and of Article
27 by special arrangements, within the framework of bilateral or multilateral
instruments concluded amongst two or more of them, on condition that they do not
affect the rights and obligations of other Members and provide for the maintenance
of seafarers' social security rights under provisions which, in the aggregate, are at
least as favourable as those required under these Articles.
PART V. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS
Article 30
Every claimant shall have a right of appeal in case of refusal of the benefit or
complaint as to its nature, level, amount or quality.
Article 31
Where a government department responsible to a legislature is entrusted with
the administration of medical care, the right of appeal provided for in Article 30
may be replaced by a right to have a complaint concerning the refusal of medical
care or the quality of the care received investigated by the appropriate authority.
42
Proposed text
obligations de la première convention, pour appliquer les dispositions de l'article 5
de ladite convention.
Article 27
Les Membres intéressés doivent s'efforcer de participer à un système de
conservation des droits acquis au titre de leur législation dans toute branche de
sécurité sociale, pour laquelle chacun de ces Membres possède une législation en
vigueur applicable aux gens de mer, concernant les soins médicaux, les indemnités
de maladie, les prestations de chômage, les prestations d'accident du travail ou de
maladie professionnelle autres que les rentes et les allocations au décès, les prestations familiales et les prestations de maternité. Ce système doit garantir le bénéfice de telles prestations aux personnes qui résident ou séjournent sur le territoire de
l'un de ces Membres autre que le Membre compétent, dans les conditions et limites
à fixer d'un commun accord entre les Membres intéressés.
Article 28
Les dispositions de la présente partie ne s'appliquent pas à l'assistance sociale
et médicale.
Article 29
Les Membres peuvent déroger aux dispositions des articles 21 à 25 et de
l'article 27 par voie d'arrangements particuliers, dans le cadre des instruments
bilatéraux ou multilatéraux conclus par deux ou plusieurs d'entre eux, à condition
de ne pas affecter les droits et obligations des autres Membres et de régler la
conservation des droits des gens de mer en matière de sécurité sociale selon des
dispositions qui, dans l'ensemble, soient au moins aussi favorables que celles qui
sont prévues par ces articles.
PARTIE V. GARANTIES JURIDIQUES ET ADMINISTRATIVES
Article 30
Tout intéressé doit avoir le droit d'exercer un recours en cas de refus des
prestations ou de contestation sur leur nature, leur niveau, leur montant ou leur
qualité.
Article 31
Lorsque l'administration des soins médicaux est confiée à un service gouvernemental responsable devant un parlement, le droit de recours prévu à l'article 30
peut être remplacé par le droit de faire examiner par l'autorité compétente toute
réclamation visant le refus de soins médicaux ou la qualité des soins médicaux
reçus.
43
Article 32
[Each Member shall make provision for securing the rapid and inexpensive
settlement of disputes concerning the shipowners' liability provided for in Articles
13 to 15.]
Article 33
Members shall accept general reponsibility for the due provision of the benefits provided in compliance with this Convention and shall take all measures
required for this purpose.
Article 34
Members shall accept general responisibility for the proper administration of
the institutions and services concerned in the application of this Convention.
Article 35
Where the administration is not entrusted to an institution regulated by the
public authorities or to a government department responsible to a legislature (a) representatives of the seafarers protected shall participate in the management
under conditions prescribed by national legislation;
(b) national legislation shall also, where appropriate, provide for the participation
of representatives of the shipowners;
(c) national legislation may also provide for the participation of representatives of
the public authorities.
Article 36
This Convention revises the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936, and
the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946.
44
Proposed text
Article 32
[Tout Membre doit prévoir des dispositions en vue d'assurer rapidement et à
peu de frais une solution des litiges auxquels peuvent donner lieu les obligations de
l'armateur prévues aux articles 13 à 15.]
Article 33
Tout Membre doit assumer une responsabilité générale en ce qui concerne le
service des prestations attribuées en application de la présente convention et prendre toutes mesures utiles à cet effet.
Article 34
Tout Membre doit assumer une responsabilité générale pour la bonne administration des institutions et services qui concourent à l'application de la présente
convention.
Article 35
Lorsque l'administration n'est pas assurée par une institution réglementée par
les autorités publiques ou par un département gouvernemental responsable devant
un parlement:
a) des représentants des gens de mer protégés doivent participer à l'administration dans des conditions prescrites;
b) la législation nationale doit prévoir, dans les cas appropriés, la participation de
représentants des armateurs;
c) la législation nationale peut aussi prévoir la participation de représentants des
autorités publiques.
Article 36
La présente convention révise la convention sur l'assurance maladie des gens
de mer, 1936, et la convention sur la sécurité sociale des gens de mer, 1946.
45
APPENDIX
CLASSIFICATION OF LATE REPLIES
After the present report had been drafted the Office received late replies from the
following 16 member States: Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, Gabon,
Guatemala, Côte d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Peru, Spain, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela.
These replies are briefly classified as follows.
Question 1
In favour of alternative I: 8. Argentina, China, Guatemala, Madagascar, Peru, Spain,
United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.
In favour of alternative II: 6. Canada, Chile, Gabon, Côte d'Ivoire, Malaysia,
Pakistan.
Question 2
Affirmative: 12. Argentina, Chile, China, Finland, Guatemala, Côte d'Ivoire,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Peru, Spain, Venezuela.
Negative: 2. Bahamas, Canada.
Question 3
In favour of alternative I: 9. Argentina, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Peru, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.
In favour of alternative II: 5. Bahamas, China, Finland, Gabon, Guatemala.
47

Social security protection for seafarers including those serving

Transcription

Documents pareils

Abortion overview - Classes

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 24 au 30 octobre 2011

united king-dox and switzerland the settlement by arbitration of

surfboard - Villard de Lans

Year 9 French Planning grid for use of activities on linguascope.com

statistiques des ventes dans notre industrie sales statistics in our

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 31 octobre au 06 novembre

View - Prince George Digitization

Reported speech

Grégoire « Les roses de mon silence » Thomas Fersen « The