Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22) - Mexico (Ratification: 1934)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Mexico (CTM) and the Authentic Workers’ Confederation of the Republic of Mexico (CAT) on the application by the Government of Conventions Nos 22, 55, 56, 58, 134, 164 and 166. The Committee also notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of these maritime Conventions. In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, as follows.

The Committee recalls that, within the framework of the Standards Review Mechanism, the Governing Body has included on the agenda of the 118th Session (2030) of the International Labour Conference an item for the abrogation of Conventions Nos 22, 55, 56, 58, 134, 164 and 166, which have been revised by the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 as amended (MLC, 2006). Observing that all of the maritime Conventions ratified by Mexico will in principle be abrogated in 2030, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments concerning the eventual ratification of the MLC, 2006.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as of December 2020, the powers that were previously included among the administrative, supervisory and vigilance functions of the Secretariat of Communications and Transport were transferred to the Marine Secretariat (SEMAR). The Committee notes the indication by the CAT that the SEMAR established a sectoral programme under the National Development Plan 2019–24, including special objectives for the conditions of personnel working at sea. However, the CAT indicates that the Federal Labour Act (LFT) only includes a special chapter on workers on ships and that it would be appropriate to update the current legislation with a view to paying due attention to the needs of seafarers. The Committee further notes the CAT’s indication that capacity-building should be promoted for the competent authorities in relation to supervision so that they have adequate technical knowledge, including knowledge of the relevant legislation and international conventions, when carrying out inspections on board ships. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these matters.

Seamen ’ s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22)

Article 9 of the Convention. Termination of the agreement. The Committee notes that, in reply to its comments on the lack of conformity of section 209(III) of the LFT with the Convention, the Government reiterates that this section, which provides that employment relationships may not be terminated when the vessel is abroad, is more favourable to workers than Article 9(1) of the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that the national legislation allows both parties to terminate an employment agreement of seafarers for an indefinite period, including when the ship is abroad.

Article 14(1). Record of discharge in the identity document. The Committee notes that, in reply to its comments, the Government indicates that: (i) the Harbour Masters and Maritime Affairs Unit is responsible for certifying voyages and issuing the seafarer’s book and maritime identity document for personnel on board ships in the Mexican merchant navy; and (ii) the expiry or termination of the seafarer’s agreement is not recorded in the seafarer’s book and maritime identity document, as it is considered that seafarers do not work for the same enterprise during the five-year period of validity of the seafarer’s book. Observing that the Government has not provided information on the measures that give effect to this provision, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Shipowners ’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Article 6 of the Convention. Repatriation expenses in the event of sickness or injury. The Committee notes the reference by the Government, in its reply to its previous comments, to the provisions of the Maritime Navigation and Trade Act, as amended, on the disembarkation of seafarers in need of medical care. However, the Committee observes that those provisions refer to the repatriation of foreign seafarers. The Government also indicates that expenses incurred as a result of sickness abroad, including the cost of repatriation, are covered by the shipowner through the protection and compensation insurance scheme known as the PANDI in Mexico. The Committee takes note of this information.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134)

Articles 2(3) and 3 of the Convention. Detailed statistics on occupational accidents on board. Research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comments, that, within the field of competence of the SEMAR through the Harbour Maters and Maritime Affairs Unit, information is not available on occupational accidents on board ship which would make it possible to obtain disaggregated statistics on the part of the ship (deck, engine room or catering areas) and the location (at sea or in port) where the accident occurred. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that up to now studies and research have not been conducted that could establish general trends for the prevention of occupational accidents and hazards in the context of maritime employment. The Committee further notes the data provided by the Government on maritime accidents recorded during the period 2019–22, and cases involving the death or serious injury of a person, or the loss of a person on board. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that full statistics on accidents and cases of sickness of seafarers are compiled, analysed and published and, where necessary, are followed up through research into general trends and the hazards brought out by the statistics.

Article 4(3). Measures for the prevention of occupational accidents. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comments, that the SEMAR is the authority responsible for the adoption of specific measures concerning safety in the maritime port sector and the supervision of official Mexican standards in relation to the matters covered by the Convention, such as safety jackets and fire prevention systems. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 8. Programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents of seafarers. The Committee notes the CTM’s observation concerning the need for the Government to require shipowners to comply with the provisions of the LFT with respect to the establishment of joint occupational safety and health committees which can discharge the functions set out in the Act for the prevention of occupational accidents. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on this observation. Furthermore, observing that the Government has once again failed to provide information on specific accident prevention programmes for seafarers, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164)

Article 4(c) of the Convention. Right to visit a medical doctor.Observing that the Government has once again failed to provide information on the provisions or other measures which ensure that full effect is given to Article 4(c) of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Article 5(4) and (5). Inspection at regular intervals of the medicine chest. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government reiterates the information provided previously and refers to the inspections carried out by the SEMAR in respect of compliance with International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s Conventions. The Committee recalls that Convention No. 164 differs in its scope and requirements from the IMO Conventions. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the intervals at which on-board medicine chests are inspected.

Article 7. Medical advice by radio or satellite communication. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government refers to the measures for the application of the IMO International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), 1979, and in this context to the procedures and equipment for crewmembers of ships to benefit from medical advice by radio or satellite communication. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 8. Presence of a medical doctor on board ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comments, that under the terms of the International Health Regulations ships that transport hazardous cargos are required to have on board medical personnel, medicaments, specific antidotes and a special team, and that members of the crew who are designated to service in medical facilities must be trained in the provision of medical first aid, in accordance with the IMO International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), 1978. However, the Committee observes that the Government has not provided information on the provisions that give effect to Article 8.The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that ships carrying 100 or more seafarers on board and ordinarily engaged on international voyages of more than three days’ duration carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew responsible for providing medical care.

Article 11. Separate hospital accommodation.Observing that the Government has not provided further information in response to its request, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166)

Article 2(1)(c), (e), (f) and (g) of the Convention. Circumstances giving rise to repatriation. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in relation to the application of Article 2(1)(c), in reply to its previous comments, to section 34 of the Maritime Navigation and Trade Act which, however, relates to the repatriation of foreign seafarers. The Committee notes that the Government provides information on the coverage by the protection and compensation insurance scheme of costs occasioned by illness abroad, including the cost of repatriation. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to adopt appropriate measures to require that any seafarer on board a ship flying the Mexican flag shall be entitled to repatriation in the event of illness or injury or other medical condition which requires his repatriation when found medically fit to travel.

With reference to the circumstances envisaged in Article 2(1)(e), (f) and (g), the Government refers to article 133 of the Constitution and sections 6 and 18 of the LFT, under the terms of which the respective laws and international treaties concluded and approved in accordance with article 133 shall form part of national law and may be applied in respect of anything that benefits the worker without requiring the adoption of national provisions. The Government indicates that, in view of the above, effect is given to the provisions concerned. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 2(2). Maximum duration of service periods on board following which seafarers are entitled to repatriation.Observing that the Government has not provided information on the legislation or other measures that give effect to this provision, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Article 3. Destinations for repatriation. Observing that the Government has not provided further information on the legislation or other measures that give effect to this provision, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Articles 4 and 5. Responsibility of the shipowner to arrange for repatriation.Observing that the Government has not provided further information on the legislation or other measures that give effect to this provision, the Committee reiterates its previous comment.

Article 12. Availability of the text of the Convention in an appropriate language. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comments, that the SEMAR disseminates information on the existence of the Convention, which can be consulted on the ILO webpage. The Committee recalls that Article 12 provides that the text of the Convention shall be available in an appropriate language to the crew members of every ship which flies the national flag. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give full effect to this provision.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Industrial Chambers of the United States of Mexico (CONCAMIN), forwarded by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on 26 July 2016, regarding the Government’s application of Conventions Nos 22, 55, 134, 163 and 164. CONCAMIN indicates that, in view of the Committee’s considerations and the legislation in force, it would be appropriate to analyse the whole body of standards relating to seafarers and indicates its willingness to participate in the process of analysis and implementation of ad hoc regulations. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this regard. The Committee also notes the reports sent by the Government on the application of the abovementioned maritime Conventions and Convention No. 166. In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, as follows.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under article 133 of the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico (Constitution) and section 6 of the Federal Labour Act of 1 April 1979, treaties form part of national law and may be applied without it being necessary to adopt national legislation. The Committee observes that article 133 of the Constitution provides that the said Constitution, the laws of the National Congress emanating from it and all treaties which are in conformity with it, concluded by the Government with the approval of the Senate, shall be the supreme law of the land, and that the judges of each federal entity shall act in conformity with the Constitution, laws and treaties, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the constitutions or laws of federal entities. The Committee also observes that, under section 6 of the Federal Labour Act, the respective laws and treaties concluded and approved in accordance with article 133 of the Constitution shall be applicable to employment relationships in respect of all the benefits enjoyed by workers, from the date of entry into force. On this basis, in the absence of specific national provisions that give effect to the self-executing provisions of the Conventions, the Committee has considered the latter provisions to be directly applicable in Mexico. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the maritime Conventions contain a number of provisions which are not self-executing and hence require the adoption of legislation and other measures by the Government.

Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22)

Article 3(1) of the Convention. Facilities to examine the articles of agreement before signature. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that seafarers are given facilities to examine the articles of agreement before signature. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that seafarers may consult free of charge the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board and the Office of the Federal Prosecutor for the Defence of Labour regarding any queries concerning the content of the agreement. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, under section 28 of the Federal Labour Act, when a Mexican worker is employed abroad, the agreement shall be submitted to the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board to verify that it satisfies the conditions of work prescribed by the abovementioned Act. The Committee notes this information.

Article 6(3)(10). Information to be included in the agreement. Conditions for the termination of the agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the Federal Labour Act does not include, among the indications which must be provided in writing in the agreement, the conditions for termination of the agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that such conditions are established in sections 194 and 195 of the Federal Labour Act, which include the stipulation that the agreement shall indicate whether it is concluded for a definite or indefinite period or for an individual voyage, and in section 206 of the aforementioned Act concerning the termination of employment relationships of workers on board vessels. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under article 133 of the Constitution and section 6 of the Federal Labour Act, the provisions of Article 6(3) of the Convention concerning the particulars that the agreement must contain are directly applicable in national law. While recalling the self-executing nature of Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government and considers that it responds to its previous request on this matter.

Article 9. Termination of the agreement. In many previous comments, the Committee noted that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act – which provides that employment relationships may not be terminated when the vessel is abroad, in unpopulated areas or in port, should the vessel be exposed in the latter case to any risk due to bad weather or other circumstances – is not in conformity with Article 9 of the Convention, which provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the purpose of section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act is to prevent workers and the vessel itself from being exposed to exceptional situations of risk and does not prevent the termination of the employment relationship when such a situation no longer exists. However, the Committee once again observes with deep concern that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act prevents the possibility of an agreement for an indefinite period being terminated in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, as required by the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 14(1). Record of discharge in the identity document. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the copy of the seafarers’ book and identity document sent by the Government does not include a space to enter the expiry or termination of the agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Communication and Transport (SCT), the competent authority for issuing this document, stated that in view of the austerity measures regarding the use of government resources and the significant number of seafarers’ books and identity documents in circulation, the space for noting the expiry or termination of the agreement has not yet been incorporated in the document in question. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the measures taken to ensure that any discharge is recorded in the document issued to the seafarer, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Convention.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Article 6 of the Convention. Repatriation expenses in the event of sickness or injury. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 204(VII) of the Federal Labour Act, employers have the obligation to provide seafarers with food and accommodation, medical treatment and medicines in the event of illness, but that there is no mention of shipowners’ responsibility to bear the cost of repatriation for a sick or injured seafarer who is put ashore during the voyage as a result of illness or injury. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Labour Act does not specifically establish the obligation to cover repatriation expenses in such circumstances. However, the Government indicates that this obligation derives from article 123(A)(XXVI) of the Constitution, which provides that employment contracts concluded between a Mexican citizen and a foreign employer shall clearly specify that the cost of repatriation shall be borne by the employer. The Committee observes that this provision of the Constitution does not regulate the repatriation of seafarers on vessels flying the Mexican flag or not under foreign ownership. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all seafarers have the right to be repatriated at the expense of the shipowner in the event of sickness or injury, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134)

Article 2(3). Detailed statistics on occupational accidents on board. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the availability of statistics relating to occupational accidents on board that indicate clearly the part of the ship (deck, engine room or catering areas) and the location (at sea or in port) where the accident occurred, in accordance with Article 2(3). The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: the Merchant Shipping Department at the SCT and the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) compile the relevant statistics; the IMSS bases its statistics on the data compiled in the occupational accident notification system (SIAAT), and the relevant Mexican Official Standard (NOM-036-SCT4-2007 of 17 August 2007) is being updated. However, the Committee observes that the statistics of the Merchant Shipping Department forwarded by the Government do not indicate the part of the vessel or the location where accidents occurred. The Committee also notes that the Government has not provided any statistics from the IMSS and that the SIATT accident notification form does not include a space to indicate in the part of the ship and the location where the accident occurred. Lastly, while noting that NOM-036-SCT4-2007 provides that the shipowner shall report occupational accidents to the maritime authority, the Committee points out that the aforementioned standard does not specify the level of detail to be included in such reports. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether and how the different mechanisms established for the compilation of information on occupational accidents on board (by the Merchant Shipping Department or the SIAAT system) enable the Government to have disaggregated statistics, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Convention.

Article 3. Research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to conduct research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on occupational safety and health (OSH) advisory committees at both the national and the individual state level (COCONASST and COCOESST, respectively and on the National Advisory Committee on OSH Normalization). The Committee also notes the Government’s indications that the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (Federal OSH Regulations), which apply to ships, require employers to do research into the risks of various types of jobs and to send information to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. The Government also indicates that employers can examine the risks of occupational accidents through OSH committees and services. However, the Committee observes that the mechanisms for research into the occupational hazards described by the Government are not exclusive to maritime employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify whether in practice such research makes it possible to establish general trends and hazards peculiar to maritime employment, and can be used in relation to the prevention of accidents in the particular context of maritime employment, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 4(3). Measures for the prevention of occupational accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee firmly requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the standards applicable to seafarers for the prevention of accidents and the protection of health in employment specify the particular features of maritime employment listed in Article 4(3), such as structural features of the ship, machinery, special safety measures on deck, loading and unloading equipment, fire prevention and firefighting, anchors, chains and lines, dangerous cargo and ballast, and personal protective equipment. The Committee notes that the information supplied by the Government is of a general nature and does not mention the adoption of any standards that meet the requirements of Article 4(3). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the standards applicable to seafarers for the prevention of occupational accidents include the aspects listed in Article 4(3) of the Convention.

Article 8. Programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the formulation and implementation of programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents among seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the SCT and the Ministry of Shipping have competence for the matters covered by the Convention. However, the Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether these authorities have drawn up the prevention programmes required under Article 8. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare does not have separate programmes for the prevention of accidents to seafarers, to whom the general OSH self-management programme (PASST) – of general application – applies. The Committee once again notes with regret that the information provided by the Government refers to generally applicable OSH programmes, whereas the Convention requires specific maritime programmes to be drawn up in cooperation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to formulate and implement programmes which give effect to Article 8 of the Convention.

Seafarers’ Welfare Convention, 1987 (No. 163)

Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Welfare facilities and services in ports and on board ship. Review of welfare facilities and services. International cooperation. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the functioning of seafarer centres (Casas del Marino) in various ports in the country, on the review of welfare facilities and services for seafarers, and on international cooperation in this field. The Committee notes that the Government refers once again to the General Regulations for Seafarers of 8 December 1943 but does not indicate how the seafarer centres operate in practice. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government once again refers to section 214 of the Federal Labour Act, which provides that the Federal Executive Authority shall determine how services in seafarer centres shall be maintained and improved, without indicating whether any regulations have been promulgated under the aforementioned section. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2 of the Convention, each Member undertakes to ensure that adequate welfare facilities and services are provided for seafarers both in port and on board ship. Such services shall be reviewed frequently to ensure that they are appropriate in the light of changes in the needs of seafarers resulting from technical, operational and other developments in the shipping industry (Article 5). Moreover, each Member undertakes to cooperate with other Members with a view to ensuring the application of the Convention (Article 6). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164)

Article 4(c) of the Convention. Right to visit a medical doctor. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee seafarers the right to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call where practicable. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (a) seafarers have the unrestricted right to medical consultations in ports of arrival; and (b) seafarers may use IMSS hospitals in Mexican ports and are covered for medical assistance abroad by the insurance policies concluded by shipowners with “protection and compensation associations”. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the Government does not indicate the legal provisions which ensure compliance with Article 4(c) of the Convention, according to which seafarers must be guaranteed the right to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call where practicable. The Committee firmly requests the Government to provide the aforementioned information.

Article 5(4) and (5). Inspection at regular intervals of the medicine chest. Checking of the labelling. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to give effect to the specific requirements relating to the regular inspection of the medicine chest on board at intervals not exceeding 12 months and the checking of the labelling, expiry dates and conditions of storage of all medicines contained in the medicine chest, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (a) the Merchant Shipping Department is responsible for the application of Mexican Official Standard NOM-034-SCT4-2009 of 24 February 2009 concerning OSH conditions for the handling, transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals, which stipulates that a medicine chest must be carried on board; and (b) maritime safety inspections are ongoing and can be conducted at any time. However, the Committee observes that the information provided by the Government does not indicate how such inspections are ensured at regular intervals not exceeding 12 months or whether the requirements for storage of the medicines listed in Article 5(4) and (5) are checked. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the intervals at which on-board medicine chests are inspected, and on the checking of compliance with the provisions of the Convention regarding the labelling and storage of medicines.

Article 7. Medical advice by radio or satellite communication. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that vessels can obtain medical advice at any time of day by radio or satellite communication, in accordance with Article 7. The Committee notes with regret that the Government once again refers in this regard to the Maritime Safety Inspection Regulations of 12 May 2004, which require vessels to carry radio communication equipment on board. The Committee recalls that the existence of radio communication equipment on board is not sufficient to ensure the availability of medical advice on vessels on the high seas at any time of day or night, in accordance with Article 7. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 8. Presence of a medical doctor on board ships. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that neither the Maritime Safety Inspection Regulations nor the Federal Labour Act specify the ships or categories of ships which are required to carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government once again refers to section 204(VIII) of the Federal Labour Act, under which employers are obliged to carry medical staff and equipment on board as established by the laws and regulations on maritime communications. In view of the fact that the provisions referred to by the Government do not meet the requirements of Article 8, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that ships covered by the Convention carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew.

Article 9. Training courses for persons in charge of medical care. In its previous comments, the Committee reminded the Government that training courses for persons in charge of medical care on board vessels who are not doctors must meet the requirements of Article 9, such as being approved by the competent authority and being based on the content of the relevant international guides. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Nautical Academies and the Education Centre provide senior and junior Merchant Navy officers with training courses which conform to the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), including courses in basic first aid, medical first aid and medical care. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that these courses are approved at the national level by the Ministry of Public Education and the Maritime Authority, while the qualifications and validations issued are recognized at the global level by the International Maritime Organization. The Committee notes this information, which meets the requirements of the Convention.

Article 11. Hospital accommodation. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation does not give effect to Article 11, which stipulates that in any ship of 500 or more gross tonnage, carrying 15 or more seafarers and engaged in a voyage of more than three days’ duration, separate hospital accommodation must be provided. In this regard, the Committee notes with regret that the Government refers once again to section 49 of the Federal OSH Regulations of 13 November 2014, which regulate the provision of preventive occupational medical services. The Committee reiterates that the aforementioned Regulations are of a general nature and do not contain provisions determining the type of vessel in which separate hospital accommodation is required or describing the particular features of such hospital accommodation. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to give effect to Article 11 of the Convention.

Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166)

Article 2(1)(c) of the Convention. Repatriation in the event of illness, injury or other medical condition. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 204(VII) of the Federal Labour Act, employers have the obligation to provide seafarers with food and accommodation, medical treatment and medicines in the event of illness, but that there is no mention of shipowners’ responsibility to bear the cost of repatriation for a sick or injured seafarer who is put ashore during the voyage as a result of illness or injury. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Labour Act does not specifically establish the obligation to cover repatriation expenses in such circumstances. However, the Government indicates that this obligation derives from article 123(XXVI) of the Constitution, which provides that employment contracts concluded between a Mexican citizen and a foreign employer shall clearly specify that the cost of repatriation shall be borne by the employer. The Committee observes that this provision of the Constitution does not regulate the repatriation of seafarers on vessels flying the Mexican flag or not under foreign ownership. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all seafarers have the right to be repatriated at the expense of the shipowner, in accordance with Article 2(1)(c) of the Convention.

Article 2(1)(e) and (f). Repatriation in the event of the inability of the shipowner to continue to fulfil legal or contractual obligations or in the event that a seafarer does not consent to go to a war zone. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure that seafarers have the right to be repatriated under the circumstances provided for in Article 2(1)(e) – namely, in the event of the shipowner not being able to continue to fulfil his or her legal or contractual obligations as an employer of the seafarer by reason of bankruptcy, sale of ship or any other similar reason – and in Article 2(1)(f) – namely, in the event of a ship being bound for a war zone to which the seafarer does not consent to go. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 204(IX) of the Federal Labour Act guarantees repatriation regardless of the reason. However, the Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section excludes from its scope situations of separation for reasons that cannot be ascribed to the employer, which can include the cases listed in Article 2(1)(e) and (f). In view of the fact that section 204(IX) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Article 2(1)(e) and (f), the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the shipowner is obliged to bear the cost of repatriation, in accordance with Article 2(1)(e) and (f).

Article 2(1)(g). Repatriation in the event of termination or interruption of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions in the national legislation on the right to repatriation in the event of the interruption or termination of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. However, the Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section only guarantees repatriation in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality. Hence it does not cover cases of termination or interruption of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In view of the fact that section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Article 2(1)(g), the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the shipowner is obliged to bear the cost of repatriation, in accordance with Article 2(1)(g).

Article 2(2). Maximum duration of service periods. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions on the maximum duration of service periods on board following which seafarers are entitled to repatriation. In this respect, the Committee notes with regret that the Government refers to sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2) requires national laws or regulations or collective agreements to prescribe the maximum duration of service periods on board following which seafarers are entitled to repatriation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that this duration is prescribed by national laws or regulations or collective agreements.

Article 3. Destinations for repatriation. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions establishing the right of seafarers to choose from among the prescribed destinations for repatriation. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. The Committee notes with regret that the aforementioned section only covers repatriation in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality for the ship, and does not allow seafarers in such situations to choose between different destinations. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indication that sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution give effect to Article 3. However, the Committee recalls that Article 3(1) requires national laws or regulations to prescribe the destinations to which seafarers may be repatriated. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to adopt the necessary legislation to give effect to Article 3.

Articles 4 and 5. Responsibility of the shipowner to arrange for repatriation. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure the shipowner’s compliance with the obligation to arrange for repatriation through prompt and appropriate means. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act. However, the Committee observes that the aforementioned section guarantees repatriation only in the event of the loss of the ship through seizure or disaster, or in the event of a change of nationality for the ship. The Committee notes with regret that these provisions do not cover all the cases of repatriation envisaged in the Convention, do not specify which elements listed in Article 4 must be included in the cost of repatriation, and do not clarify how repatriation is to be arranged if the shipowner fails to make the necessary arrangements in accordance with Article 5. In view of the fact that section 209(V) and (VI) of the Federal Labour Act does not give adequate effect to Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that repatriation is arranged for in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 6. Passport and other identity documents. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to specify how it is ensured that seafarers who are to be repatriated are able to obtain their passport and other identity documents. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the National Institute for Migration (INM) is responsible for making arrangements for entry into the countries of repatriation. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that Article 6 seeks to protect seafarers from situations in which they are obliged to surrender their passport to the shipowners, captain or employment agency, as a result of which they could be without an identity document at the time of repatriation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to clarify how it is ensured that seafarers can retain their passport or other identity documents for the purpose of repatriation.

Article 7. Paid leave. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation does not contain any provision ensuring that time spent awaiting repatriation and repatriation travel time is not deducted from paid leave accrued to the seafarer. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the direct application of the Convention and indicates that sections 6 and 18 of the Federal Labour Act and article 133 of the Constitution give effect to Article 7. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous requests.

Article 12. Availability of the text of the Convention in an appropriate language. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the manner in which the text of the Convention in an appropriate language is made available to the crew members of every ship registered in its territory. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consultations will be held with the Merchant Shipping Department on the possibility of disseminating the text of the Convention in English and Spanish to the crew members of every seagoing vessel registered in its territory. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information, further to consultations with the Merchant Shipping Department, on the application of this provision of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of its ratified maritime Conventions. With a view to providing an overview of the matters raised in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, as follows.

Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). Article 3(1) and (4). Safeguards for the signature of the agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions in law to ensure that seafarers are given an opportunity to examine the agreement before signing, with an understanding of its clauses. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under the terms of section 530(I) of the Federal Labour Act, the Office of the Federal Prosecutor for the Defence of Labour (PROFEDET), which has delegations in each federal entity, includes among its responsibilities the representation and provision of advice to workers and their unions, if they so request, in relation to any authority on matters regarding the application of labour standards. The Committee nevertheless observes that there are no specific provisions giving effect to the Convention. While noting this information, the Committee firmly requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that seafarers benefit from the facilities envisaged in this Article of the Convention.

Article 6(3)(10). Information to be included in the agreement. Conditions for the termination of the agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 195 of the Federal Labour Act does not include, among the indications which shall be provided in writing in the agreement, the conditions for the termination of the agreement. In view of the absence of further information on this subject, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the agreement shall contain the conditions for its termination, that is to say: (i) if the agreement has been made for a definite period, the date fixed for its expiry; (ii) if it has been made for a voyage, the port of destination and the time which has to expire after arrival before the seafarer shall be discharged; and (iii) if the agreement has been made for an indefinite period, the conditions which shall entitle either party to rescind it, as well as the required period of notice for rescission, provided that such period shall not be less for the shipowner than for the seafarer, as required by this Article of the Convention.

Article 7. Crew list. The Committee notes that various sections of Chapter VI of the Regulations issued under the Maritime Shipping and Commerce Act include the crew list among the requirements for the authorization of the arrival and departure of marine vessels and craft. Noting the absence of provisions in the Regulations specifying whether the agreement shall be recorded or annexed to the list of crew, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 8. Information on conditions of employment available on board. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to ensure that clear information may be obtained on board by seafarers as to their conditions of employment. In this regard, the Committee notes that section 194 of the Federal Labour Act provides that terms and conditions of employment shall be indicated in writing and that a copy shall be provided to each party, another shall be communicated to the Port Authority or the nearest Mexican consul, and a fourth to the labour inspectorate in the location that shall be determined. The Government adds that section 132(XVIII) of the Act provides that the employer shall be required to display visibly and disseminate in the workplace the full text of the collective labour contract or contracts applicable in the enterprise. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Article 9(1). Termination of the agreement. For many years, the Committee has been noting that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act, which provides that employment relationships may not be terminated when the vessel is abroad, in unpopulated areas or in port, in the event in the latter case that the vessel is exposed to any risk due to bad weather or other circumstances, is not in conformity with this provision of the Convention which provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given. The Government indicates in this respect that the purpose of this provision is not to prevent the possibility of terminating the agreement, but to protect the seafarer in situations of risk by reason of being outside the country, in unpopulated areas or subject to bad weather, thereby safeguarding the seafarer’s safety and health. The Committee notes that this explanation does not reply to its request in the sense that the termination of the agreement must be carried out in any port where the vessel loads or unloads. The Committee therefore firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Article 14(1). Discharge. The Committee notes the copy of the new maritime book and identity document communicated by the Government, which contains spaces to record the duties performed on board, including the dates of embarkation and discharge. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that this copy of the workbook does not include a space to enter the expiry or termination of the agreement, whatever the reason. The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any discharge is recorded in the document issued to the seafarer, under the terms of Article 5, in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55). Article 6. Repatriation expenses. The Committee refers to the comments that it is making on this subject in relation to the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166).

Article 8. Safeguarding property left on board. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate any legal provisions which give effect to this Article of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes that sections 27 and 28 of the Maritime Shipping and Commerce Act provide that the master of the vessel shall be responsible for the vessel, as well as for its crew, passengers, cargo and the legal acts carried out, and that the master shall exercise authority in relation to the persons and property on board. The Committee notes this information.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134). Article 2(3). Detailed statistics on occupational accidents. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to adopt provisions requiring that statistics on occupational accidents on board ship clearly indicate the department (for example, deck, engine or catering) and the area (for example, at sea or in port) where the accidents occurred. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Official Mexican Standard NOM-021-STP-1993 is being updated. The Committee notes that this Standard applies to all workplaces, and does not specify the manner in which it applies to accidents that occur on vessels. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that statistics on occupational accidents are compiled in conformity with the provisions of this Article of the Convention.

Article 3. Research into general trends and hazards of maritime employment. The Committee recalls that this Article of the Convention requires research to be undertaken into general trends and into such hazards as are brought out by statistics in order to provide a sound basis for the prevention of accidents which are due to particular hazards of maritime employment. The Committee notes that the information provided by the Government on this subject is of a general nature and does not refer to research undertaken in this regard. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 4(2) and (3)(d). Measures for the prevention of occupational accidents. For many years, the Committee has been noting the Government’s indication that the Crew Safety Manual is being revised. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Manual is prepared and revised by shipping enterprises and operators, in accordance with the provisions of Official Mexican Standard NOM-036-SCT4-2007 on the administration of operational security and the prevention of contamination by maritime vessels and craft, and that this is verified solely by the maritime authority. The Committee notes that the Official Standard to which the Government refers does not include provisions on specific aspects for the prevention of occupational accidents which are peculiar to maritime employment, such as structural features of the ship, machinery, special safety measures on and below deck, loading and unloading equipment, fire prevention and firefighting, anchors, chains and lines, dangerous cargo and ballast, and personal protective equipment for seafarers. Noting the gaps in the Mexican legislation, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the standards applicable to seafarers for the prevention of accidents and the protection of health in employment specify these matters.

Article 6(3) and (4). Enforcement measures. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the inspection authorities are familiar with maritime employment and its practices and to make available to seafarers copies or summaries of the legal provisions on the prevention of accidents. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that to conduct inspections on vessels and platforms at sea, inspectors are required to have the “sea book”, which is obtained by completing the “Basic security course on platforms and embarkations” provided by the Training and Skills Board for the Personnel of the National Merchant Navy (FIDENA). The Government adds that section 132(XVIII) of the Federal Labour Act establishes the requirement for employers to display visibly and disseminate in workplaces the principal provisions of Mexican regulations and Official Standards on occupational safety, health and the working environment, together with the full text of the collective labour contract or contracts in force in the enterprise, as well as making information available to workers on the risks and hazards to which they are exposed. The Committee notes this information.

Article 8. Programmes for the prevention of occupational accidents. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the establishment and implementation of programmes for the prevention of accidents among seafarers arising from or occurring during employment. In reply to this request, the Government once again provides information on laws, regulations and safety and health programmes that are general in scope, although the Convention requires the establishment of specific maritime programmes with the cooperation of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures for the establishment and implementation of programmes that give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Seafarers’ Welfare Convention, 1987 (No. 163). Articles 2, 5 and 6. Welfare facilities and services in ports and on board ship. Review of welfare facilities and services. International cooperation. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the facilities and services provided by seafarer centres located in the various ports in the country. The Committee also requested the Government to indicate how it is ensured in law and practice that welfare facilities and services for seafarers are reviewed frequently, and to indicate the measures adopted in the field of international cooperation, as required by Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the lack of new information on these matters, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to these Articles of the Convention.

Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164). Article 4(c). Right to visit a medical doctor. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions which guarantee the right of seafarers to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call, whether they are in the flag State or a third country. Noting that the Government’s reply does not address the issue raised, the Committee firmly requests it to take the necessary measures to guarantee seafarers the right to visit a doctor without delay in ports of call where practicable.

Article 5(4) and (5). Inspection at regular intervals of the medicine chest. Checking of the labelling. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the absence of measures in national maritime laws and regulations to give effect to the specific requirements relating to the regular inspection of the medicine chest on board at intervals not exceeding 12 months and the checking of the labelling, expiry dates and conditions of storage of all medicines contained in the medicine chest. In view of the absence of new information on these matters, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with these provisions of the Convention.

Article 7. Medical advice by radio or satellite communication. For many years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to indicate the manner in which this Article of the Convention is enforced and applied in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 48 of the Regulations on the inspection of maritime security provides that vessels authorized for coastal navigation shall be equipped for radio communication. The Government also indicates that Mexican legislation does not include specific provisions on these matters. The Committee reminds the Government that the sole existence of radio communication equipment on board is not sufficient to ensure the availability of medical advice on vessels on the high seas at any time free of charge in the form and in accordance with the requirements set out in the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to effectively implement this Article of the Convention.

Article 8. Presence of a medical doctor on board ships. The Committee notes that the Regulations on maritime security inspection, published on 12 May 2004, which replaced the Regulations on the naval inspection service of 1945, which required a vessel transporting more than 50 persons and engaged in a voyage of over 24 hours to have a medical surgeon on board, do not require the presence of a medical doctor on board the vessels to which they are applicable. The Government indicates that section 204(VIII) of the Federal Labour Act provides that employers are required to carry on board the medical care personnel and materials established by the laws and provisions on water transport. The Committee notes that this provision does not specify the vessels or categories of vessels which are required to carry a medical doctor as a member of the crew, taking into account, inter alia, such factors as the duration, nature and conditions of the voyage, and the number of seafarers on board. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 9. Persons in charge of medical care. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the specific courses for persons in charge of medical care on board vessels who are not doctors. In its reply, the Government indicates that the Nautical Schools of Mazatlàn, Tampico and Veracruz, and the Educational Centre of Campeche, provide courses on basic first aid and medical care. The Government adds that, under the terms of section 49(VI) of the Federal Regulations on occupational safety and health, employers are required to support the updating of the skills of those in charge of internal preventive occupational medicine services. The Committee recalls that the training courses have to be approved by the competent authority and based on the contents of the most recent edition of the International Medical Guide for Ships, the Medical First Aid Guide for Use in Accidents involving Dangerous Goods, the Document for Guidance – An International Maritime Training Guide, published by the IMO, and the medical section of the International Code of Signals, as well as similar national guides. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 11. Hospital accommodation. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation does not give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 49 of the Federal Regulations on occupational safety and health regulate the provision of internal and external preventive occupational medicine services. The Committee notes that these Regulations are of a general nature and do not contain provisions determining the type of vessel in which the provision of separate hospital accommodation is required, or the description of the characteristics of hospital accommodation on board, in accordance with the requirements of this Article of the Convention. The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166). Article 2(1)(c). Repatriation in the event of illness, injury or other medical condition. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 204(VII) of the Federal Labour Act does not include among the obligations of employers in the event of illness or accident to a seafarer the requirement to pay repatriation costs. In its reply, the Government indicates that section 204(IX) provides that employers are required to repatriate workers or transfer them to the agreed destination, except in cases of discharge for reasons not attributable to the employer. Recalling that this provision of the Convention establishes the requirement for the repatriation of the seafarer by the employer in the particular event of illness or injury or other medical condition in which it is so required, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(1)(e) and (f). Repatriation in the event of the inability of the shipowner to fulfil legal or contractual obligations. Ship bound for a war zone. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions of the legislation which guarantee the right of the seafarer to repatriation in the event of bankruptcy or the sale of the ship, and of a ship being bound for a war zone, to which the seafarer does not consent to go. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 33 of the Navigation and Commerce Act provides that, in the event that a vessel flying a foreign flag is in Mexican navigable waterways and the competent maritime authority presumes that the crew has been abandoned or is at risk of loss of life or physical safety, the procedure for the coordination of competencies between administrative authorities in the event of failure in the duty of care for foreign crews on foreign vessels shall be applied. The Committee notes that section 33 of the Navigation and Commerce Act refers to vessels flying foreign flags, while the Convention applies to vessels flying the flag of the State. The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that seafarers embarked on vessels registered in Mexico have the right to repatriation in the situations envisaged in these provisions of the Convention.

Article 2(1)(g). Termination or interruption of employment in accordance with an industrial award or collective agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions in the national legislation on the right to repatriation in the event of the interruption or termination of employment in accordance with an industrial award or a collective agreement. In its reply, the Government indicates that the General Labour Act, as amended in 2012, guarantees the repatriation of seafarers by updating the penalties to which shipowners are liable in the event of failure to pay the costs relating to these obligations. The Committee notes that the Government’s reply does not address the question raised. The Committee therefore firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that seafarers are entitled to repatriation in the situations envisaged in this Article of the Convention.

Article 2(2). Maximum duration of service periods. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions on the maximum duration of service periods on board which entitles seafarers to repatriation. In view of the absence of progress in this regard, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 3(2). Destinations of repatriation. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the absence of provisions establishing the right of seafarers to choose from among the prescribed destinations for repatriation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 196 of the Federal Labour Act provides that, when the written contract is for a definite or indefinite period, the port to which the worker shall be returned shall be determined and, in the absence of such determination, the place in which the seafarer was taken on board shall be taken as the destination determined. The Committee notes that this section only covers the determination of the port to which the worker shall be returned in cases of contracts for definite or indefinite periods, and does not extend this right to cases of contracts for a voyage or for voyages, as envisaged in section 195(IV) of the Act. Moreover, this section is confined to providing that the port of return shall be determined, without explicitly providing that seafarers may choose the destination of repatriation, nor the options within which they may make that choice. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with Article 3(2) of the Convention.

Articles 4 and 5. Responsibility of the shipowner to arrange for repatriation. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to take measures to ensure that full effect is given to these Articles of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 28(a) of the Federal Labour Act provides that repatriation shall be the responsibility of the contracting employer in the case of Mexican workers engaged in work outside the Republic who are covered by contracts concluded on the national territory. The Committee notes that this section only applies to Mexican workers engaged in work abroad, while the Convention applies to any seafarer employed on board a seagoing vessel registered in the territory of any Member. The Committee also notes that this provision does not cover the following aspects which are regulated by the Convention: (i) the competent authority shall meet the costs of repatriation if the shipowner fails to make the necessary arrangements (Article 5(1)(a)); (ii) the normal mode of transport for repatriation of seafarers shall be by air (Article 4(1)); and (iii) the costs to be borne by the shipowner in relation to repatriation shall include not only the passage, but also accommodation, food, pay and allowances and medical treatment when necessary from the moment that the seafarer leaves the ship until he or she reaches the repatriation destination (Article 4(4)). The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into conformity with these provisions of the Convention.

Article 6. Passport and other identity documents. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify how it is ensured that seafarers who are to be repatriated are able to obtain their passport and other identity documents for the purposes of repatriation. In its reply, the Government indicates that the National Migration Institute (INM) is responsible for making the necessary arrangements concerning such documents, with the aim of carrying out the repatriation of seafarers who require it. Recalling that this provision of the Convention is intended to guarantee that seafarers can retain their passport or other identity documents for the purpose of repatriation, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 7. Paid leave. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the national legislation does not contain any provision ensuring that time spent awaiting repatriation and repatriation travel time shall not be deducted from paid leave accrued to the seafarer. In view of the absence of relevant information on this subject, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 12. Availability of the text of the Convention in an appropriate language. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the manner in which the text of the Convention in an appropriate language is made available to the crew members of every ship registered in its territory. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided further information on this subject. The Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

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

Article 3(1) and (4) of the Convention. Conditions and safeguards for the signature of the agreement. The Committee understands that national law does not contain any provisions seeking to ensure that seafarers are given an opportunity to examine and seek advice on the agreement before signing and that they enter into an agreement with a sufficient understanding of their rights and responsibilities. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national law gives full effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention.

Article 6(10). Contract details. The Committee notes that section 195 of the Federal Labour Act does not include the conditions for the termination of the agreement, whether made for a definite period, for a voyage or for an indefinite period, among the particulars that need to be included in the agreement. The Committee asks the Government to take appropriate action to ensure conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 7. Crew list. The Committee understands that there are no provisions in national legislation that require seafarers’ articles of agreement to be either recorded in or annexed to the crew list. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 8. Information on conditions of employment available on board. The Committee understands that national law does not provide for measures enabling clear information to be obtained on board as to the conditions of employment, for instance by posting the conditions of the agreement in a place easily accessible. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to take the necessary measures in order to implement the requirements of this Article of the Convention in law and practice.

Article 9(1). Termination of agreement. For a considerable number of years, the Committee has been asking the Government to amend section 209 III of the Federal Labour Act, to ensure that the agreement may be terminated at any time by either party provided that due notice is given. In the absence of any progress in this respect, the Committee is obliged once more to urge the Government to take all necessary measures in order to bring the national legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Article 13(1). Termination of agreement by the seafarer in the event of promotion. The Committee understands that there are no provisions in national legislation permitting seafarers to claim their discharge, in the event of promotion or other circumstances that render it essential for their interests, on condition that they furnish a competent and reliable replacement. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14(1). Discharge. The Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that the seafarer’s document issued in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, provided no space to enter the discharge of the seafarer and the duties they performed on board. In its latest report, the Government indicates that it is currently working on a new model maritime book (libreta de mar) that will include a space to enter the discharge of the seafarer and the duties performed on-board. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this regard and to transmit a sample copy of the new maritime book once it has been prepared.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), contains in Regulation 2.1, Standard A2.1 and Guideline B2.1 up-to-date and more detailed requirements on seafarer’s employment agreements that revise existing standards set out in Convention No. 22. The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the MLC, 2006, in the very near future and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in its report. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Termination of the contract. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government merely states that it has no knowledge of the initiative of the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) for the amendment of section 209 III of the Federal Labour Act. The Committee points out that it has been asking the Government for more than 30 years to amend this provision, under which it is unlawful to terminate the employment relationship when the vessel is in foreign waters. The Convention, on the contrary, provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads provided that notice has been given which shall not be less than 24 hours. Consequently, the Committee again asks the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the contract may be terminated at any time by either party provided that the notice specified has been given.

Article 14, paragraph 1, and Article 5. Discharge of the seafarer. The Committee noted previously that the seafarer’s document, issued in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, provided no space to enter the discharge of the seafarer and the duties he performed on board. It accordingly asked the Government to take the necessary steps to give effect to these provisions. Since there is no response in the report, the Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the seafarer’s discharge is recorded in the document and that no statement may be included in the document as to the quality of the seafarer’s work or as to his wages.

Article 15 and Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. Further to the CTM’s comments to the effect that no inspections are carried out due to the lack of resources available to the inspections services, the Committee requested the Government to reply to these observations. By way of a response, the Government merely states: (i) that the CTM has not sent the additional information it had requested on the matter; and (ii) that since January 2005, no breaches of the Convention had been reported in the 21,779 regular inspections of general working conditions carried out in all the workplaces under Mexican Federal jurisdiction.

According to the Convention, “national law shall provide the measures to ensure compliance with the terms of the present Convention”. This means not only setting up an inspection service but also providing the necessary resources for it to function. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide information on the organization and working of the inspection services, on the number of inspectors employed in them, and on the measures taken to ensure proper performance of their duties. The Government is also asked to supply information on the exact number of inspection visits carried out in the maritime sector.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information provided in the report. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Termination of the agreement. For over 30 years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take steps to amend section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act, under the terms of which it is unlawful to terminate the employment relationship when the vessel is in foreign waters. In contrast, the Convention provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given, which shall not be less than 24 hours.

In 2003, the Government referred to the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention which, in its view, allowed it to maintain in force the provisions of section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act. In 2005, the report did not contain any information on this subject. The Committee notes, however, that the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) has submitted an initiative for the amendment of this section. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the action taken as a result of this initiative and requests it once again to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the agreement can be terminated at any time by either party provided that the notice specified shall have been given.

Article 14, paragraph 1, and Article 5. Discharge of the seafarer. Under the terms of the Convention, every seafarer shall be given a document containing a record of his employment on board the vessel and also indicating that he has been discharged, whatever the reason for the termination or rescission of the agreement. As the Committee noted that the maritime book, issued in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, does not provide any space for such entries, it requested the Government in its previous comment to take the necessary measures to give effect to these provisions. As the report contains no information in this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the discharge of the seafarer is recorded in the maritime book and that no statement as to the quality of the seafarer’s work or as to his wages may be contained in this document.

Article 14, paragraph 2. Certificate as to the quality of the seafarer’s work. Under the terms of the Convention, the seafarer has the right to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of his work or, failing that, indicating whether he has fully discharged his obligations under the agreement. Section 132(VIII) of the Federal Labour Act provides that employers are under the obligation to issue to workers who so request or who leave their employment, within three days, written testimony as to the work performed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate: (i) the specific information to be contained in this document; and (ii) whether this section is applicable to seafarers.

Article 15. Application of the Convention. The CTM indicates in its comments that, although there are legal texts respecting labour inspection, no inspections are carried out on the application of the provisions of the Convention due to the lack of resources available to the inspection services.

The trade union organization also indicates that there is no periodic inspection of vessels. It adds that, at the present time, only two inspectors of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) take responsibility at the national level for foreign vessels flying flags of convenience and for receiving complaints from seafarers. Unfortunately, these inspectors do not benefit from any support from the authorities in their work. The Government indicates that, in order to reply to these observations, it needs to obtain more information from the CTM. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on this matter in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2007.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Articles 5 and 14 of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to these provisions of the Convention. It notes that the maritime book (Libreta de Mar) transmitted by the Government in 2000 does not provide any space for entries that the seaman has been discharged. The Committee recalls that an intention behind the inclusion of Article 14 into the text of the Convention was that an entry should be made in the document referred to in Article 5 of the Convention as well as in the list of crew, stating merely the fact that the seaman had been discharged and not the ground for such discharge (ILC, 9th Session, Record of Proceedings, ILO, Geneva, 1926, p. 524). The Committee asks the Government to take all measures to give full effect to this provision of the Convention and to report on any progress made in this regard.

Article 9. For more than 30 years the Committee has been asking the Government to amend section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act, according to which it is unlawful to terminate the employment relation when the vessel is in foreign waters, in places where there are no towns, or unpopulated places, or in port (in the latter case, if the vessel is exposed to some risk on account of bad weather or other circumstances). Under Article 9 of the Convention, however, an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall be given, which shall not be less than 24 hours. Notice shall be given in writing; national law shall provide such manner of giving notice as is best calculated to preclude any subsequent dispute between the parties on this point. National law shall determine the exceptional circumstances in which notice even when duly given shall not terminate the agreement.

The Committee notes that in spite of its repeated requests, section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act still has not been brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. To the extent that in Mexico under article 130 of the Constitution international Conventions form part of the national legislation and are the supreme law, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the jurisprudence recognizes the duality of the system and applies, at the same time, international Conventions, the Committee considers that the Government has the possibility and the duty to bring section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act into conformity with Article 9 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and reverts to its previous comments on the application of the Convention.

Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 14, paragraph 1.   The Committee notes from the Government’s report that it is aware that sections 42, 47 and 408 of the Federal Labour Act do not give effect to the provisions of the Convention as to recording the reason for discharge in the seaman’s service book and issuing a separate certificate concerning quality of work/discharge of obligations.

The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that a draft discharge book (Libreta de Navegación) is being prepared. It requests the Government to report on developments in this regard and to send a specimen when this is issued.

Article 7.  The Committee renews its request to the Government to indicate the legislative or regulatory texts which give full effect to this Article.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and recalls its previous comments on the application of the Convention, in particular regarding the formalities in completing the articles and the modalities for terminating the agreement. The Committee also takes note of the comments of the Confederacion de Camaras Industriales de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, according to which the provisions of section 209 III of the Federal Labour Act provide additional protection to seafarers by not allowing termination of an agreement for an indefinite period in a foreign port.

Termination of agreement

In its previous comments the Committee has addressed the problem of legislation prohibiting termination of an agreement for an indefinite period in a foreign port. The right is specifically guaranteed in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. While recognizing that a prohibition on terminating articles of agreement in a foreign port could be viewed as a form of protection, in particular against seafarers being abandoned or otherwise stranded abroad, the Committee recalls that this right to give notice and terminate an agreement for an indefinite period is expressly set forth in the Convention. In this respect, if the period of notice and formalities of termination are respected, the seafarer’s motivation for so doing, which the Government questioned in its report, would not affect the legality of the act. Similarly, with regard to the Government’s concern that the employer could evade his repatriation obligations by terminating the agreement abroad, the employer’s responsibility for repatriation would be determined according to applicable national and international instruments, including the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166), ratified by Mexico.

Formalities and safeguards in completing the articles

Article 3, paragraph 6.  The Committee notes that the Government considers the prohibition on termination abroad of an agreement for an indefinite period as part of the further formalities and safeguards intended to protect the interests of the shipowner and the seafarer. However, the Committee notes that the "further formalities and safeguards" set forth in this Article refer to the "completion of the agreement", and not to other forms of protection. Under no circumstances could this permissive clause be understood to invalidate rights expressly conferred under the Convention.

The Committee renews its request for the Government to bring the aforementioned provisions of the Federal Labour Act into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and to indicate the measures taken in its next report.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that section 39(c) of the Navigation Act requires the presentation of the crew list for the authorization of a vessel to moor in a port. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legislation which provides that the articles of agreement shall be either recorded in the list of crew or annexed to this list.

Articles 14, paragraph 1, and 5, paragraphs 1 and 2. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out to the Government that the record book issued to seafarers provides for the entry of the reason for the seafarer's discharge, which is inconsistent with the above Articles of the Convention. The Government replied that there is no legal obligation making it compulsory for the employer to record the reason for the worker's discharge. In its latest report, the Government repeats this information and states that sections 42, 47 and 208 of the Federal Labour Act prevent the recording of the reason for discharge in the record book issued to seafarers being used against the worker. Section 133(IX) of the Federal Labour Act also prohibits the practice of "keeping an index" of workers who leave or are discharged from work for the purposes of denying them re-employment. The Committee is bound to point out that sections 42, 47 and 208 of the Federal Labour Act, mentioned by the Government, refer to the temporary suspension of employment and the reasons for the termination of the contract of employment and that section 133(IX) does not prevent the recording by the master of the reason for discharge, since this is explicitly authorized in the record book issued to seafarers.

The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides that an entry shall be made in the document issued to the seafarer showing that he has been discharged in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention and that Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention explicitly provides that "this document shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seaman's work or as to his wages". The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. For several years, the Committee has been pointing out that section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act, which provides that seafarers may not be discharged when the ship is abroad, is contrary to this provision of the Convention, which provides that an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement which shall not be less than 24 hours shall have been given. The Committee notes the Government's opinion expressed in its report that this Article of the Convention coincides with the provisions of section 196 of the Federal Labour Act and that the eighth clause of collective agreement CC-713-87 gives effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 196 refers to the port of return of the seafarer when the articles of agreement are completed, and is therefore related to the repatriation of the seafarer, but that it does not cover the possibility provided by this provision of the Convention for both parties to terminate an agreement for an indefinite period in any national or foreign port where the vessel loads or unloads. With regard to the clause aforementioned, the Committee is bound to point out once again that this refers exclusively to the conclusion of an agreement "for a voyage" and not "for an indefinite period", as set out in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation in order to bring it into compliance with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it whether there is legislation which requires a list of crew to be carried on board.

Article 14, paragraph 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the record book issued to seamen provides for entry of the reason for the seafarer's discharge, which is inconsistent with Article 14(1) of the Convention. Indeed, this provision provides that only the discharge shall be entered in the record book, and on the list of crew, and not the reason for the termination or rescission of the agreement. The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government indicates that the legislation does not oblige the employer to record in writing in the record book the reason for dismissal. The Committee notes, however, that the record book allows for the reason for discharge to be entered whereas Article 14(1) of the Convention does not, inter alia, leave the employer free to enter the reason for termination in the record book. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the application of this provision, in both legislation and practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention.The Committee has indicated in comments for many years that the provision of section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act providing that seafarers may not be discharged when the ship is in a foreign port is contrary to the relevant provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report and the clauses of collective agreements (CC-35/88, CC-713/87) which the Government deems applicable to this Article of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that these clauses are not related to the application of Article 9, paragraph 1, and refer to the right recognized by the Conventions for the employer to dismiss crews which renounce their trade union membership and the termination of the agreement entered into for a voyage. The Committee expresses once again its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend its legislation to bring it into line with this provision of the Convention.

[The Government is requested to supply a detailed report in 1998.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the record book issued to seamen provides for entry of the reason for the seafarer's discharge, which is inconsistent with this provision of the Convention. Article 14, paragraph 1, provides that only the discharge shall be entered in the record book and the list of crew, and not the reason for the termination or rescission of the agreement. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that this provision of the Convention is properly applied.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the content of the two clauses on termination of employment relationships in collective agreements CC-35/88 and CC-713/87 referred to in the Government's report. It notes, however, that these clauses refer to the application not of Article 9 of the Convention, but Article 11 (circumstances in which the owner or master may immediately discharge a seafarers). Furthermore, the Committee would like to point out once again that Article 9(3) does not give States which ratify the Convention an unlimited right to depart from the general rule established in Article 9, paragraph 1, but establishes a special rule to be applied in exceptional circumstances to be determined by the national legislation, in which notice even when duly given shall not terminate the agreement. Since the circumstances are exceptional which is not the case for vessels in foreign ports they do not warrant the adoption of a general rule to replace the rule of Article 9(1). Consequently, the provision of section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act cannot be regarded as consistent with the Convention since it provides that agreements cannot be terminated when the vessel is abroad; it amounts to a normal circumstance which is inconsistent with Article 9, paragraph 1.

The Committee again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the national legislation to bring it into conformity with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee raises another point in a direct request to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments respecting section 209(III) of the Federal Labour Act, the Committee notes the interpretation of this section by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board to the effect that it prohibits the termination of an agreement for an indefinite period (a) when the vessel is abroad, (b) when the vessel is in an uninhabited place and (c) when it is in port, on condition in the latter case that the ship is exposed to risk due to bad weather or other circumstances.

The Committee notes that this new interpretation differs from the one given by the Government to section 209 in its reports for the periods 1980-82 and 1982-86. At that time the Government considered that condition (a) was only fulfilled when it coincided with condition (b) or (c). In the interpretation given by the Federal Board, condition (a) is valid per se and no longer depends on the other two, since the Board considers that Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention explicitly empowers national legislation to determine the exceptional circumstances in which the period of notice shall not terminate the agreement. The Committee wishes to point out that paragraph 3 does not give States which ratify the Convention an unlimited right to disregard the general rule established in paragraph 1, nor to replace it by another general rule under which an agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated only in a port of the country of registration of the vessel. However, the Committee wishes to point out that the Government, under the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 2(c) and (g), of the Convention, may determine which categories of vessels remain outside the scope of the Convention, by applying the criteria set out in this provision.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take into account the above and will take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into harmony with this Article of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government maintains its position in its report that section 209 (III) of the Federal Labour Act should be read in the sense that termination of an employment agreement for an indefinite period is only prohibited abroad when the vessel is in an uninhabited place or in port, and in this latter case, only when this would expose the vessel to some risk. However, in view of the ambiguous nature of the present text of section 209 (III) which has given rise to various interpretations, and recalling that the Government had considered in earlier reports the possibility of amending it, the Committee hopes that this possibility will be borne in mind in any future revision of the above Act. In any event, for the purpose of avoiding any doubts on the part of those concerned about the scope of the above section, the point in question should be clarified for the seafarers and authorities concerned through appropriate circulars or directives.