View non-flash version
The Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC 2006) came into effect on 20 August 2013. Globally, the new rule impacts many aspects of how seafarers are treated, working conditions and a myriad of less well deÞ ned requirements that leave some operators scratching their heads to Þ gure out. The United States has not ratiÞ ed the Code and prob- ably never will. That doesnÕt mean that we donÕt have work and rest rules under U.S. law, as well. We do. Regulation 2.3 of the new MLC Code also delineates hours of rest and work for mariners. This type of regula- tion which mandates rest requirements is not new, but it may nevertheless change how vessels are manned, given the extra scrutiny that will now ensue. For those watching from the cheap seats in ÒunaffectedÓ domestic inland, coastal and workboat trades, what unfolds next is worth watching. APPLES & ORANGES: WORK LIMITS & REST HOUR MINIMUMSIt is funny (or, perhaps not) how references to work hour limits have been replaced with rest hour minimums (both are mentioned in separate but closely aligned paragraphs; Standard A2.3 paragraph 5a and 5b). In doing the math, a seafarer could be limited to 72 hours of work in paragraph 5a, but in paragraph 5b, the seafarer must have a minimum of 77 hours rest in a week but could work 91 hours which may be why companies follow Standard 2.3 paragraph 5.b. According to paragraph 12, seafarers shall receive a copy of their daily rest hours which shall be endorsed by the Master, or by a person authorized by the Master and signed by the seafarer. There is no excuse for a seafarer not getting rest, because everyone of competent authority signed the sheet verifying knowledge of the seafarers rest hours. REAL LIFE: ACTUAL PRACTICE Recently, an associate, while aboard a ship and speaking with the Master, asked to see the rest log. Everyone in the crew had exactly the same legal hours of rest and work. Upon further investigation of the logbooks, the reviewer discovered the whole engine department was resting while taking bunkers (fuel used for ships propulsion and auxil- iary machinery). Having sailed for 35 years, I only heard of this type operation once where the deck department loaded bunkers aboard a tanker. The ship in question was not a tanker, but a bulk carrier. After speaking with the Master regarding the anomaly, the Master admitted to falsifying the rest records. On a charter ship, in this instance, the operating expenses and crew costs were Þ xed, meaning they absolutely could not go over budget but the crew still had jobs to perform while making the most money possible for the company. The shipÕs Master, wanting to make it most equitable for his crew, minimized work hours to legal limits on paper, even if the rest data showed they were resting in the middle of work hours (i.e. bunkering). Obviously, the crew acqui- esced by personally signing the rest log, necessary to pro- tect their jobs because they have families to feed and house. In another incident which further illustrates the prob- lem, while reactivating a ship and trying to make the dead- line for berth availability, a crew was working long hours taking care of the many problems of bringing a dead ship out of lay up while also making schedule. As part of the breakout procedures, the ship required an International Ship Management (ISM) certiÞ cate titled ÒShipboard Management CertiÞ cateÓ (SMC), as well as the Docu- ment of Compliance (DOC). This entailed having an ISM audit while bringing the ship out of layup. These audits include interviews with crew members from various ship departments; Deck, Engine and Steward. In this instance, most of the crewmembers were not that familiar with their breakout ship and the interviews took much longer than expected. Because of this, the Þ nal meeting with the ship management team (Master, Chief Engineer, Chief Mate, First Assistant and Steward) was held at 2200 hours. Most likely, the team had been up since 0600 hours and didnÕt stop for any rest during the day. In this instance, would the MLC 2006 have held sway? Could that ship have stayed alongside to allow crew sufÞ cient rest before getting un- derway at 0300 hours without the shipÕs Master suffering the companyÕs ire and becoming unemployed? The maritime industry, with its Òcan doÓ spirit would have seen that ship sail at 0300. In other words, it is okay to trouble the crew during rest periods if an ofÞ cial piece of paper is involved because the MLC 2006 is waived. Right? Work, Rest & Documentation Work, Rest & Documentation The Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC 2006) is now in force ? although not here in the United States. How much different is what happens on MLC compliant ships from what transpires on U.S.-based, domestic workboats? By (Captain) Jeff Cowan SAFETY26 MNNovember 2013MN November2013 Layout 18-31.indd 26MN November2013 Layout 18-31.indd 2610/28/2013 3:14:43 PM10/28/2013 3:14:43 PM
