Cтатья посвящена положениям Конвенции о труде в морском судоходстве (MLC 2006), вступившей в силу 20.08.2013. Особое внимание уделяется автором времени труда и времени отдыха. Статья особенно интересна практикой, примеры которой приводятся автором. Отмечается важность соблюдения режима времени труда и отдыха судового экипажа для безопасности мореплавания, в частности, отмечается порочная практика двойного учета времени труда и отдыха на судах. Анализируются также экономические аспекты организации работы экипажа судна, и автор выражает протест против фальсификации учета рабочего времени судовых экипажей.
| The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 (MLC 2006) is now in force. But do the rest logs that it mandates reflect reality? All too often, this is not the case. The Maritime Labour 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 defined requirements that leave some operators scratching their heads. |
Regulation 2. 3 of the new MLC Code delineates hours of rest and work for mariners. Regulations that mandate rest requirements are nothing new, but this may nevertheless change how vessels are manned, given the extra scrutiny that will now ensue.
Work limits and minimum rest
It is funny (or, perhaps not) how references to work hour limits have been replaced with rest hour minimums. Both are mentioned; but the figures given are incompatible. Do the maths, and vou find that a seafarer is limited to 72 hours of work a week, according to paragraph 5a of the MLC Code. But in paragraph 5b, the seafarer must have a minimum of 77 hours rest in a week – meaning it is possible to work 91 hours and still achieve sufficient rest. This may be why most 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 authorised by the Master, and signed by the seafarer. Theoretically, there is no excuse for a seafarer not getting sufficient rest, because everyone of competent authority has signed the sheet verifying knowledge of the seafarer’s rest hours.
Similiarly, the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) states that: ‘On a tanker, a licensed individual or seaman may not be permitted to work more than 15 hours in any 24 hour period, or more than 36 hours in any 72-hour period, except in an emergency or a drill. In this subsection, ‘work’ includes any administrative duties associated with the vessel whether performed on the vessel or ashore.’ If a crewman works 15 hours in one day that crewman must have the compensatory rest period off in order to attain the 36 hours of rest in a 72 hour period.
In practice
Recently, an associate visiting a vessel noticed that everyone in the crew had exactly the same legal hours of rest and work. Upon further investigation, he discovered the whole engine department was registered as ‘resting’ while taking bunkers. In 35 years, I have only heard of one instance where the deck department loaded bunkers – and that was aboard a tanker. This ship was a bulk carrier.
On discussing the anomaly, the Master admitted to falsifying the rest records. The vessel was a charter ship, with the operating expenses and crew costs fixed. This meant 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 Master, wanting to make the most equitable solution for his crew, minimised work hours to the legal limits on paper, even if the rest data showed they were resting in the middle of work hours (ie bunkering). Obviously, the crew acquiesced by personally signing the rest log, necessary to protect their jobs because they have families to feed and house.
In another incident which further illustrates the problem, a crew was working long hours taking care of the many problems of bringing a dead ship out of layup while also making the deadline for berth availability. As part of the breakout procedures, the ship required an International Ship Management (ISM) certificate titled ‘Shipboard Management Certificate’ (SMC), as well as the Document of Compliance (DOC). This entailed having an ISM audit while bringing the ship out of layup. These audits include interviews with crewmembers from various ship departments. Most of the crewmembers were not that familiar with the ship and the interviews took much longer than expected. In other words, it is fine to trouble the crew during rest periods as long as an official piece of paper is involved. Right? Wrong. Because of the interview, the final 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 did not 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 sufficient rest before getting underway at 0300 hours without the ship’s Master suffering the company’s ire and becoming unemployed? It seems unlikely.
Airside – a parallel universe
Our counterparts who fall under the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) would have stayed on the ground. According to the FAA, an airline pilot needs a 10-hour minimum rest period. The rule sets a 10-hour minimum rest period prior to the flight duty period. The rule also mandates that a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period. Could the Master described in the previous paragraph have complied with the sample FAA ruling under the circumstances? Absolutely not.
As a final example, some boats of less than 1,600 gross tons involved in international trade may carry only one engineer. The boat in this example had a Safe Manning Certificate issued by a competent authority that states only one licensed engineer is required aboard the boat. Due to the lack of technical engineering personnel aboard this boat, most of the repairs are performed by shore-based entities while the boat is in port. Typically, these repairs were all supervised by the boat’s engineer because that engineer would ultimately have to live with any outcome. The repairs occurred at all hours due to berth scheduling. On one occasion, the engineer had been up without a ‘rest period’ for 15 hours. When questioned about his lack of rest, the engineer stated: ‘When the boat is tied up, I am considered a shore-based engineer so the rest rules do not apply.’ Considering what happens when the boat lets go and proceeds to its next berth, and the hours the engineer will then be required to work, will the Port State Control tasked with enforcing the MLC 2006 put an end to this practice? That answer may be as unclear as some of the other provisions of the code, which are largely left open to interpretation.
Effective manning practices
Effective manning is, as it turns out, more than a catch-phrase. One shipping company representative stated: ‘You could have 40 crewmembers aboard ship and still have fatigue problems, because it comes down to fatigue management’. But given that the norm for crewing most ships now is 20 crew, who will be called to replace an individual who is unable to stand watch due to lack of rest?
Nominally, it is fine to increase crew size, as ships are built for larger crews than they carry – but increasing crew size means someone is going to make less money. On chartered ships, as in the first example, the crew will make less money collectively if more crew are signed on. The easy answer is to increase rates to provide for the increased crew – or suffer the cost of a detained ship. Which is cheaper?
Some company ships have added a line to the rest hour sheets and others to the overtime sheets attesting to the fact that the crewman has followed the MLC 2006 rest requirements. Typically, this notation is positioned immediately next to the signature line. A crewmember signing on the line certifies their compliance with the rest requirements or faces dismissal. If the crewmember puts in the hours actually worked, or registers insufficient rest hours that are not in compliance with MLC, then that crewmember will lose their job. Hence, it is more than likely that seafarers are being coerced into falsifying the work/rest logs. Those companies that do – as was discovered by our ship inspector – are trying to skirt MLC (2006) treaty and thereby enjoy a competitive advantage by not hiring more crew to allow more rest and avert casualties due to fatigue. Crew advocacy groups have advised crewmembers to sign the sheets only after striking the attestation clause.
Cause and correction
Human error is responsible for over 58% of all ship casualties. Fatigue represents the largest portion of human error for major claims according to a P&I Club report. How can fatigue be reduced? It is simple, really: by using MLC (2006) to effectively enforce its mandates equally and unilaterally, and getting experienced Port State Control inspectors who are able to understand operations and decipher the falsification of records on rest logs. Unless the MLC is enforced unilaterally throughout international trading fleets, there will remain a competitive advantage for those who falsify the rest logs. The practice also defeats the ultimate goal(s) of both MLC and the US Oil Pollution Act (OPA) OPA 90, which include fair treatment of seafarers and the provision of a safe workplace for all. So who is going to perform the crewman’s work while our crewman is resting per OPA 90 minimum rest requirements? Given the limited number of crew available, who is left to pick up the load?
Whether adhering to MLC (2006) or OPA 90 rest rules, there are lessons to be learned. The practice of fudging work and rest logs isn’t unique to any one sector of the marine world, flag or nationality. Nor should it be tolerated.
This article first appeared in the November 2013 print edition of MarineNews magazine. All rights reserved.
Автор:
Captain Jeff Cowan
MNI
Источник:
Staways. – 2014. – March. – P. 24 – 25.