Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T15:35:22.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation of seafarers’ occupational safety and health: Limits of the Maritime Labour Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Carolyn AE Graham Open the ORCID record for Carolyn AE Graham [Opens in a new window]  and
David Walters
Carolyn AE Graham*
Affiliation:
University of Technology, Jamaica
David Walters
Affiliation:
Cardiff University, UK
*
Carolyn AE Graham, School of Business Administration, University of Technology, Jamaica, 237 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6, Jamaica. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article assesses the regulatory steer provided by the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, against the research evidence as to what works in making for effective worker representation and consultation on occupational safety and health. Based on the testimony of seafarers and regulatory agencies, it demonstrates that the Maritime Labour Convention provisions lack the necessary elements for an effective regulatory steer. This is because the conditions shown to support this form of representation are absent from or underdeveloped in the shipboard work environment. The article concludes with some suggested ways to enhance the Convention’s provisions to achieve a more positive effect for seafarers.

Keywords

J28J53J83Maritime industryMaritime Labour Conventionoccupational safety and healthseafarers’ safety and healthworker representation
Type
Labour rights of seafarers
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 32 , Issue 2: Configuring the Green New Deal , June 2021 , pp. 266 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acejo, I, Sampson, H, Turgo, N, et al. (2011) The health and self-medication practices of seafarers. Seafarers International Research Centre Symposium proceedings ISBN 1-900174-39-1, 6–7 July. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Alderton, T, Winchester, N (2002) Globalization and de-regulation in the maritime industry. Marine Policy 26(1): 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P (2003) Cracking the Code: The Relevance of the ISM Code and Its Impact on Shipping Practices. London: The Nautical Institute.Google Scholar
Bailey, N (2006) Risk perception and safety management systems in the global maritime industry. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 4(2): 59–75.Google Scholar
Bauer, PJ (2008) The Maritime Labour Convention: an adequate guarantee of Seafarer Rights, or an impediment to true reforms? Chicago Journal of International Law 8(2): 643–659.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S (2012a) Sociological factors influencing the practice of incident reporting: the case of the shipping industry. Employee Relations 34(1): 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, S (2012b) The effectiveness of the ISM Code: a qualitative enquiry. Marine Policy 36(2): 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, M, Pentsov, D, Levi, M, et al. (2005) Problems of global governance of seafarers’ health and safety. Report Seafarers’ Centre ISBN: 1-900174-24- 3, November. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Bolle, P (2006) The ILO’s new convention on maritime labour: an innovation instrument. International Labour Review 145(1–2): 135–142.Google Scholar
Braun, V, Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T (2014) Merchant Seamen’s Health, 1860-1960: Medicine, Technology, Shipowners and the State in Britain. Suffolk: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Christodoulou-Varotsi, I (2012) Critical review of the consolidated Maritime Labour Convention (2006) of the International Labour Organization: limitations and perspectives. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 43(4): 467–489.Google Scholar
Eakin, J (2010) Towards a ‘standpoint’ perspective: health and safety in small firms from the perspective of the workers. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 8(2): 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (2016) Contexts and arrangements for occupational safety and health in micro and small enterprises in the EU – SESAME project. European risk observatory report, European agency for safety and health at work, ISSN 1831-9343. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (2017) Worker Participation in the Management of Occupational Safety and Health: Qualitative Evidence from the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2). Bilbao: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (2018) Safety and health in micro and small enterprises in the EU: final report from the 3-year SESAME Project. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/safety-and-health-micro-and-small-enterprises-eu-final-report-3/view (accessed 16 September 2018).Google Scholar
Frost, AC (2008) The high performance work systems literature in industrial relations. In: Blyton, P, Bacon, N, Fiorito, J, et al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: SAGE, pp. 548–571.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C, Underhill, E (2012) Managing work health and safety: recent developments and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50(2): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, CAE (2008) The role of an education in the behavioural sciences towards contributing to the safety culture of the maritime industry. Master’s Thesis, World Maritime University, Malmö.Google Scholar
Gray, GC (2009) The responsibilization strategy of health and safety: neo-liberalism and the reconfiguration of individual responsibility of risk. The British Journal of Criminology 49(3): 326–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A, Forrest, A, Sears, A, et al. (2006) Making a difference: knowledge activism and worker representation in joint OHS committees. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 61(3): 408–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, S, Haworth, N (2010) The International Labour Organization: Coming in from the Cold. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2001) High-level tripartite working group on maritime labour standards (first meeting). Final Report, ILO, Geneva, 17–21 December.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2004) The Global Seafarer: Living and Working Conditions in a Globalized Industry. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2006a) Adoption of an instrument to support the MLC. Report I (1A), 94th International Labour conference (Maritime) Session, February. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2006b) Maritime Labour Convention 2006. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R (2009) The Australian framework for worker participation in occupational health and safety. In: Walters, D, Nichols, T (eds) Workplace Health and Safety: International Perspectives on Worker Representation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 134–153.Google Scholar
Kahveci, E, Nichols, T (2006) The Other Car Workers: Work, Organisation and Technology in the Maritime Car Carrier Industry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lansbury, RD, Wailes, N (2008) Employee involvement and direct participation. In: Blyton, P, Bacon, N, Fiorito, J, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: SAGE, pp. 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewchuk, W (2013) The limits of voice: are workers afraid to express their health and safety rights? Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50(4): 789–812.Google Scholar
Lillie, N (2006) A Global Union for Global Workers: Collective Bargaining and Regulatory Politics in Maritime Shipping. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lillie, N (2008) The ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: a new paradigm for global labour rights implementation. In: Papadakis, K (ed.) Cross-Border Social Dialogue and Agreements: An Emerging Global Industrial Relations Framework? Geneva: ILO, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J (1970) Shipboard union representation in the British Merchant Navy. International Review of Social History 15(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, ML, Devlin, D, Doumbia-Henry, C (2011) The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: A Legal Primer to an Emerging International Regime. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuel, ME (2011) Maritime Risk and Organizational Learning. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Milgate, N, Innes, E, O’Loughlin, K (2002) Examining the effectiveness of health and safety committees and representatives: a review. Work 19(3): 281–290.Google ScholarPubMed
Quinlan, M (2013) Precarious and hazardous work: the health and safety of merchant seamen 1815–1935. Social History 38(3): 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, M, Mayhew, C, Bohle, P (2001) The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization, and consequences for occupational health: a review of recent research. International Journal of Health Services 31(2): 335–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saldana, J (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Sampson, H (2013) Transnational Seafarers and Transnationalism in the Twenty-first Century. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, H, Acejo, I, Ellis, N, et al. (2016) The relationship between seafarers and shore-side personnel: Report, April. Cardiff, UK: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Trade Union Institute for Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS) (2018) Trade union initiatives to support improved safety and health in micro and small firms: Trade Union Prevention Agents (TUPAs) in four EU Member States. Available at: https://istas.net/tupas-project (accessed 25 November 2019).Google Scholar
Walters, D (2004) Worker representation and health and safety in small enterprises in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal 35(2): 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D, Bailey, N (2013) Lives in Peril: Profit or Safety in the Global Maritime Industry? London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D, Nichols, T (2007) Worker Representation and Workplace Health and Safety. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D, Johnstone, R, Quinlan, M, et al. (2016) Safeguarding workers: a study of health and safety representatives in the Queensland coalmining industry, 1990–2013. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 71(3): 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, C, Tang, L, Walters, D (2017) Who is dominant? Occupational health and safety management in Chinese shipping. Journal of Industrial Relations 59(1): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar