Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of Conventions Nos 22, 23, 55, 56, 68, 69 and 147. It also notes the observations of the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions (CONFIEP) and the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), received on 29 August and 1 September 2024, respectively. The Committee regrets to note that there has not been any progress in the adoption of the necessary measures to give full effect to the provisions of the Conventions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to adopt the necessary measures for this purpose without further delay, taking into account the points raised below.

The Committee recalls that, in the context of the Standards Review Mechanism, the Governing Body of the ILO has included an item on the agenda of the 118th Session (2030) of the International Labour Conference for the abrogation of Conventions Nos 22, 23, 55, 56, 68 and 69 and has requested the Office to carry out an initiative to promote, as a priority, the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), by countries that are bound by the above Conventions. Noting that almost all the maritime Conventions ratified by Peru (with the exception of Convention No. 147) will in principle be abrogated in 2030, the Committee encourages the Government to ratify the MLC, 2006.

In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of the maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its comments, that Bill No. 5869/2023-CR, regulating the status and recognition of maritime workers, the provisions of which are related to the Convention, is currently being reviewed by the Labour and Social Security Commission of the Congress of the Republic. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure compliance with the guarantees relating to the signature of articles of agreement and to give full effect to Article 3.

Articles 4 and 6. Clauses and particulars of the articles of agreement. The Committee notes that, in its reply to its previous comments, in addition to referring to the Bill noted above, the Government indicates that, although provisions have not been adopted on the clauses or content of the articles of agreement, that does not prevent the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority (SUNAFIL) from verifying compliance in general terms with social and labour rules in the maritime sector. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, despite section 444(4) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 on the strengthening of the armed forces within the areas of competence of the National Maritime Authority – Port and Coastguard Directorate-General (DICAPI), which provides that “The competent authority shall specify the clauses to be included in the articles of agreement of seafarers, in accordance with the national legislation and the international instruments to which Peru is a party …”, this is not referred to in any of the other sections of the Regulations, and there do not exist national laws specifically regulating the articles of agreement of seafarers. The CATP adds that, as there are no specific regulations, the engagement of seafarers is governed by the rules applicable to private activity, without taking into account the atypical conditions of seafarers, who are therefore vulnerable in relation to articles of agreement and their fundamental rights are violated. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 4 and to establish the particulars and clauses to be included in the articles of agreement of seafarers under section 444(4) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 and in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention.

Article 5.Document recording service on board. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government refers to the inspections carried out by the labour inspection services in the fishing sector, which are not relevant to the present case. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the State of Peru has not amended the legislation with a view to guaranteeing that seafarers receive a document containing a record of their employment on board. The CATP adds that the limited coordination between the authorities that enforce compliance with this requirement makes it impossible to verify compliance in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 5.

Articles 9 and 11. Termination of an agreement of an indefinite period. Immediate discharge. With reference to its previous comments, in which it noted that the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 do not give effect to these provisions, the Government notes that the Government refers in generic terms to the information provided on the previous points. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the general rules applicable to the private sector are the only ones implemented in this respect, which does not permit the direct application of the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention. In contrast, the rules governing private labour activities, contained in the Single Codified Text of Legislative Decree No. 728, the Act on labour productivity and competitiveness, Presidential Decree No. 003-97-TR, provides that notice of termination shall be 30 calendar days. With reference to Article 11 of the Convention, the CATP indicates that section 31 of the same Presidential Decree provides for immediate discharge in cases of “flagrant serious fault”, which makes it possible for employers to discharge workers abruptly, without having to comply with the regular procedure for termination of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to determine the conditions for the termination of articles of agreement for an indefinite period and the circumstances in which the shipowner or the master may immediately discharge a seafarer, in accordance with Articles 9 and 11.

Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23)

Article 6. Obligations of the public authority of the country in which the vessel is registered. Noting that, in accordance with section 755(2) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147, the National Maritime Authority shall contribute to the prompt repatriation or re-embarkation of seafarers by the shipowner following a marine accident, the Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the instructions received by the public authority to ensure the repatriation of seafarers without distinction of nationality and to advance repatriation expenses if necessary. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will provide information on this subject in the near future. The Committee also notes the CONFIEP’s indication that, despite the challenges implicit in the geographical area, companies comply with the provisions of the Convention and have established clear procedures for repatriation situations, including taking out insurance to cover the related costs. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, although the National Maritime Authority is required to collaborate in the repatriation of seafarers, in practice there are no provisions under which this requirement is given effect. In this context, none of the obligations of the National Maritime Authority set out in section 775(2) of the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 (protection of the basic human rights of seafarers affected by a marine accident, rapid investigation of accidents, recording of cases of unfair treatment following a marine accident) are complied with in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to give full effect to Article 6.

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

Articles 6(3) and 8 of the Convention. Repatriation.Safeguarding property left on board. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request on the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)) and the measures to safeguard property left on board in the case of sick or injured seafarers (Article 8), the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CONFIEP’s indication that formal fishing companies not only take occupational safety and health preventive action to minimize occupational accidents, but also, in the event that any work-related accident occurs, they make claims from all insurance policies to provide compensation and ensure the provision of the necessary medical care in the event of sickness or injury. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that there is a clear legislative disparity between the occupational safety and health legislation (Act No. 29783 on occupational safety and health) and the Regulations issued under Legislative Decree No. 1147 since, while the former provides that occupational accidents and diseases shall be registered on the platform of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE) by the employer or the corresponding occupational doctor, the latter envisage a different role for the National Maritime Authority. With reference to Article 8, the CATP indicates that there is currently no legislation in force in Peru providing for the safeguarding of property left on board by sick or injured seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to determine the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)) and to ensure the safeguarding of property left on board by sick or injured seafarers.

Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56)

The Committee notes the CATP’s indication that, as a result of the legislative fragmentation respecting the social security system for fishers, of the approximately 133,000 workers who were in the fishing sector in 2022, only 37 per cent are affiliated to any insurance scheme in Peru, while 63 per cent do not have any social insurance coverage. It adds that efforts were made to ensure compulsory insurance coverage for artisanal fishers (a group which includes the great majority of workers in the sector) through Act No. 30636 establishing the Compulsory Insurance Scheme for Artisanal Fishers (SOPA). This scheme operated as an insurance for personal accidents and covered the risks of the death and physical injury of self-employed artisanal fishers and crewmembers, as well as third persons who are not in the crew, during fishing work, as a consequence of an accident in which the vessel is involved, including in waters adjacent to the maritime domain. The CATP indicates that, regrettably, regulations were never issued under Act No. 30636 and that in 2022 it was repealed by Act No. 31428, and that full effect is not therefore given to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention in Peru. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (No. 58)

The Committee notes the indication by the CONFIEP that the effective implementation of this Convention in the national context faces various challenges. Young persons who work in the maritime sector are faced by a variety of risks and hazards, including extreme working conditions, such as very long hours of work, the lack of rest, work in confined spaces, exposure to hazardous substances and the risk of accidents. One of the main difficulties in the application of this Convention in Peru lies in the high rate of informality characteristic of the maritime sector. The absence of labour registers and the difficulty of identifying workers, especially minors, makes effective enforcement difficult. This is compounded by the limited capacity of the competent authorities to carry out inspections, which facilitates non-compliance with labour rules, including those respecting the minimum age for admission to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Food and Catering (Ships ’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68)

Article 3 of the Convention. Cooperation with organizations of shipowners and seafarers. The Committee notes that, in reply to its comments, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that the legislation in force does not provide any legislative guarantee to ensure the existence in practice of effective cooperation between the Government and the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, and that effect is not therefore given to Article 3. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to ensure cooperation between the competent authority and the organizations of shipowners and seafarers in relation to food and catering on board.

Article 11(2). Refresher courses. The Committee notes the CATP’s indication that, although the Government had indicated previously that there were some training courses related to work performed by seafarers, the current legislation in Peru does not directly establish the requirement for refresher courses for personnel involved in the provision of food and catering on board ships. It adds that it is reported to be a common practice that the personnel responsible for the provision of food do not always have the necessary qualifications or skills for that purpose, which is the clear responsibility of the shipowners who recruit such workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 12. Collection and dissemination of information and recommendations. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government once again indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CATP’s indication that, over eight years since the Committee’s request (of 2016), the Government of Peru has not managed to provide information on this subject, since in practice no action has been taken on the collection and dissemination of information on food and catering on board ships. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay for the collection and dissemination of information and for issuing recommendations on food and catering.

Certification of Ships ’ Cooks Convention, 1946 (No. 69)

Article 4(4) of the Convention. Examination for a certificate of qualification. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. The Committee also notes the CATP’s indication that, although it is currently the DICAPI that establishes guidance for the provision of courses, shipping companies are also responsible for the provision of courses and their content, which not only gives rise to a potential conflict of interests, but is also a model that is not provided for in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to give full effect to Article 4(4), particularly in relation to the organization and content of the examination for the granting of a certificate of qualification for ships’ cooks.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Article 2(d)(i) and (ii) and (g) of the Convention. Procedures for the engagement of seafarers on Peruvian ships. Complaints concerning the engagement of seafarers on foreign ships. Publication of the report of an inquiry into a serious accident. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous requests on these provisions, the Government indicates that it will provide information in the near future. It also notes the CATP’s indication that the possibility for the labour inspection services, under the responsibility of the SUNAFIL, to inspect ships depends on the collaboration and cooperation of the DICAPI. Up to now, no provision has been found which makes it possible to ensure the existence in practice of the collaboration that should exist between these two bodies, nor is there a protocol on intersectoral coordination envisaging such joint work. More specifically, in relation to Article 2(d)(i) and (ii), there are no legislative provisions in Peru respecting the engagement of seafarers, nor any procedures for complaints relating to the articles of agreement of seafarers. The CATP indicates that conditions on board (deficient Internet connection, little telephone communication, excessive periods on board, restrictions on shore leave, etc.), make it difficult for seafarers to have access to such procedures, which in many cases involve a visit to the offices of public bodies. The CATP adds that effect is not given to Article 2(g) since, although there exists a department for the investigation of maritime accidents by the National Maritime Authority, there are no procedures for the publication of information. The CATP adds that the possibility should exist, in line with the provisions of Article 4 of Convention No. 147, for workers’ organizations to be able to submit complaints or representations directly to the DICAPI, but there are no explicit provisions on this in the current legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to regulate the engagement of seafarers on ships registered in its territory (Article 2(d)(i)) and the procedures for the transmission of complaints concerning the engagement of seafarers on foreign ships (Article 2(d)(ii)), and to give full effect to the requirement for the final report of official inquiries into any serious accident involving ships registered in its territory to be made public (Article 2(g)).

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

The Committee notes the reports provided by the Government on the application of the Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55), and the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56). In order to provide an overview of matters arising in relation to the application of these maritime Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in a single comment, which is set out below.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55). Article 6. Repatriation. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention, in particular those relating to the specific destinations to which the seafarer may be repatriated and the items of expense covered. The Committee notes that section 447.1 of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147 (adopted by Supreme Decree No. 015-2014-DE of 28 November 2014) provides that seafarers have the right to be transported to the port of embarkation at the expense of the shipowner in the event of illness, provided that the seafarer cannot continue to carry out his or her duties or cannot be expected to continue doing so in specific circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the items of expense covered for the repatriation of a sick or injured seafarer (Article 6(3)).

Article 8. Safeguarding property left on board. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to adopt measures to ensure that the national legislation requires shipowners or their representatives to take steps to safeguard the property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on this matter. The Committee also notes that section 404 of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, like the repealed Decree No. 028-DE/MGP, provides that the captain is obliged to safeguard all of the papers and clothing of any seafarer who dies on board the ship. However, it does not provide for the adoption of measures for safeguarding property left on board by sick or injured seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56). Articles 1 and 2. Payments under the compulsory sickness insurance scheme. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the adoption of SBS Resolution No. 14707-2010 of 15 November 2010 concerning the dissolution of the Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP). The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures in practice the payment, under all circumstances, of cash benefits for a minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity and to supply detailed information on any measures taken to reorganize and operate an insurance body responsible for providing the benefits prescribed by the Convention. The Committee also requested the Government to provide its comments in response to the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) regarding, inter alia, the absence of legislative provisions guaranteeing the payment of cash benefits for at least the first 26 weeks of incapacity.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to the Committee’s comments and the observations of the CGTP, that under section 447.2(c) of the regulations implementing Legislative Decree No. 1147, with a view to guaranteeing the access to social security of working and retired fishers covered by Decision SBS No. 14707-2010, the National Congress adopted Act No. 30003 of 27 March 2013, which governs the special social security scheme for working and retired fishers. The Government indicates that the Act and its implementing regulations (Supreme Decree No. 007-2014-EF) regulate the following financial benefits: the “direct transfer to retired fishers” benefit (TDEP); the retirement pension for fishers affiliated to the special pension scheme for fishers (REP); the disability benefit for fishers affiliated to the REP; the payment of the TDEP as survivors’ benefit; and a survivors’ benefit from the REP. The Government adds that section 2(b) of Act No. 30003 guarantees full insurance for fishers and their dependants, and those in receipt of a pension from the now dissolved CBSSP, as regular members of the contributory social security health scheme under the aegis of the Social Health Service of Peru (ESSALUD). In this regard, section 27 of the Act provides that fishers affiliated to the REP or the Pension Funds Private Administration System (SPP) are covered by ESSALUD as regular members of the contributory social security health system. To this effect, the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 005-2005-TR, or any superseding legislation, are applicable, even in the event that the fisher was not affiliated to the CBSSP. Under section 6 of Supreme Decree No. 005-2005-TR, dependent fishers, retirees and their dependants shall be entitled to the benefits established in Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, implementing the Social Health Insurance Modernization Act. The Government also refers to section 15 of the regulations governing the temporary incapacity benefit, which provides that the benefit shall be equal to the average daily wages during the 12 months preceding the contingency, multiplied by the number of days for which the benefit is to be paid. If the total number of months is less than 12, the average shall be determined on the basis of the length of time that the regular member has been contributing. The benefit shall be granted for a maximum consecutive period of 11 months and ten days. Entitlement to the benefit starts on the 21st day of incapacity; during the first 20 days the employer is still required to pay wages. Lastly, the Government indicates that, as of 30 June 2015, a total of 2,724 fishers were affiliated to the REP and there were 7,523 beneficiaries in receipt of TDEP benefits.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 6 of the Convention. Repatriation. Recalling that the shipowner’s obligation to defray the expense of repatriating a sick or injured seafarer who is landed during the voyage in consequence of sickness or injury is now reflected in Standard A2.5(1)(c) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), to be read in conjunction with Guideline B2.5.1(1)(b)(i), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of this Article of the Convention, in particular those relating to the specific destinations to which the seafarer may be repatriated and the items of expense covered. The Committee also requests the Government to refer to the comments made in 2010 under the Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23).

Article 8. Safeguarding property left on board. The Committee notes that under section E-010609 of Supreme Decree No. 028-DE/MGP of 25 May 2001, the ship’s master has to secure the belongings left on board by deceased persons. However, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires measures to be taken for safeguarding the property left on board by sick or injured seafarers as well. Recalling that the same requirement has been incorporated in Standard A4.2(7) of the MLC, 2006, with the additional obligation to return the property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers to their next of kin, the Committee requests the Government to take measures in order to fully align its legislation with the Convention on this point.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding the number of inspections carried out during the period 2009–10 with respect to the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, the number of seafarers to whom the Convention applies and who have benefited from medical care and maintenance, distinguishing, if possible, between those left ashore in the national territory and those landed elsewhere; the amounts paid by shipowners and the social security institution for sick, injured or deceased seafarers; copies of collective agreements containing provisions related to the Convention; and relevant extracts from activity reports of the Social Security Health Insurance (EsSalud) and of the National Directorate of Labour Inspection.

Finally, the Committee recalls that most of the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated in Regulation 4.5 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006 and therefore ensuring compliance with Convention No. 55 would facilitate compliance with the corresponding requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments regarding the process of ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance scheme. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the adoption of Resolution SBS No. 14707-2010 of 15 November 2010 concerning the dissolution of the Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP). The Government had previously indicated that cash benefits to fishers affiliated to the CBSSP were paid directly by the employers, which nonetheless implied the absence of a sickness insurance scheme administered by a self-governing institution, as required under this Convention. Following the dissolution of the CBSSP, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures in practice the payment, under all circumstances, of cash benefits for a minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity and also to detail any measures taken or planned for reorganizing and operating an insurance institution responsible for providing the benefits prescribed by the Convention.

In addition, the Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), which were transmitted to the Government on 28 September 2010, concerning the absence of legislative provisions guaranteeing the payment of cash benefits for at least the first 26 weeks of incapacity and also the Government’s failure to engage in nationwide consultations with a view to addressing the problems of social security in the fishing sector. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of the CGTP.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the general information supplied by the Government concerning developments related to the application of the Convention.

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of right to sickness insurance after termination of engagement. Having noted that section 37 of Supreme Decree
No. 009-97-SA provides for the continuation of the right to sickness insurance after termination of the last engagement, the Committee had previously asked the Government to provide information, including statistics, on the practical application of this provision. In its latest report, the Government states that it has requested statistics from the relevant entities and that it will forward them as soon as received. The Committee expects the Government to supply, in its next report, the requested statistical data on the average interval between successive engagements, as well as on the average period of time during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

The Committee also notes that, according to section 8 of Supreme Decree No. 020-2006-TR, fishers whose employment relationship has ended, have the right to medical benefits, if and when they have paid two monthly contributions, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, during the six months prior to the contingency. Please clarify how section 8 of Supreme Decree No. 020-2006-TR and section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which also provides for the right of fishers to medical benefits in case of unemployment or suspension of the employment relationship, relate to each other.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the trade union allegations on the persistent failure of employers to affiliate fishers to the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR), as well as the 2005 government statistics, according to which only 168 of 2,541 fishing enterprises had subscribed to the SCTR. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the penalties incurred by employers for failure to meet their obligations towards fishers as regards the SCTR (section 82 and Annex 5 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA), and on the measures envisaged to secure observance by all maritime fishing companies of their obligations under the law. Furthermore, the Committee hoped that Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007, according to which large industrial fishing vessels must show a certificate attesting to payment of social security contributions (constancia de no adeudo) in order to be permitted to leave port, would, in practice, be an incentive to all shipowners to fulfil their obligations under the Convention and the national legislation, and requested the Government to keep the Office informed on any progress made in this area.

The Government indicates that, further to the above Supreme Decree No. 003-2007, the related Supreme Decree No. 019-2007-PRODUCE of 17 October 2007 specifies that permission to large fishing vessels to depart shall only be granted if the obligation to regularly pay the contributions under, inter alia, the SCTR is met. The Decree further provides that the competent authority shall transmit to the relevant ministries the list of the permissions granted to leave port as well as the list identifying the cases and reasons for which fishing vessels have not been authorized to leave port, for the purpose of adopting adequate supervisory and fiscal measures and imposing appropriate sanctions.

The Government also reports that, following a series of inspections performed in 2007 pursuant to communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007, further inspections of 33 fishing enterprises with industrial vessels fishing anchovies have been carried out in June 2008 by 44 labour inspectors from the National Directorate for Labour Inspection at the request of the Ministry of Production. The scope of inspection specifically related to the SCTR and payslips (including information on remuneration and health and social security benefits). The Chamber of Commerce of Lima indicates that inspections have become more frequent and effective so that less and less employers take the risk to incur a penalty relating to the payment of the SCTR or other social security obligations.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the impact of the above measures on the affiliation to the SCTR and payment of SCTR contributions by employers. In particular, the Committee asks the Government to supply, in its next report, up to date statistics on the cases where fishing vessels have been prohibited from leaving port under Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE, to describe the reasons invoked, and to indicate the penalties imposed against employers for not taking out SCTR or not paying SCTR contributions as well as other enforcement actions taken. Given that the inspection report has yet to be completed, the Committee further asks the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the final inspection report containing the infringements detected and the sanctions imposed for not taking out SCTR or not paying SCTR contributions. Please also indicate the number of claims, in relation to occupational diseases or accidents, filed under the SCTR during the reporting period.

Moreover, the Committee notes from Report No. 030-2008-DPR.SA/ONP supplied by the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP) that, from the entry into force of the SCTR in 1997 until 17 June 2008, no claims for economic benefits arising from occupational diseases or accidents in the fishing sector have been filed under section 88 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which provides for benefits by insurance institutions in the event of failure of employers to take out SCTR or pay contributions under the SCTR. In view of the above, the Committee understands that the provisions of national legislation guaranteeing the right to benefits in case of non-affiliation to the SCTR or non-payment of SCTR contributions by the employers have so far not been implemented in practice. It asks the Government to indicate the manner in which workers whose employers have failed to affiliate them to the SCTR or to pay relevant contributions, have been granted the medical and cash benefits guaranteed by the Convention. Please indicate the number of such cases as well as any measures taken or envisaged to inform the workers concerned about their rights under section 88 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA.

Lastly, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the legal proceedings against the company Atlantida for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death. According to the Government’s report, a sanction amounting to a fine of 6,200 nuevos soles was imposed on the fishing company for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death in 36 cases. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether there are cases in which workers have lost their rights to medical and cash benefits as a consequence of the company’s failure to pay the relevant contributions. If there are such cases, please provide information on the benefits received by the workers from the insurance institutions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance scheme. The Government reports on the restructuring of the crisis-struck Fishers’ Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP), which has resulted in the medical benefits being transferred to the Social Health Insurance, whereas the payment of cash benefits to fishers affiliated to the CBSSP is directly assumed by the employers. While being aware of the difficulties encountered by the CBSSP, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires that seafarers shall be affiliated to a compulsory sickness insurance scheme, under which, if rendered incapable of work and deprived of wages by reason of sickness, the seafarers shall be entitled to cash benefits, which may be withheld only in the cases enumerated in Article 2, paragraph 4. The Committee therefore hopes that the arrangement, according to which the payment of cash benefits is directly assumed by the employers, is only of a provisional nature, and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compliance with the requirements of the Convention is re-established. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide information on the foreseen duration of the arrangements according to which the cash benefits are paid by the employer; (ii) specify how it ensures that the sickness insurance steps in, if the employer fails to pay the cash benefits; and (iii) indicate by what means it ensures that the payment of cash benefits for the minimum period of the first 26 weeks of incapacity as guaranteed by the Convention is, under all circumstances, maintained in practice. Please provide information on any court rulings concerning the non-payment of cash benefits during the prescribed minimum period of 26 weeks of incapacity.

Article 4, paragraph (1). Payment to the family of cash benefit to which a seafarer would have been entitled if not abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee considered, however, that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, i.e. unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government states that it has requested the relevant information concerning the rights of the family members of seafarers from the General Directorate for Harbour Masters and Coast Guards and from the CBSSP and that it will forward the reply as soon as received. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the unconditional payment to the seafarer’s family of whole or part of the cash benefit to which the seafarer would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad, thus giving effect to this provision of the Convention. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment requesting details on the results of inspections performed pursuant to communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007, and on the penalties applied. It invites the Government to continue supplying information on action taken to supervise and enforce the application of the national legislation implementing the Convention.

The Government further supplies information concerning the Ministerial Conference of OLDEPESCA of June 2008 in Lima, where members pledged to take measures to improve the quality of life of fishers in the region. In this context, the Committee wishes to recall the earlier suggestion made by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners and Skippers of the Region of Puerto Supe to organize a national round table to find solutions to the problems of social security, health and industrial injury for workers in the industrial maritime fishing sector. It asks the Government once again to indicate whether it would envisage convening a round table at national level to address social security issues in maritime fishing.

The Committee raises other matters of a technical nature in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in reply to earlier comments from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. Since the information contains no reply to the previous comments, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the matters raised in the 2006 direct request and for which a report is expected in 2008.

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of the right to sickness insurance after the termination of the last engagement. Replying to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government stated that it would shortly supply statistics concerning the application to seafarers of section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended. The Committee points out that under this provision of the Convention, the right to sickness insurance benefit shall continue during a definite period so as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements. The Committee therefore asks the Government to supply statistical information on the average period of time between two engagements for seafarers, as well as statistics on the average period during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in response to earlier comments by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. It also notes with interest the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007 and communication No. 0170-2007-MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007 asking for inspection of the fishing enterprises of Puerto Supe and those in the SUNAT database. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the inspections carried out pursuant to the communication of 23 March 2007 and on any penalties applied.

According to Supreme Decree No. 003-2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007, in order to leave port, large industrial fishing vessels must now show a certificate attesting to payment of social security contributions (“constancia de no adeudo”), which must be delivered to the authority that issues permits for vessels to depart. The certificate is valid for 30 days and must be issued within three working days by the Social Benefits and Social Security Fund for Fishers to all shipowners requesting it.

The Committee notes that, according to Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA issuing the enabling regulations of Act No. 26790 to modernize the health aspect of social security, fishing is considered as an activity liable to risk and must therefore be insured under the supplementary insurance for hazardous occupational activities (SCTR). The provisions of the Supreme Decree of 2 February 2007 do not, therefore, suffice on their own. The Committee nonetheless hopes that, in practice, the Decree will be an incentive to all shipowners to fulfil their obligations under the Convention and the national legislation. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this area.

The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to other points raised in its 2006 observation for which a report is expected in 2008.

The Committee would be grateful if in its next report the Government would explain why the workers of some enterprises are still denied protection under the law notwithstanding section 82 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, which provides that all workers engaged in high-risk activities must have the SCTR supplementary insurance. In the event of failure to take out SCTR supplementary insurance, the Committee points out that the Government has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the protection established by the Convention is properly implemented and that it is fully respected in practice. It also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given in practice to section 88 of these regulations, under which insurance institutions are required to bear the cost of sickness or injury where employers fail to pay insurance contributions, and may subsequently claim back from the employers the amounts they have paid out. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide information on the penalties incurred by employers for failure to meet their obligations under the SCTR supplementary insurance, and on the measures envisaged to secure observance by all maritime fishing companies of their obligations under the law.

With regard to cash benefits due to seafarers in the event of sickness or disease, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how effect is given to the Convention in the event of non-payment by shipowners of insurance contributions. It points out that under Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, where sickness or injury results in incapacity for work the shipowner does not cease to be liable until the sick or injured person becomes entitled to benefits under the compulsory insurance scheme.

Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the outcome of the legal proceedings against the company Atlantida for non-payment of social insurance contributions in respect of invalidity and death. It hopes in particular that the Government will be in a position to report on how these matters have been settled and that it will provide all the relevant court decisions and any relevant information on: (i) the penalties imposed on the abovementioned enterprise; (ii) the benefits received by the workers of the enterprise from the insurance institutions; and (iii) the latters’ exercise of their right to bring proceedings against the abovementioned enterprise.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in reply to earlier observations from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owners of Puerto Supe and Associates. It notes, however, that the Government has still not stated whether it is ready to convene a round table to address social security problems in maritime fishing.

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 003‑2007-PRODUCE of 2 February 2007 and communication No. 0170‑2007‑MTPE/2/11.4 of 23 March 2007 requesting inspections of Puerto Supe fishing enterprises and of those appearing in the SUNAT database. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of inspections conducted pursuant to the communication of 23 March 2007, and on any penalties imposed.

Furthermore, it draws the Government’s attention to the points raised in its observation of 2006 for which a report is expected in 2008.

Article 4(1) of the Convention. Payment to the seafarer’s family of the whole or part of the cash benefit to which he or she would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to be represented in order to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee nevertheless considered that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, that is, unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of the whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government refers once again to the procedure for representation set out in the Civil Code without indicating whether measures have been taken or are envisaged to give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and hopes that it will be in a position to inform the Committee in its next report of measures taken in this respect. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Continuation of the right to sickness insurance after the termination of the last engagement. Replying to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government states that it will shortly supply statistics concerning the application to seafarers of section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended, providing for an extension of the period of protection (período de latencia) after the end of the last engagement, the duration of the extension varying as a function of the period worked. The Committee notes this information and recalls that, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, the right to sickness insurance benefit shall continue during a definite period so as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will also supply statistical information on the average period of time between two engagements for seafarers, as compared with the average period during which seafarers benefit in practice from continuation of sickness insurance after the termination of their engagement.

[The Government is requested to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

In previous comments, the Committee noted certain problems in application of national legislation regarding sickness and accident insurance in the maritime fishing sector and requested the Government to supply information on the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate to supervise application of the national legislation in practice. It also requested the Government to supply statistical information on the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing sector which have taken out the supplementary insurance for high-risk activities (SCTR) instituted by section 19 of the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in regard to health, 1997. In fact, under Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA issuing regulations under the Act, fishing is considered as a high-risk activity and therefore subject to compulsory SCTR insurance. Under this insurance, workers enjoy a specific system in regard to medical treatment, while cash benefits in the event of incapacity for work are financed by the health insurance scheme.

In this regard, in the further communications received between October 2004 and January 2005, the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates once again drew attention to serious and persistent failure to apply in practice the national legislation and regulations, as well as the lack of will by the Government to confront the existing problems. According to the trade union, shipowners persistently fail to comply with their obligation to affiliate their workers to the supplementary insurance for high-risk occupations which results in depriving them of any protection in the event of illness or accident. The trade union therefore urges the Government to convene a round table at national level in order to find a solution to the problems of social security, health and industrial injury for workers in the industrial maritime fishing sector.

In its latest report received by the Office in October 2005, the Government gives no reply to these concerns or to the requests expressed by the trade union. It provides a list of activities already undertaken or planned by the labour inspection services in various regions of the country in order to supervise the manner in which the obligation to affiliate to the SCTR is complied with in practice by fishing enterprises. Furthermore, it provides the statistical information requested earlier regarding the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing sector affiliated to the SCTR special scheme.

The Committee takes due note of this information and hopes that in its next report the Government will provide its observations regarding the concerns expressed by the above trade union. In regard to medical benefits, first, the Committee notes that on the basis of the statistics supplied by the Government, despite the inspection campaign mentioned in the report, only a small number of enterprises in this sector are actually affiliated to the supplementary insurance for high-risk occupations. Indeed, while there are some 2,541 fishing enterprises in the country, at 22 July 2005 only 168 of them had subscribed to high-risk occupation insurance. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply in its next report explanations on this matter, particularly the reasons why workers of certain enterprises are still deprived of this legal protection whereas section 82 of Supreme Decree No. 009‑97-SA issuing regulations under Act No. 26790 provides that all workers performing high-risk activities must be affiliated to the SCTR supplementary insurance. The Committee recalls that it is primarily the duty of the Government to ensure that the protection provided by the Convention is effectively applied and to see that it is fully observed in practice. On this score, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how effect is given in practice to section 88 of Regulation No. 009-97-SA which provides that the insurance institutions must cover sick or injured persons despite failure by employers to make social security payments and may subsequently claim the amounts involved from the employers. Please also provide information on the sanctions imposed on employers who do not comply with their obligations under the SCTR supplementary insurance and on the measures envisaged to oblige all maritime fishing companies to comply with their legal obligations.

With regard to cash benefits due in the event of seafarers’ illness or accident, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the Convention is given effect where shipowners fail to contribute to insurance schemes. The Committee recalls that, under Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the shipowner ceases to be liable for medical assistance or payment of the whole or part of the salary in the event of illness or accident causing temporary incapacity only from the time at which the person concerned becomes entitled to medical benefits under a compulsory insurance scheme.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will shortly provide information on the legal procedures initiated against the Atlántida company for non-payment of social insurance contributions providing cover against invalidity and death. The Committee notes that the new communications from the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates show persistent failure by this company to comply with the law. Bearing in mind the extreme vulnerability of persons in the event of illness or accident, the Committee trusts that the Government, in its next report, will be in a position to indicate the manner in which these cases have been resolved and will communicate all the legal decisions handed down on the question as well as, if applicable, the sanctions imposed on the above enterprise. Please supply information on any benefits received by workers in this enterprise from the insurance institutions and on the action taken by these institutions in their right of recourse against the Atlántida company.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the communications transmitted by the trade union of fishing boat owner-masters of Puerto Supe and Associates regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government gives no reply on the concerns expressed by the aforementioned trade union concerning, inter alia, problems concerning fishers’ sickness insurance, which, according to the trade union, leads to enormous difficulties of application in practice. The Government does not indicate whether it intends to reply favourably to the proposal made by the trade union to convene a round table to discuss social security problems in the industrial fishery industry. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will reply as soon as possible to the aforementioned communication and also wishes to draw its attention to the following matter.

Article 4(1) of the Convention. Payment to the seafarer’s family of the whole or part of the cash benefit to which he or she would have been entitled had he or she not been abroad. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government regarding the possibility for a person who is abroad to be represented in order to authorize a third person to act on his or her behalf in Peru, in particular with the social security institutions. The Committee nevertheless considered that this procedure was not of a nature to give full effect to Article 4 of the Convention in that the Article requires the payment, as of right, that is, unconditionally, to the insured person’s family of the whole or part of the sickness benefit when the insured person is abroad and has lost the right to wages. In its latest report, the Government refers once again to the procedure for representation set out in the Civil Code without indicating whether measures have been taken or are envisaged to give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to re-examine the question and hopes that it will be in a position to inform the Committee in its next report of measures taken in this respect. Please also provide the information requested previously in regard to the benefits paid in practice to the families of insured persons who are abroad and have lost their right to wages.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments and asks it to provide additional information in its next report on the following points.

Strengthening of inspections to verify discharge of the obligation to affiliate seafarers to the supplementary insurance scheme for high-risk activities

In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken by the inspection services to promote and enforce the obligation placed on shipowners performing high-risk activities, which include fishing, to take out the supplementary insurance (SCTR) for such risks under Act No. 26790. The reason for the Committee’s request was that the statistics supplied by the Government on visits carried out by the inspection services appeared to account little for seafarers and that according to observations submitted by a trade union, many employers and shipowners had failed to subscribe to the SCTR.

It notes in this connection that the Government’s report does not contain the general information requested, such as the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the inspectorate to supervise application of the national legislation in the maritime navigation and fishing sector, statistical information on the number of enterprises in the maritime fishing and navigation sectors affiliated to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. The Committee hopes that the Government will do its utmost to gather all this information and trusts that every effort will be made to enable the labour inspectorate to fulfil its duty of informing and supervising the maritime navigation and fishing sectors.

Complaints against the Chapsa and Atlántida fishing enterprises

In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the complaints against the two abovementioned companies, the Government includes in its report the requested extracts of these proceedings. With regard to the Chapsa case, the inspection report finds that the legislation was complied with to the extent that Chapsa did subscribe to the SCTR for health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. Listing the Chapsa workers registered with the SCTR, the report goes on to declare the case closed, citing compliance with the legislation. In the Atlántida case, the inspection report sent by the Government establishes, as noted by the Government in its previous report, that the company was fined because, although registered with the SCTR, it had failed to pay by 21 January 2002 the premium for invalidity and survivors’ coverage in the name of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, victim of an occupational accident on 23 June 1998. The report also indicates that thereafter, in June 2002, a further inspection of the enterprise established that the premiums for invalidity and survivors’ coverage had still not been paid. A last visit to the enterprise in January 2003 to verify payment of the bonuses revealed that this worker no longer had an employment relationship with Atlántida, and the case was therefore closed.

The Committee notes this information. As regards the Atlántida case, it notes that the inspection report shows that although ordered to pay a fine, Atlántida had still not paid the contributions for invalidity and survivors’ coverage at the time of the worker’s departure from the enterprise, following which the case was closed. The Government explained earlier that when an enterprise fails to take out supplementary insurance for high-risk activities, or takes out inadequate insurance, it is liable vis-à-vis the social insurance institutions (ESSALUD and the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP)) for payment of benefits in the event of an accident sustained by one of its workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the case of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz was managed, specifying in particular whether this worker actually received the assistance to which he was entitled under the Convention, and stating the body which actually covered the risk. Please also indicate whether Atlántida paid the fine, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 910 and, if not, please specify the penalties imposed on it.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, such as a review of the applicable penalties, to ensure that in practice shipowners do take out accident and sickness insurance for seafarers where this is compulsory, and that where they fail to do so, seafarers may nevertheless be paid all the benefits guaranteed by the Convention. Please provide in this connection information on the number of seafarers who have received assistance pursuant to the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad. Further to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that effect is given to this provision of the Convention through the provisions of the Civil Code authorizing representation between spouses, and those of Presidential Decree No. 002-79-RE issuing the consular regulations of the Republic. The Government indicates, with reference to the provisions of the above Decree relating to notarial functions, that sworn consular officials are empowered, in accordance with the national legislation, to authenticate the acts and contracts submitted to them. It adds that, under the terms of these provisions, a person could, from abroad, authorize another person to represent her or him for purposes such as receiving on her or his behalf the benefits to which she or he would have been entitled. The Committee takes due note of this information. Nevertheless, as the objective of this provision of the Convention is to protect the family of a seafarer who falls sick abroad and has lost his right to wages, it would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility of introducing into the national legislation on sickness insurance a specific provision giving effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the payment is arranged in practice to the family, in whole or in part, of the cash benefit due to a seafarer who is abroad and has lost his right to wages. Furthermore, with reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report the information requested previously with regard to the benefits paid to the family members of insured persons.

Article 7. Continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government that section 37 of Presidential Decree No. 00-97-SA, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 004-2000-TR, is in effect applicable to seafarers. It recalls that this provision establishes that, in the event of unemployment or the total interruption of occupational activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to social coverage, the persons protected by the regular scheme who have a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or interruption of occupational activity, are entitled to medical benefits for a period of two months of coverage for every five months of contribution. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report, including statistics, on the application of this provision of the Convention in practice, with an indication of the time that normally elapses between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government with regard to the comments made in May 1999 and January and March 2000 by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) established under the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790. The Committee pointed out the need for the Government to take adequate measures to prevent seafarers who are victims of accidents or who contract a disease from being left without protection and for this purpose to strengthen the inspection system to ensure that employers comply with the obligation to include their workers in the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and to take out the SCTR envisaged by Act No. 26790 for this purpose. The Committee therefore requested information on the application in practice of the SCTR as it relates to seafarers.

On this subject, the Government indicates in its report that during 2001 at the national level a total of 1,184 enterprises were registered under the SCTR, which is a supplementary protection system for persons who are insured normally under the social security system in respect of health and who perform high-risk activities. Furthermore, over the past year, a total of 5,507 technical inspections were undertaken on occupational safety and health related to the supplementary occupational risk insurance, 640 of which were in construction, six in mining, 4,366 in industry and 495 in services. The purpose of these inspections is to verify that employers have complied with the obligation to take out this insurance. The Government adds that the function of inspection activities is not just to inspect, but also to provide guidance with regard to the rights and obligations deriving from labour law. The Committee notes this information with interest. However, it observes that the inspections referred to hardly appear to cover seafarers. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the activities carried out by inspection bodies in this sector, including copies of the relevant reports and, where applicable, examples of the administrative sanctions imposed upon shipowners.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on whether the fishing enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida, which are referred to by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe, have also subscribed to the SCTR and, if not, to provide information on the cases referred to by the above trade union. With regard to the fishing enterprise Chapsa, the Committee notes the inspection carried out by the Sub-directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Inspection. During the inspection, it was verified that the enterprise was included on the register of employers carrying out high-risk activities and that it had paid the premium to take out the insurance policy for its workers, with health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage. It also notes that a further inspection on 14 October 2002 determined the number and names of the workers covered by the SCTR with health, invalidity and survivors’ coverage on the date of the programmed inspection. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the final report when it is available.

With regard to the fishing enterprise Atlántida, the Sub-directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Inspection, in accordance with the respective provisions, investigated an employment accident following a complaint by the Federation of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Peru. During the investigation, it verified that the enterprise was included on the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and that it had taken out the SCTR insurance, with health coverage for the accident mentioned in the schedule with the Social Health Insurance Scheme (ESSALUD). However, it found that it had not complied with the obligation to take out the above supplementary insurance for invalidity and survivors’ coverage. Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, a follow-up inspection was carried out, which found that although on the date of the accident (23 June 1998) the enterprise provided justifications that it had taken out the SCTR with health coverage and made the payment of the corresponding premium in the name of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, it could not establish having taken out the SCTR with invalidity and survivors’ coverage, nor the payment of the corresponding premium. In view of the above, a fine was imposed upon the enterprise, in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 910 (approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2001-TR).

With regard to the cases referred to by the Federation of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Peru, the Government states that, at its request, the administrative authority investigated the employment accidents denounced in the enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida. The investigation undertaken found that the above enterprises were duly included in the register of employers carrying out high-risk activities, and that they were registered for the payment of remuneration to injured workers. However, financial penalties were imposed upon the enterprises based on the finding that they had not taken out the SCTR in relation to invalidity and survivors’ coverage, and had not paid the corresponding premium.

Without prejudice to the administrative penalties imposed, employers which do not comply with the obligation to register with the administrative labour authority or to take out supplementary occupational risk insurance for all workers covered by this obligation, or take out inadequate coverage, are liable for the cost of the benefits provided by ESSALUD and the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP) in the event of injury to workers, irrespective of their civil responsibility to the worker and his dependants for the damage and injury caused. In the event of an employment accident or occupational disease occurring as a direct consequence of failure to comply with occupational health and industrial safety standards, or serious negligence attributable to the employer or failure to comply with protection or prevention measures, the injury is covered by ESSALUD, the health care provider, the ONP or the insurer, although they may exercise the right to claim the cost of the benefits provided from the employer.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with interest. It recalls that, under the terms of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, a shipowner may cease to be liable for the grant of medical benefits and for the payment of wages in whole or in part in respect of the seafarer in the case of injury resulting in incapacity for work from the time at which such seafarer becomes entitled to cash benefits under compulsory sickness insurance, compulsory accident insurance or workmen’s compensation for accidents in force for seafarers in the territory in which the vessel is registered. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the case of Mr. Juan Morales de la Cruz, with an indication on whether the corresponding premium has been paid to the SCTR for invalidity and survivors’ coverage and, if so, on the manner in which the institution has covered the accident. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the enterprises Chapsa and Atlántida have paid the corresponding premium to SCTR for invalidity and survivors’ coverage. It also requests it to indicate the negative effects that failure to pay the above premium has had on the workers in the above enterprises.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report, and in particular the information regarding the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

Article 4 (Payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and once again requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the legislation under the terms of which, in the event that the insured person is abroadand would have been entitled to cash benefit in respect of sickness, family members or other persons can receive the benefit when duly accredited to do so. The Committee recalls that the cash benefit payable under this provision of the Convention must be paid to the family members of the insured person without restriction. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on benefits paid to the family members of insured persons.

Article 7 (Continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement). In its previous comments the Committee had noted that, under section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 004-2000-TR, in the event of unemployment or the full suspension of activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to coverage, regular insured persons with a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or full suspension of activity, are entitled to the medical benefits envisaged in sections 11 and 12 of the above Decree to the level of two months of coverage for every five months of contributions. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the period of coverage covers the normal interval between successive engagements. In its report, the Government indicates that this provision of the Convention is reflected in current legislation only in respect of medical benefits, and is applicable to persons who remain unemployed or have their contracts of employment fully suspended. The system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) applies during the period in which the worker is actually in employment, its purpose being to provide protection for persons employed in high-risk activities. The Committee notes the Government’s statement. Since the Government does not refer in its report to Supreme Decree No. 004-2000-TR, the Committee requests that it indicates whether section 37 of that Decree is applicable to seafarers and, if that is not the case, to indicate the measures which it intends to take with a view to maintaining, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, the continuity of medical benefits in the period after the termination of the last engagement, which period should be fixed in such a way as to cover the normal interval between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the additional information provided by the Government concerning the comments made in May 1999 and January and March 2000 by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risk insurance (SCTR) established by the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in the area of health, which had been noted by the Committee in its observation in 2000.

With regard to the application in practice of the SCTR, and particularly the alleged cases of failure to pay the benefit for temporary incapacity and the survivors’ pension and funeral expenses, the Government once again provides information on the legal provisions which set out these benefits. With regard to the provision of the benefit for temporary incapacity, the Government indicates that the payment of this benefit to fishermen is envisaged in section 35 of Supreme Decree No. 03 98 SA, approving the Technical Standards for Supplementary Occupational Risk Insurance. In this respect, the Government indicates that the provision of the benefit for temporary incapacity is the responsibility of the Fishermen’s Social Benefits and Social Security Fund (CBSSP), and not of the employer. The Government also supplies a report on enterprises affiliated to the SCTR submitted by the Insurance Standardization Office (ONP). On the subject of the survivors’ pension and funeral expenses, it indicates that provision of the pension for total permanent invalidity and the survivors’ pension can be required of the ONP, provided that the employer is included in the register of enterprises carrying out the activities envisaged in Annex 5 to the Regulations issued under Act No. 26790. In this connection, sanctions are envisaged in the event of failure by the employer to register, in which event workers can take legal action under section 88 of the Regulations issued under Act No. 26790.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the Government will take adequate measures to prevent seafarers who are victims of accidents or who contract a disease being left without protection and will strengthen its inspection system for this purpose to ensure that employers comply with the obligation to include their workers in the register of enterprises carrying out high-risk activities and take out the SCTR for this purpose. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, a shipowner may cease to be liable for the expense of medical care and for the payment of wages in whole or in part due to the seafarer in the event of injury which results in incapacity for work provided that the injured seafarer is entitled to benefits under a compulsory sickness insurance scheme, a compulsory accident insurance scheme or a scheme of workmen’s compensation for accidents that is in force for seafarers in the territory in which the vessel is registered. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report on the application in practice of the supplementary occupational risks insurance scheme (SCTR) as it relates to seafarers. It also requests the Government to provide information (statistics, reports of inspection bodies and, if any, administrative sanctions imposed on shipowners, etc.) concerning the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that in practice, on the one hand, shipowners subscribe to this insurance scheme and, on the other hand, where they do not subscribe to this scheme, seafarers benefit as a minimum from the benefits guaranteed by this Convention in the event of sickness or injury. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the fishing enterprises CHAPSA and ATLANTIDA, which are referred to by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe, have also subscribed to the supplementary occupational risks insurance scheme and, if they have not, to provide information on the cases mentioned by the trade union.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the additional information supplied by the Government concerning the comments transmitted by the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe in May 1999 and January and March 2000 concerning the operational difficulties of the system of supplementary occupational risks insurance (SCTR) envisaged under the Social Security Modernization Act No. 26790 in the area of health. The Committee refers in this respect to its observation under Convention No. 55.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

Article 1 of the Convention (scope of application). The Committee notes that seafarers are covered by Act No. 26790, and the pertinent regulations. In accordance with section 3 of the above Act, and of section 4(b) of Act No. 27056 establishing the Social Security Health System (ESSALUD), persons considered to be seafarers are regularly insured. Furthermore, under Act No. 27177 of 25 September 1999, fishermen are included in ESSALUD. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of persons considered to be seafarers, and on the number of persons in this sector covered and affiliated to ESSALUD.

Article 4 (payment to the family of the seafarer of sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad). In addition to the legislative provisions respecting the subsidy for temporary incapacity, the Government indicates that in the event that the insured person is abroad and would have been entitled to cash benefit in respect of sickness, Peruvian legislation provides for the possibility of family members or other persons to receive the benefit when duly accredited to do so. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that the cash benefit envisaged by this provision of the Convention has to be provided without any restriction to the family of the insured person. It requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the legislation to which it is referring. It also requests the Government to provide information on the cash benefits paid to the families of insured persons.

Article 6 (funeral benefit). The Committee notes that section 18 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA establishes that the funeral benefit covers the funeral services for the death of a regular insured person, whether active or retired.

Article 7 (continuation of the right to insurance benefit after the termination of the engagement). The Committee notes that, under section 37 of Supreme Decree No. 009-97-SA, as amended by Supreme Decree No. 004 2000 TR, in the event of unemployment or the full suspension of activity resulting in the loss of entitlement to coverage, regular insured persons with a minimum of five months of contributions, whether or not they are consecutive, during the three years prior to the cessation or full suspension of activity, are entitled to the medical benefits envisaged in sections 11 and 12 of the above Decree to the level of two months of coverage for every five months of contributions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the period of coverage covers the normal interval between successive engagements.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report. It also notes that the Sindicato de Capitanes Potrones de Pesca de Puerto Supe y Anexos has supplied further information on the operating difficulties of the system of supplementary insurance against hazardous risks established by the Social Security Modernization Act on the Health Scheme (No. 26790). The Committee has already noted these difficulties in its comments on the application of Convention No. 56. The Committee also takes note of the information supplied by the Government in reply to the trade union’s comments.

The union states that the adoption of the Social Security Modernization Act on the Health Scheme (No. 26790) has resulted in the repeal of Act No. 18846 which granted compensation to fishermen and also to workers subject to special employment regimes in the event of temporary incapacity for work resulting from an occupational disease or industrial accident. The new regime established by Act No. 26790 affords less protection in this regard, despite the establishment of supplementary insurance for hazardous work. It seems that the provisions relating to this supplementary insurance are not sufficiently clear and 95 per cent of industrial employers and fishing boat owners have not subscribed to it. The supplementary information provided by the union refers to the case of several seafarers who are incapacitated for employment and have received no compensation from their employers who have referred the victims to the social security body.

In reply to these comments, the Government states that seafarers enjoy protection equivalent to that provided by Act No. 18846. In fact, in general, Act No. 27056 establishing a social security health scheme includes seafarers in its scope (section 4). Furthermore, in 1999, hired fishermen and self-employed fishermen were included as regular members of the social insurance health scheme, ESSALUD (Act No. 27177). Seafarers, fishermen and their dependants are thus entitled to benefits for prevention, promotion, recovery and rehabilitation, as well as cash benefits provided by ESSALUD. In addition, the regular members of ESSALUD may in certain cases be covered by a supplementary insurance for hazardous work (section 19 of Act No. 26790). This compulsory insurance is borne by employers who conduct high-risk activities, which include fishing. Employers who have not subscribed to this insurance are liable to the relevant administrative penalties and are responsible for the cost of benefits granted by the social security institute to workers in the event of accident. The Government considers, in these circumstances, that the provisions which govern this supplementary insurance are sufficiently clear and that, if the percentage of non-compliance with the obligation to contract this insurance is as high as that cited by the union, the inspection bodies will have to adopt the necessary measures.

The Committee notes all this information. It notes that the protection of seafarers in the event of sickness or accident is insured, on the one hand, by the 1987 regulations on harbour masters’ offices and maritime, river and lake activities, under which shipowners are responsible for medical assistance and maintenance of wages for seafarers in a situation of incapacity for work on board and, on the other hand, by the Social Security Modernization Act on the health scheme and its implementing regulations (social insurance regime in regard to health and supplementary insurance for hazardous work). The Committee notes, nevertheless, according to the information supplied by the trade union, that the system for protection of seafarers described above encounters difficulties of application in practice in that certain seafarers who are the victims of an accident or suffering from illness have no protection because neither the shipowner nor the general or supplementary health insurance system provides them with compensation for incapacity to work. In this regard, the Committee recalls that by virtue of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the shipowner may cease to be liable for medical assistance and payment of the whole or part of the wages due to a seafarer in the event of illness or accident resulting in incapacity for work, from the time at which the victim becomes entitled to medical benefits under a compulsory sickness insurance, compulsory accident insurance or workmen’s compensation for accidents in force for seafarers in the territory where the ship is registered. In these circumstances, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate in its next report information on the application in practice of the supplementary insurance system for hazardous work in regard to seafarers. Please also supply information (including statistics, inspection body reports, administrative sanctions for shipowners, if any, etc.) on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that in practice, on the one hand, employers subscribe to this insurance and that, on the other hand, notwithstanding failure to conclude such insurance, seafarers are entitled to the benefits guaranteed to them by this Convention in the event of sickness or accident.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee has noted the observations of the Trade Union of Fishing Boat Owner-Masters of Puerto Supe and Associates, in connection with the operating difficulties, in the fisheries sector, of the system of supplementary insurance against employment risks established by the Social Security Modernization Act (No. 26790). These comments were transmitted on 30 July 1999 to the Government which, to date, has made no comment on them. The Committee has therefore decided to defer their examination to its next session in order to examine these observations in the light of, first, information to be communicated by the Government in this respect and, secondly, information contained in the Government's report on application of the Convention, due in 2000. In this context, the Committee recalls the matters to which it drew the Government's attention in its previous observation.

The Committee notes certain information provided by the Government on the application in practice of the Convention. It also notes the adoption in 1997 of the Social Security Health Care Modernization Act (No. 26790), which repeals Legislative Decree No. 22482 on which the Committee had commented previously. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's information, the new legislation provides for the involvement of the private sector in health care. The social health insurance system is now complemented by health plans and programmes provided by Health Care Providers (EPS). These may be public or private companies or institutions distinct from the Peruvian Institute of Social Security and their sole purpose is to provide health care, using their own or third-party facilities, under the supervision of the EPS supervisory body.

The Committee notes that Act No. 26790 introduces fundamental changes into the health care system. Furthermore, it is the Committee's understanding that the new legislation also applies to persons employed on Peruvian ships. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information, in accordance with the report form, on the effect of the new legislation and national practice on the application of each of the Articles of the Convention and, in particular, Article 1 (scope), Article 4 (payment to the seafarer's family of the sickness cash benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad), Article 6 (funeral expenses) and Article 7 (continuation of insurance benefit after the termination of engagement).

The Government is also requested to consider the Committee's comments concerning Convention No. 24 made in 1998.

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

The Committee notes certain information provided by the Government on the application in practice of the Convention. It also notes the adoption in 1997 of the Social Security Modernization Act (No. 26790), which repeals Legislative Decree No. 22482 on which the Committee had commented previously. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's information, the new legislation provides for the involvement of the private sector in health care. The social health insurance system is now complemented by health plans and programmes provided by Health Care Providers (EPS). These may be public or private companies or institutions distinct from the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) and their sole purpose is to provide health care, using their own or third-party facilities, under the supervision of the EPS supervisory body.

The Committee notes that Act No. 26790 introduces fundamental changes into the health-care system. Furthermore, it is the Committee's understanding that the new legislation also applies to persons employed on Peruvian ships. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information, in accordance with the report form, on the effect of the new legislation and national practice on the application of each of the Articles of the Convention and in particular Article 1 (scope), Article 4 (payment to the seafarer's family of the sickness cash benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been abroad), Article 6 (funeral expenses) and Article 7 (continuation of insurance benefit after the termination of engagement).

The Government is also requested to consider the Committee's comments concerning Convention No. 24.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Article 3 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's reply that section 34 of Decree Law No. 22-482 of 1979 and section 93 of Supreme Decree No. 08-80-TR both authorize the payment of benefit to compulsorily insured workers and their families even when the employer has not paid contributions. The Committee requests further information on the application of these provisions in practice, in particular on the number of cases in which benefit, including medical care, has been provided to workers whose employers have failed to pay contributions.

Article 8. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's statement that inspections will be carried out to verify the employers' fulfilment of their obligation to pay contributions. The Committee would appreciate being kept informed of the number and results of these inspections, and of the actions taken against those employers which such inspections reveal are not paying contributions. See also the Committee's comments under Convention No. 24, as follows:

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the regulations for implementing Decree No. 718 of 8 November 1991 are still under development. It hopes that when these regulations are adopted they will not fail to take into account the points raised by the Committee in its observation formulated in March 1995.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes with interest the text of the Regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and maritime, fluvial and lacustrian activities of 1987. It notes, however, that these Regulations do not contain express provisions concerning the shipowner's liability to provide, at his own expense, board and lodging to sick or injured seamen, as required by Article 3(b) of the Convention and as was provided for in the previous Regulations of 1951 (section 664(b)). The Committee therefore would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, how effect is given in the national legislation to this provision of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the Convention supplying, in particular, the texts of any amendments to the above Regulations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Article 3 of the Convention. See the request sent directly to the Government under Convention No. 24 (Article 4, paragraph 1), as follow:

Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention. By virtue of section 18 of Legislative Decree No. 22-482 of 27 March 1979, as amended by Act No. 24-620 of 24 December 1986, workers are no longer required by law to have made three consecutive monthly contributions or four non-consecutive monthly contributions to be entitled to the provision of medical care, as the new provision empowers the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) to determine the qualifying periods for insured persons to be entitled to the provision of medical care, in accordance with the characteristics of their work. In this connection, the Committee notes Directive No. 005-PE-IPSS-87 whereby the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has fixed a four-week qualifying period for entitlement to medical care for casual workers, it being understood that no qualifying period is required in the event of accident. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its future reports whether the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has issued other directives fixing a qualifying period for entitlement to medical care for categories of workers other than casual workers. If so, please provide a copy of them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

With reference to its previous comments and to the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañia Peruana de Vapores SA", the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Directive No. 001-DNPS-IPSS-91 of 4 January 1991 which facilitates the provision of medical treatment in cases of emergency, providing in Point V.2 that the insured person is only required to present his latest pay slip in order to check his labour relationship and the fact that social security deductions have been made by the employer. In addition, point VI.1 of the above Directive contains a provision similar to that of section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which all the costs incurred by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) in case of non-payment of the financial contributions by the employer shall be recovered from the employer by legal action. In view of the fact that said Directive No. 001-DNPS-IPSS-91 of 1991, and in particular its points II and V.2, is limited to "cases of emergency", the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the full application in practice of Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention in all cases where the employer has not paid his financial contribution to the sickness insurance institution.

In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat is previous observation which read as follows:

In reply to the Committee's previous comments concerning Article 4, paragraph 1 (liability of the shipowner to provide medical care until the sick or injured seaman has been cured) and Article 8 of the Convention (obligation of the shipowner to safeguard property left on board by sick, injured or deceased persons), the Government states that the study prepared by the subcommittee set up by the Permanent Committee of the Ministry of Shipping for the Evaluation of International Conventions and Recommendations (CECMAL-OIT) and containing recommendations for the amendment and supplementing of sections 691, 723 and 689 of the regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and the merchant marine will again be revised by the Permanent Committee. The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that the revision of the study will take place soon and that the amendments in question will be adopted in the near future so as to lay down more precisely the obligations of the shipowner in accordance with the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañía Peruana de Vapores SA". In its report, the Government refers to section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which the insurance benefits shall be granted by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) even if the employer has not paid its financial contributions, in which case all the costs incurred by the Institute shall be recovered by legal action from the employer. While noting this information, the Committee would be glad if the Government would supply in its next report information on the practical implementation of this provision of the legislation regarding medical benefits, in particular with regard to the observations made by the above-mentioned organisation, so as to give full effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. 2. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in the report to the effect that there has been no modification of the national legislation, but that the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has taken note of the Committee's previous comments in respect of Article 3 of the Convention which does not authorise the provision of medical treatment to be subject to any qualifying period. It can but reiterate its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to abolish any qualifying periods regarding medical benefit so as to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point.

TEXT

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made in December 1987 by the "Sindicato Marítimo de Tripulantes y Defensa en el Trabajo al Servicio de CPVSA" to the effect that insured workers could not receive medical treatment because of the non-payment of the financial contributions to the sickness insurance institutions by the enterprise "Compañía Peruana de Vapores SA".

In its report, the Government refers to section 34 of Legislative Decree No. 22482 of 27 March 1979, according to which the insurance benefits shall be granted by the Peruvian Institute of Social Security (IPSS) even if the employer has not paid its financial contributions, in which case all the costs incurred by the Institute shall be recovered by legal action from the employer.

While noting this information, the Committee would be glad if the Government would supply in its next report information on the practical implementation of this provision of the legislation regarding medical benefits, in particular with regard to the observations made by the above-mentioned organisation, so as to give full effect to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure that in practice employers (as well as workers) share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance scheme, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention.

2. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in the report to the effect that there has been no modification of the national legislation, but that the Peruvian Institute of Social Security has taken note of the Committee's previous comments in respect of Article 3 of the Convention which does not authorise the provision of medical treatment to be subject to any qualifying period. It can but reiterate its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to abolish any qualifying periods regarding medical benefit so as to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1988, published 75th ILC session (1988)

In reply to the Committee's previous comments concerning Article 4, paragraph 1 (liability of the shipowner to provide medical care until the sick or injured seaman has been cured) and Article 8 of the Convention (obligation of the shipowner to safeguard property left on board by sick, injured or deceased persons), the Government states that the study prepared by the subcommittee set up by the Permanent Committee of the Ministry of Shipping for the Evaluation of International Conventions and Recommendations (CECMAL-OIT) and containing recommendations for the amendment and supplementing of sections 691, 723 and 689 of the regulations respecting harbour masters' offices and the merchant marine will again be revised by the Permanent Committee.

The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that the revision of the study will take place soon and that the amendments in question will be adopted in the near future so as to lay down more precisely the obligations of the shipowner in accordance with the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.