Onshore complaint handling for seafarers and the steps up to the flag State and the ILO (MLC Standard A5.2.2)
A seafarer may report a complaint to an authorised officer at the port of call. Whether the on-board procedure was used is considered during the initial investigation; it is not an automatic condition for accepting the complaint.
MLC, 2006 Regulation 5.2.2 and Standard A5.2.2 set the investigation and referral procedure. They also identify circumstances in which a seafarer need not first complete the on-board process.
A complaint can be made to an authorized officer at the port of call
MLC A5.2.2 paragraph 1 allows a seafarer to report an alleged Convention breach to an authorized officer at the port of call. The officer must undertake an initial investigation. Permission from the master or company is not a condition for making the complaint.
Whether the on-board procedure was used is weighed, but it is not a condition of entry
Where appropriate, given the nature of the complaint, the initial investigation shall include consideration of whether the on-board complaint procedures provided under Regulation 5.1.5 have been explored. The authorized officer may also conduct a more detailed inspection in accordance with Standard A5.2.1.
What the sentence calls for is consideration. It means the initial investigation weighs whether
the on-board procedures were explored, not that they must be explored before a complaint is taken.
One more condition sits in front of that:
Where appropriate, given the nature of the complaint. Depending on the nature of the complaint
that weighing may not happen at all.
The place where the step is skipped is written out in the Guideline, with its reasons.
There should be good reasons for considering a complaint before any on-board complaint procedures have been explored. These would include the inadequacy of, or undue delay in, the internal procedures or the complainant’s fear of reprisal for lodging a complaint.
Good reasons for not using the on-board process include inadequate procedures, undue delay and fear of reprisal. A formally adequate company procedure does not rule out a seafarer’s fear of retaliation.
The scope of the complaint determines the next procedure
Where a complaint referred to in Standard A5.2.2 is dealt with by an authorized officer, the officer should first check whether the complaint is of a general nature which concerns all seafarers on the ship, or a category of them, or whether it relates only to the individual case of the seafarer concerned.
What is sorted first is the reach of the complaint. The next step then follows from which way it went.
| Nature of the complaint | Next step the Guideline recommends |
|---|---|
| General, concerning all seafarers on the ship or a category of them | Consider a more detailed inspection in accordance with Standard A5.2.1 |
| Relating only to the individual case of that seafarer | Examine the results of the on-board procedures, and where they were not used, suggest taking advantage of them |
If the investigation or inspection identifies non-conformities covered by Standard A5.2.1 paragraph 6, that paragraph’s departure restrictions apply.
Where it is not resolved on board, the flag State has to answer within a deadline
The officer, where appropriate, pushes for the complaint to be resolved at the ship-board level. In any investigation the master, the shipowner and anyone else involved in the complaint have to be given a proper opportunity to make their views known. It is not a structure that runs on one side’s account.
Where it is not resolved on board, the next step opens.
Where the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Standard do not apply, and the complaint has not been resolved at the ship-board level, the authorized officer shall forthwith notify the flag State, seeking, within a prescribed deadline, advice and a corrective plan of action.
Two conditions have to overlap before it goes to the flag State. The non-conformity route of the previous section must not apply, and the complaint must not have been resolved at the ship-board level. What is sought from the flag State is also two things. Advice and a corrective plan of action, with a prescribed deadline attached.
The place where the officer may step back is written into the Guideline. It is where the flag State demonstrates that it will handle the matter, that it has effective procedures in place for that purpose, and that it has submitted an acceptable plan of action. All three have to be there together.
Unresolved complaints are reported to the ILO Director-General
If the follow-up procedure in A5.2.2 paragraph 6 does not resolve the complaint, the port State sends the officer’s report to the ILO Director-General, attaching the flag State’s response if received within the deadline and informing the relevant shipowner and seafarer organizations in the port State. Statistics and information on resolved complaints are also submitted regularly.
Complaint confidentiality must be protected
A5.2.2 paragraph 7 requires appropriate measures to safeguard the confidentiality of seafarer complaints. Intake records, interviews and information sharing should avoid unnecessary disclosure of the complainant. This international requirement does not prescribe identical intake and interview procedures for every port.
What to check
This article explains the international framework in MLC Regulation 5.2.2, Standard A5.2.2 and Guideline B5.2.2. Part A is mandatory; Part B is guidance. Distinguish the recommended procedures based on complaint scope and conditions for accepting flag-state handling from mandatory requirements. Confirm the actual receiving office and response deadline with the competent authority.
You can consult the cited source documents
These links lead to the official publishers of the documents discussed here. Match the edition and provisions cited in the article; for EU legislation, also consult the consolidated versions and amendment history on the document page.
Continue with the related operational guidance
What gets checked once a complaint is filed is not the claim but the record. Bellbook keeps rest hour entries and their violation checks, wage calculations and the employment agreement under each seafarer, so they come out when asked for.
Start for freeRelated reading
- How reports from pilots and port authorities lead to a PSC inspection (EU Directive 2009/16 Article 23)Inspections and audits
- The order and duration of the Interim DOC and Interim SMC on the day the company changes (ISM Code chapter 14)Inspections and audits
- Seven HSSC survey types, the anniversary window, where the new period starts by renewal timing and how an extension is counted (Resolution A.1120(30))Inspections and audits