The four grounds that open a detailed port State inspection and the detention threshold (MLC Regulation 5.2.1)

MLC, 2006 Regulation 5.2.1 and Standard A5.2.1 set the scope of port State inspections, grounds for more detailed inspections, corrective action and conditions for preventing departure.

The initial inspection reviews the certificate and declaration

2. Each Member shall accept the maritime labour certificate and the declaration of maritime labour compliance required under Regulation 5.1.3 as prima facie evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Convention (including seafarers’ rights). Accordingly, the inspection in its ports shall, except in the circumstances specified in the Code, be limited to a review of the certificate and declaration.

The maritime labour certificate and the declaration of maritime labour compliance are accepted as prima facie evidence. So an inspection in port ends, as a rule, at a review of those two documents.

There is one further limit on scope. The inspection is limited to verifying conformity with the requirements set out in the Articles and Regulations of the Convention and in Part A of the Code only. Part B is guidance and is not on its own a basis for a finding.

Four grounds allow a more detailed inspection

Ground	What it covers
(a)	The required documents are not produced or maintained, are falsely maintained, do not contain the information the Convention requires, or are otherwise invalid
(b)	There are clear grounds for believing the working and living conditions on the ship do not conform to the requirements of the Convention
(c)	There are reasonable grounds to believe the ship has changed flag to avoid compliance with the Convention
(d)	There is a complaint alleging that specific working and living conditions on the ship do not conform

To this point it is may. A detailed inspection is permitted, not required. But a condition at the end of the same paragraph makes it required.

Such inspection shall in any case be carried out where the working and living conditions believed or alleged to be defective could constitute a clear hazard to the safety, health or security of seafarers or where the authorized officer has grounds to believe that any deficiencies constitute a serious breach of the requirements of this Convention (including seafarers’ rights).

Where the conditions believed or alleged to be defective could be a clear hazard to seafarers’ safety, health or security, or where the officer has grounds to believe the deficiencies are a serious breach. At that point the discretion is gone.

Which ground opened it sets how wide the detailed inspection runs

A detailed inspection opened under (a), (b) or (c) shall in principle cover the matters listed in Appendix A5-III. One opened under (d) works differently.

3. In the case of a complaint under paragraph 1(d) of this Standard, the inspection shall generally be limited to matters within the scope of the complaint, although a complaint, or its investigation, may provide clear grounds for a detailed inspection in accordance with paragraph 1(b) of this Standard.

An inspection opened by a complaint is generally held inside the scope of that complaint. But where the complaint, or investigating it, produces clear grounds under (b), the scope widens. The route from a narrow start to a wide inspection is drawn in the provision itself.

Who may complain is defined as well: a seafarer, a professional body, an association, a trade union or, generally, any person with an interest in the safety of the ship, including an interest in safety or health hazards to seafarers on board.

Findings go to the master with a deadline attached

Where non-conformities are found, the officer forthwith brings them to the master’s attention with required deadlines for their rectification. Where the officer considers them significant, or where they relate to a complaint, the list of recipients grows. The officer brings them to the attention of the seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations in the country where the inspection took place, may notify a representative of the flag State, and may provide the competent authorities of the next port of call with the relevant information.

The last item carries weight in practice. It means the findings on this ship can be waiting at the next port before the ship is.

Detention and release have separate conditions

the authorized officer shall take steps to ensure that the ship shall not proceed to sea until any non-conformities that fall within the scope of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph have been rectified, or until the authorized officer has accepted a plan of action to rectify such non-conformities and is satisfied that the plan will be implemented in an expeditious manner.

The two branches are conditions on board that are clearly hazardous to seafarers’ safety, health or security, and non-conformity that constitutes a serious or repeated breach of the requirements. repeated is in there, so findings that are not serious on their own reach this threshold once they recur.

Departure can be allowed after the non-conformities are corrected, or after the officer accepts a corrective action plan and is satisfied it will be implemented promptly. If departure is prevented, the officer must notify the flag State, invite its representative where possible and request a reply within a set deadline.

Guidance on what circumstances justify detention sits in Part B of the Code. The Part B that cannot be used as a basis for a finding is named in the provision as guidance for the detention judgement.

Worth confirming

The passages above come from printed pages 93 to 96 of the consolidated MLC, 2006 (including the 2022 amendments). Opening a detailed inspection and detaining a ship are the port State officer’s judgements, and those judgements run alongside the procedures of the regional memorandum the port State belongs to. Whether the certificate and declaration on that ship are valid, whether findings from the last inspection travelled to the next port, and whether anything remains that could read as a repeated finding are where the actual judgement starts.

A food complaint on a ship with valid documents

Suppose a ship has a valid certificate and DMLC but receives a complaint about food storage. The documents do not close off review of the complaint. A complaint-based inspection is generally limited to its subject, so it also does not presume breaches across every inspection item.

If the investigation reveals clear grounds to believe other working or living conditions are non-compliant, there may be a separate basis for broadening the detailed inspection. Link the complaint, observed facts, grounds for broadening the scope and required rectification in the records.

Preventing departure is a further decision. Do not record detention merely because a detailed inspection has begun: check the hazard or seriousness conditions discussed above and the authority’s actual order. Protection of the complainant’s identity continues to apply.

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, and check subsequent amendments and flag-state implementation before applying them.

• ILO · MLC, 2006 (2022)

Continue with the related operational guidance

• The MLC Appendix A5-I items inspected and approved before certification, and the reach of an inspector’s document request
• The steps in on-board complaint procedures and the right to skip them (MLC Regulation 5.1.5)