Management Meeting dissects intricacies of MLC
Today The Superyacht Group's Management Meeting: MLC, Careers & Recruitment took place in Palma, and industry experts gathered to discuss the intricacies of the encroaching convention.…
Today, on 25th April, the superyacht industry gathered in Palma to attend The Superyacht Group’s Superyacht Management Meeting: MLC, Careers & Recruitment, sponsored by RINA Services and Viking Crew Management. With the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC) on the industry’s horizon, coming into force on 20 August 2013 it is imperative that this complex and powerful piece of legislation is examined and understood by all whom it will affect, that is, a large percentage of the superyacht industry.
The first session of the day, entitled ‘MLC Overview & Case Study’, saw Richard Eastham of Regs4Ships, First Officer Owain Rowlands of motoryacht Ulysees, Richie Blake of the Cayman Islands Shipping Registry and Fiorenzo Spadoni of RINA Services make up the panel, chaired by The Superyacht Group’s News Editor William Mathieson.
Applicable to all yachts engaged in trade and all charter yachts over 500gt, the MLC, began Eastham, who called the convention "more evolution than revolution", is made up of hardware (qualifications) and software (procedures and agreement), the former of which, he said, “tend to be a moveable feast.” Eastham highlighted the key facets of the convention as: minimum age; medical care and certification; complaints procedures; qualifications; Seafarer Employment Agreements [SEAs]; manning agents and levels; hours of work and rest; accommodation; social security; food and catering; health and safety and accident prevention; and the payment of wages.
Rowlands, who began work on Ulysees in March 2012, described his experience of the Isle of Man’s (who he said were "very switched on in terms of the MLC") Inspection of the now-compliant superyacht. Stating there were some problems with referencing part II of the MLC, working closely with the captain and flag state, a 50-page document, which Rowlands showed the audience, was created where the fourteen sections of the MLC could be cross-referenced. The most time-consuming part of the process, said Rowlands, in a response to a question by Captain David Slee of motoryacht Seaflower, was the management company dealing with insurance and the owner’s liability. Rowlands’ words of wisdom: “Keep it simple and talk to and prepare the crew for the inspection, because this is all for them.”
Blake introduced the question of ethics; “It’s just good practice,” he said, while acknowledging that the purpose of PSC inspections is to ensure this practice is implemented. Blake added captains and crew shouldn’t be afraid of the flag states (“if you think there’s a way of doing something better, put forward your suggestions”) or the inspectors (“Captains are nervous to talk to PSC – be friendly and don’t be shy”). But yachts flying a non-MLC-compliant flag would be wise to apply for voluntary certification or a certificate of equivalence, added Spadoni.
Mathieson closed the first session by posing the question: “There’s been a lot of hysteria about the MLC’s introduction; should it be applauded?” Spadoni responded:“It puts in a standard and this is important,” while Eastham concluded: “I don’t think there’s anything to fear. The sun will still rise on 21st august and the yachting industry will still be there.”
Session two covered the topic of crewing agents, and saw Dieter Jaenicke of Viking Crew Management, Lucy Medd of Burgess and Nick Saul of Bachmann Marine Services discuss the questions surrounding the MLC’s requirement of recruitment companies to provide “systems of protection”. Medd declared "deregulation in crew agencies is so frustrating," and there was agreement that regulation of this sector was needed. However, the biggest impact would be on smaller recruitment agents, the panel agreed, and as such we need to understand exactly who must provide what to the crew. “Where is the playing field?” Asked Jaenicke. “In the middle? Or at either end?” Delving into more depth, many took the view that a system of protection meant providing bonds for the crew.“The bonding issue is a big problem for all of us and it’s a big risk,” said Saul. “My concerns are: does the bonding affect everybody? Do the small agencies in Antibes realise they will have to be audited, and potentially put up a bond?” And of more concern, added Saul, is that this insurance product everyone is talking about does not yet exist, and is unlikely to come 20 August, 2013.
There were also suggestions that a number of crewing agents are ignoring this issue altogether, and we need to focus on enforcement. Alexander von Stein of the Marshall Islands Shipping Registry added it was about enforcement: “There are companies out there that think this is not going to happen. If you weren’t following the rules in the first place, what are you doing in the industry?”
The session came to a conclusion with one captain from the audience declaring his preference for agencies over dockwalkers, as the latter results in an unstructured industry and in turn the MLC provides a pathway for a more professional industry. For this captain: “Focus on those that want a career, not a job. See if we can squeeze out the unscrupulous players There are ingredients to create a better structure.”
After a networking lunch overlooking the bay of Palma, delegates returned for the third session to discuss the quality of crew training. The session was a very interactive one, with questions to the panel, made up of Lars Lippuner of Warsash Superyacht Academy and Lizzie Irving of Bluewater Yachting, from the start. The discussion quickly fell upon – and remained upon – today’s plethora of courses and the problems these cause: “We’re working too much to certification. The problem is, who is enforcing these standards?” asked Lippuner.
Perhaps all too familiar in our industry, the question of accountability arose, with Richard Masters of Master Yachts asking: “Who decides when to make someone competent is one question, but who decides how to make someone competent?” To which Andrew Schofield of the Professional Yachting Association responded: “It’s us - the industry.” However, responsibility across the industry has also caused some problems, von Stein identified, who noted: “The yachting industry is extremely fragmented in terms of organisations.”
The conversation then moved onto the scenarios where problems of hours of rest would arise. “It doesn’t happen in a day, it happens when you’ve got back-to-back charter,” said Blake, who added that “the pressures are more keenly felt on a smaller boat.” The definition of rest was then discussed, with Blake highlighting ‘rest’ does not mean sleep. Rowlands added that it was all about management – if you see a deckhand wandering around on board, he said, they could be in the crew mess fulfilling their hours of rest.
However the nature of our industry does make things difficult. One captain in the audience spoke up, declaring crew are often asked to lie. “As an industry we don’t have proper records,” he said, adding: “There are two things with hours of rest: increase the crew or decrease the owner’s demands.” Using examples, Blake highlighted the need for responsibility on the part of captain and owner. As was clear at the conclusion of the session, management (whether this be company, captain or owner), the audience agreed, is where the responsibility lies.
The final session of the day entitled ‘Employment Agreements’ welcomed Saul and Medd back to the panel to join Quentin Bargate of Bargate Murray, and dissected the SEA. The panel acknowledged the likelihood of seeing varying SEAs across the board due to tailoring the agreement to the needs of the specific yacht, its owner and its crew. “We manage sixty yachts and we will have sixty different SEAs,” said Medd.
The discussion quickly moved towards social security, following Medd’s comment: “There isn’t a huge different between the SEA and [existing] crew agreements; the biggest difference is social security.” Jenny Howarth of IYC Crew asked the panel if a P45 was planned for seafarers, which Bargate said was not a requirement. However, the issue of pay slips was significant, with Saul declaring, “Technically speaking, a payslip is sufficient,” however Masters explained that the payslips Master Yachts had previously used are now not being accepted, following which he suggested the need for the industry to create its own, standardised system.
As the final session of the day concluded, discussion returned, via a brief look at on-board complaints procedures, once again to systems of protections as provided by recruitment companies, with Atkinson explaining the differences between an Employment Business (EB) and an Employment Agency (EA), while highlighting that both EBs and EAs must comply with the convention. Closing on this familiar note it seemed that this was the aspect of the legislation that has left the industry most confused and as such necessitates further discussion in the very near future.
An exciting day of dynamic debate and insightful questions proved that this single piece of legislation is already having significant effects upon our industry, and the fact that there was such a wealth of interest from all audience members is hugely positive, proving that we as an industry are being proactive, and engaging in and encouraging the furthering of our knowledge in this new legislative maze.
With thanks to our sponsors Viking Crew Management and RINA Services.
The first session of the day, entitled ‘MLC Overview & Case Study’, saw Richard Eastham of Regs4Ships, First Officer Owain Rowlands of motoryacht Ulysees, Richie Blake of the Cayman Islands Shipping Registry and Fiorenzo Spadoni of RINA Services make up the panel, chaired by The Superyacht Group’s News Editor William Mathieson.
Applicable to all yachts engaged in trade and all charter yachts over 500gt, the MLC, began Eastham, who called the convention "more evolution than revolution", is made up of hardware (qualifications) and software (procedures and agreement), the former of which, he said, “tend to be a moveable feast.” Eastham highlighted the key facets of the convention as: minimum age; medical care and certification; complaints procedures; qualifications; Seafarer Employment Agreements [SEAs]; manning agents and levels; hours of work and rest; accommodation; social security; food and catering; health and safety and accident prevention; and the payment of wages.
Session one's panel (L-R): Richard Eastham, Owain Rowlands, Richie Blake and Fiorenzo Spadoni
Rowlands, who began work on Ulysees in March 2012, described his experience of the Isle of Man’s (who he said were "very switched on in terms of the MLC") Inspection of the now-compliant superyacht. Stating there were some problems with referencing part II of the MLC, working closely with the captain and flag state, a 50-page document, which Rowlands showed the audience, was created where the fourteen sections of the MLC could be cross-referenced. The most time-consuming part of the process, said Rowlands, in a response to a question by Captain David Slee of motoryacht Seaflower, was the management company dealing with insurance and the owner’s liability. Rowlands’ words of wisdom: “Keep it simple and talk to and prepare the crew for the inspection, because this is all for them.”
Blake introduced the question of ethics; “It’s just good practice,” he said, while acknowledging that the purpose of PSC inspections is to ensure this practice is implemented. Blake added captains and crew shouldn’t be afraid of the flag states (“if you think there’s a way of doing something better, put forward your suggestions”) or the inspectors (“Captains are nervous to talk to PSC – be friendly and don’t be shy”). But yachts flying a non-MLC-compliant flag would be wise to apply for voluntary certification or a certificate of equivalence, added Spadoni.
Delegates found a lot to discuss in the coffee breaks and debate continued throughout the day
Mathieson closed the first session by posing the question: “There’s been a lot of hysteria about the MLC’s introduction; should it be applauded?” Spadoni responded:“It puts in a standard and this is important,” while Eastham concluded: “I don’t think there’s anything to fear. The sun will still rise on 21st august and the yachting industry will still be there.”
Session two covered the topic of crewing agents, and saw Dieter Jaenicke of Viking Crew Management, Lucy Medd of Burgess and Nick Saul of Bachmann Marine Services discuss the questions surrounding the MLC’s requirement of recruitment companies to provide “systems of protection”. Medd declared "deregulation in crew agencies is so frustrating," and there was agreement that regulation of this sector was needed. However, the biggest impact would be on smaller recruitment agents, the panel agreed, and as such we need to understand exactly who must provide what to the crew. “Where is the playing field?” Asked Jaenicke. “In the middle? Or at either end?” Delving into more depth, many took the view that a system of protection meant providing bonds for the crew.“The bonding issue is a big problem for all of us and it’s a big risk,” said Saul. “My concerns are: does the bonding affect everybody? Do the small agencies in Antibes realise they will have to be audited, and potentially put up a bond?” And of more concern, added Saul, is that this insurance product everyone is talking about does not yet exist, and is unlikely to come 20 August, 2013.
There were also suggestions that a number of crewing agents are ignoring this issue altogether, and we need to focus on enforcement. Alexander von Stein of the Marshall Islands Shipping Registry added it was about enforcement: “There are companies out there that think this is not going to happen. If you weren’t following the rules in the first place, what are you doing in the industry?”
William Mathieson chaired the day's sessions
The session came to a conclusion with one captain from the audience declaring his preference for agencies over dockwalkers, as the latter results in an unstructured industry and in turn the MLC provides a pathway for a more professional industry. For this captain: “Focus on those that want a career, not a job. See if we can squeeze out the unscrupulous players There are ingredients to create a better structure.”
After a networking lunch overlooking the bay of Palma, delegates returned for the third session to discuss the quality of crew training. The session was a very interactive one, with questions to the panel, made up of Lars Lippuner of Warsash Superyacht Academy and Lizzie Irving of Bluewater Yachting, from the start. The discussion quickly fell upon – and remained upon – today’s plethora of courses and the problems these cause: “We’re working too much to certification. The problem is, who is enforcing these standards?” asked Lippuner.
Perhaps all too familiar in our industry, the question of accountability arose, with Richard Masters of Master Yachts asking: “Who decides when to make someone competent is one question, but who decides how to make someone competent?” To which Andrew Schofield of the Professional Yachting Association responded: “It’s us - the industry.” However, responsibility across the industry has also caused some problems, von Stein identified, who noted: “The yachting industry is extremely fragmented in terms of organisations.”
Coffee breaks were used to break up the day's dynamic sessions
Blake
returned to the panel to join Neil Atkinson of the Maritime Coastguard
Agency (MCA) for the fourth session of the day entitled ‘MLC
Requirements of Manning Levels’. The discussion focused largely on the
hours of work and rest in the MLC, and Atkinson began by explaining:
“These regulations are nothing new. The safe manning document has been
manipulated into something it wasn’t meant to be.” Blake then
joined the discussion declaring: “There is a need for this requirement.
Everyone is served by this; fatigue is a killer.” The conversation then moved onto the scenarios where problems of hours of rest would arise. “It doesn’t happen in a day, it happens when you’ve got back-to-back charter,” said Blake, who added that “the pressures are more keenly felt on a smaller boat.” The definition of rest was then discussed, with Blake highlighting ‘rest’ does not mean sleep. Rowlands added that it was all about management – if you see a deckhand wandering around on board, he said, they could be in the crew mess fulfilling their hours of rest.
However the nature of our industry does make things difficult. One captain in the audience spoke up, declaring crew are often asked to lie. “As an industry we don’t have proper records,” he said, adding: “There are two things with hours of rest: increase the crew or decrease the owner’s demands.” Using examples, Blake highlighted the need for responsibility on the part of captain and owner. As was clear at the conclusion of the session, management (whether this be company, captain or owner), the audience agreed, is where the responsibility lies.
Lars Lippuner encouraged debate on the time dedicated to crew training, which is outlined in the MLC
The final session of the day entitled ‘Employment Agreements’ welcomed Saul and Medd back to the panel to join Quentin Bargate of Bargate Murray, and dissected the SEA. The panel acknowledged the likelihood of seeing varying SEAs across the board due to tailoring the agreement to the needs of the specific yacht, its owner and its crew. “We manage sixty yachts and we will have sixty different SEAs,” said Medd.
The discussion quickly moved towards social security, following Medd’s comment: “There isn’t a huge different between the SEA and [existing] crew agreements; the biggest difference is social security.” Jenny Howarth of IYC Crew asked the panel if a P45 was planned for seafarers, which Bargate said was not a requirement. However, the issue of pay slips was significant, with Saul declaring, “Technically speaking, a payslip is sufficient,” however Masters explained that the payslips Master Yachts had previously used are now not being accepted, following which he suggested the need for the industry to create its own, standardised system.
As the final session of the day concluded, discussion returned, via a brief look at on-board complaints procedures, once again to systems of protections as provided by recruitment companies, with Atkinson explaining the differences between an Employment Business (EB) and an Employment Agency (EA), while highlighting that both EBs and EAs must comply with the convention. Closing on this familiar note it seemed that this was the aspect of the legislation that has left the industry most confused and as such necessitates further discussion in the very near future.
An exciting day of dynamic debate and insightful questions proved that this single piece of legislation is already having significant effects upon our industry, and the fact that there was such a wealth of interest from all audience members is hugely positive, proving that we as an industry are being proactive, and engaging in and encouraging the furthering of our knowledge in this new legislative maze.
With thanks to our sponsors Viking Crew Management and RINA Services.
Click here to become part of The Superyacht Group community, and join us in our mission to make this industry accessible to all, and prosperous for the long-term. We are offering access to the superyacht industry’s most comprehensive and longstanding archive of business-critical information, as well as a comprehensive, real-time superyacht fleet database, for just £10 per month, because we are One Industry with One Mission. Sign up here.
