On a less philosophical level, representation was explained as originating with other conventions. The understanding that the MLC was to be only a consolidated instrument was a strong element in the negotiations. In explaining the origins of representation in other ILO maritime conventions, a respondent from the seafarers’ group revealed the insistence in the negotiations on maintaining the status quo:
…it [representation] must have been in the original instrument, because 95% or more of what we did, was strictly consolidation, and there was a lot of pressure applied to everyone not to try and introduce new issues, even if those new issues were not contentious, the emphasis was stick to the deal of consolidation, get it through and then we’ll worry about other aspects later. [KI-3].
The “consolidation pact” made between the seafarers’ and shipowners’ group at the JMC was a strong element in determining the MLC text (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2.1.; 5.2.2.2.). Although it was indicated that the MLC development process would also involve updating the conventions, there was also paradoxically, a strong desire to maintain what was already in place, with the exception of those conventions that were identified as outdated, too detailed or contained duplications. A respondent from the shipowners’ group confirmed that the main aim was consolidation and expressed some displeasure that the seafarers’ group had attempted to introduce new areas inconsistent with the “pact.” The respondent said:
The workers, the seafarers’ side, as I am used to them, would always take what is here [points to CMC44] as the start point of negotiating for the next level up. The shipowners’ people did not see it like that, so we thought the words of that [CMC] would go straight into that [the MLC], and felt it was a bit unfair that the workers said oh yes that’s all we’re going to do is
44A copy of the Compendium of Maritime Labour Instruments, a publication by the ILO compiling
consolidate, but then as soon as you start looking into the words, they upgrade you into something else. [KI-2].
These findings substantiate discussions in Chapter 5, on the shipowners’ interest in not having too much regulations, and the tensions among the various groups’ agendas and how these might have led to the development of weaker standards generally. Others have documented challenges in developing strong standards in the ILO institutional framework. Hilgert (2013), for example, has documented how weaker standards might emerge to suit the dominant interests.
The rationale for the MLC as a consolidated instrument was outlined as emanating from a standstill in the work of the JMC. A shipowners’ representative explained that there was no work programme going forward from the JMC to the resolutions committee which would usually take issues forward to the International Labour (Maritime) Conference (ILC). The standstill resulted in an initiative by the shipowners’ group to “do something” about the ILO maritime conventions:
…this was a shipowner initiative to breathe life into the ILO…and try and make things better for us. So that’s where it comes from. The shipowners were quite clear that all we wanted to do was to move what was in the Compendium [of Maritime Labour Instruments] into a consolidated text based on…,if you look at the STCW convention at the IMO, it is exactly the same framework, because we’ve already been through that and we thought…this is much better framework than the usual ILO conventions, and we wanted updated procedures based on the IMO tacit amendment procedures…so that’s in here…so this is borrowing from the IMO. (KI-2). Another respondent confirmed the role of the shipowners’ group in suggesting a consolidated convention:
There was a concern amongst the shipowners that there was a whole body of international law covering labour standards for seafarers that had been adopted at the ILO and not all of it had taken effect, not all the conventions had been ratified, those that had been…were still unratified by a number
of significant flag States…and we had a discussion as to what we could do to improve things and to make these more effective and the idea was put forward to …consolidate them all into one single instrument. (KI-5- shipowners’ group).
The Geneva Accord outlined the areas of agreement between the seafarers’ and shipowners’ group to consolidate the ILO conventions. The upgrade entailed an overhauling of the conventions and making them more “ratification friendly” for governments. There was consensus surrounding the change of format toward the IMO model where the articles, regulations and standards were under one cover with a tacit approval approach for amending the guidelines. But, as the findings show, the shipowners’ group was resistant to too much change in terms of existing text.
The research found that representation was consolidated more out of custom than any strategic move to give seafarers a genuine “say” in OHS, although the responses showed some received wisdom that workers’ should be included in OHSM. One seafarers’ group member was not clear where the provisions came from outside of giving the general philosophy of the ILO (bearing in mind the retrospective nature of the study):
…and it isn’t a particularly revolutionary convention…it isn’t particularly revolutionary…and it is in the spirit, which is why I try to frame my answer in the context that this is a tripartite instrument developed by three parties…(KI-3)
Chapter 5 (Section 5.2.2.2.) corroborates this response. Although a commentary by the ILO office showed that representation was consolidated from Convention 134, and in the spirit of ILO’s guidelines, in particular the COPAP, it was also not “revolutionary” and perpetuated the status quo.