Merchant Mariner Shore Leave

Is there a law (CFR or USC) that addresses the merchant mariners’ right to shore leave? I have found case law on the topic in US federal courts, a section in the ISPS code for security concerns, and various union references, but nothing specific in the CFRs or USCs. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you.

I think it’s in the ILO Maritime Labour Convention.

I’m curious… by ‘merchant mariners’ right to shore leave’ you mean what exactly? That the master/company must permit crew to go ashore, or a host nation being compelled to permit entry to mariners?

Yeah, be a little more specific perhaps?

More specifically, is there a rule that prohibits merchant seaman from being restricted to ship while at the dock during non-working hours? I found the case law -The United States Supreme Court in the 1943 case of Aguilar v Standard Oil Company that spells this out. I was trying to find this codified in the CFRs or USCs. Mahalo, for your responses!

      • Updated - - -

Shore leave meaning the ability to go ashore before or after a merchant mariner’s regular work hours in a host nation (or even other US ports) that welcome them.

Speaking for myself, I was never been refused shore leave before and after regular work hours and/or when I was required, in port. Even then, I have worked under CMs, who’d grant the unlic crew shore leave, during regular work hours, in port, if they were not required, and still be able to collect a whole days’ pay.

The articles state “no going ashore without the permission of the master.” The union contract requires mariners get paid if they are restricted to the ship by the master. Not however if not allowed by the authorities. Not sure what it says in the MLC as the union contract language is stronger.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;188075]The articles state “no going ashore without the permission of the master.” The union contract requires mariners get paid if they are restricted to the ship by the master. Not however if not allowed by the authorities. Not sure what it says in the MLC as the union contract language is stronger.[/QUOTE]

Does MLC apply to US Mariners on American flag vessels? I was of the impression that it had not been ratified by the US Congress, or adapted by USCG.

Being allowed shore leave in foreign port has been more of a problem for foreign seaman in US ports after 9/11.
I don’t know about seaman of US origin in foreign ports.

Has anybody experienced restrictions in non-US ports? I can only remember that happening in North Korea during the Pueblo incident in 1968, where I, as the Chief Mate, was not even allowed to read the draft on arrival. (The 7th Fleet was just outside the port)

Even at the height of the Cultural Revolution there were no ban in China, although the freedom to roam the cities were limited. The Friendship Club were usually the place you could go freely. This did not apply if you went in groups and had a “minder”.

Likewise in Soviet ports, but less strictly enforced. In Poland etc. there were no major restriction, as long as you stayed in the port city and got back on board in time for sailing. (Same in Japan in fact)

PS> This applied to foreign seaman of most nationalities. I don’t think too many American ships visited North Korea, China or Soviets countries at the time.

Unless someone can correct me, there is nothing in Federal law (USC) or CFRs on the subject. As other posters have mentioned, the shipping articles may allow shore leave, but the wording of shipping articles is left up to the operating company, except in matters governed by Federal law. There is no one set of “Shipping Articles” common to the USMM. If the operating company chooses to put something in the articles re: shore leave they can do so, but there is no law forcing them to do so. If the seamen are under union contract, then that contract will guide what will go into the articles. If there is no union contract, the matter is left up to the operating company.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;188075] Not sure what it says in the MLC as the union contract language is stronger.[/QUOTE]

All it says is, “Seafarers shall be granted shore leave to benefit their health and well-being and consistent with the operational requirements of their positions.”

[QUOTE=ombugge;188077]Does MLC apply to US Mariners on American flag vessels? I was of the impression that it had not been ratified by the US Congress, or adapted by USCG.

Has anybody experienced restrictions in non-US ports?[/QUOTE]

According to these lawyers,

The United States has not ratified MLC 2006; however, on February 11, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice (“MLC Notice”) in the Federal Register announcing the availability of a draft Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (“NVIC”) setting forth proposed Coast Guard policies and procedures regarding the inspection of U.S. vessels for voluntary compliance with MLC 2006. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-11/pdf/2013-02956.pdf. The primary purpose of the NVIC is to assist U.S. vessels in avoiding port State control actions in foreign ports of countries that have become party to MLC 2006 by providing for a voluntary inspection program mechanism for U.S.-flag vessels resulting in the issuance of a Statement of Voluntary Compliance, Maritime Labour Convention (“SOVC-MLC”).

https://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=3051

I have experienced restrictions in ports (American and Maltese). But it was always do do with the captains’ discretion, not the ports’.

[QUOTE=freighterman;188078]Unless someone can correct me, there is nothing in Federal law (USC) or CFRs on the subject. As other posters have mentioned, the shipping articles may allow shore leave, but the wording of shipping articles is left up to the operating company, except in matters governed by Federal law. There is no one set of “Shipping Articles” common to the USMM. If the operating company chooses to put something in the articles re: shore leave they can do so, but there is no law forcing them to do so. If the seamen are under union contract, then that contract will guide what will go into the articles. If there is no union contract, the matter is left up to the operating company.[/QUOTE]

The articles are form CG-705A, but you are correct, the form has blank lines to add whatever the master/company wants. I put the words “As per Union Contract”.

1 Like

China and North Korea are the only places I’ve had issues going ashore. North Korea had a small area that you were allowed to walk around with a couple of shops/restaurants/bars but you couldn’t leave the area. China wouldn’t let us off the ship because we didn’t have the proper visas. We didn’t know we were going there far enough ahead of time to get them. Both those cases were 2009ish. I’ve been coastwise since. The only issues I run into now are in facilities where you have to wait for a ride from security.

[QUOTE=Louisd75;188090]China and North Korea are the only places I’ve had issues going ashore. North Korea had a small area that you were allowed to walk around with a couple of shops/restaurants/bars but you couldn’t leave the area. China wouldn’t let us off the ship because we didn’t have the proper visas. We didn’t know we were going there far enough ahead of time to get them. Both those cases were 2009ish. I’ve been coastwise since. The only issues I run into now are in facilities where you have to wait for a ride from security.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the good info louisd75, What port did you sail into in N. Korea?

[QUOTE=DeepSeaDiver;188093]Thanks for the good info louisd75, What port did you sail into in N. Korea?
[/QUOTE]

We went into Nampo, which looks to be the green balloon in your picture. We tied up pretty much at 38.722316, 125.404221 (according to Google Map’s satellite image). We were there about three weeks discharging because they didn’t want to use the ship’s cranes and their one 20 ton scoop didn’t work too well during the brownouts. We were allowed to go about 600’ or so from the ship. There were armed soldiers that stopped you if you tried to go further. Their rifles probably weren’t loaded but they had their bayonets on. I felt bad for the world food guy who had similar restrictions but had been there for nearly six months monitoring deliveries. It was also the only grain dock I’ve ever been to where they swept the dock clean at the end of the day.

Come to think about it, the ship’s next voyage after I left the company was to Pakistan and the crew was restricted to the ship. I’m not sure if it was the Capt or the port. Either way, it was probably for the best as a buddy who was on board told me that the bar closest to the port gate was car-bombed while they were there.

Port Details

https://www.searates.com/port/nampo_kp.htm

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Current activity [/COLOR]

I was in Nampo discharging grain in the late 1990’s. At that time, we were allowed to freely roam throughout the whole port. Almost every afternoon I went on a 45 minute walk from one end of the port to the other with no restrictions. Sometimes I was followed by a guy in a long trench coat, but was never challenged.

[QUOTE=fullbell;189495]I was in Nampo discharging grain in the late 1990’s. At that time, we were allowed to freely roam throughout the whole port. Almost every afternoon I went on a 45 minute walk from one end of the port to the other with no restrictions. Sometimes I was followed by a guy in a long trench coat, but was never challenged.[/QUOTE]

Any young and beautiful hospitality girls?

When I was there, the word around the port was that they had just executed nine for prostitution. That place is no sailor’s paradise.

[QUOTE=Nelson Delmar;189508]When I was there, the word around the port was that they had just executed nine for prostitution. That place is no sailor’s paradise.[/QUOTE]

There is a “death by Bunga Bunga” joke in there. . . .

2 Likes