History
Previously, when it came to employment law, the only law that mattered at sea was that of the flag state. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 94, provided that every flag state must exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical, and social matters over ships flying its flag.
However, the United Kingdom – including both Government and the Courts – in recent years have started taking more direct measures to apply the employment protections available in English law beyond the territorial boundaries of the UK.
Sources of Law
Before getting into the detail of what applies in which circumstances, it is important to consider and note the various sources of law which applies to seafarers.
(1) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
This can broadly be considered as the baseline for rights at sea, as set out above, and applies the law of the flag state to the administration of the crew.
(2) Maritime Labour Convention 2006, as amended (“MLC”)
The MLC sets out the minimum rights which seafarers are entitled to while employed on a ship. These include their fundamental rights and entitlements, as well as setting out Regulations which deal with conditions of employment, accommodation, food and catering, as well as health protection, welfare and social security.
It is important to note though, that the Convention only applies to Members who have ratified the Convention.
(3) The Seafarers Employment Agreement (“SEA”)
The SEA is essentially a seafarer’s contract of employment, the Regulation 2 of the MLC sets out the mandatory requirements for the SEA, including what provisions it must implement.
Like any contract though, the SEA can also contain a law and jurisdiction clause which details the applicable law, and the Courts before which any claim must be present.
(4) The Flag State
The Flag State is the country where the vessel is officially registered. Registration subjects the vessel to the laws and jurisdiction of that country, and the country is responsible for ensuring compliance with internation maritime regulations, standards, and environmental laws.
(5) Domestic Law
By “domestic law” we’re referring to the applicable law of the United Kingdom.
Employment Rights
Whether domestic law applies to seafarers who might be operating out of the jurisdiction, or on a vessel under a foreign flag, often depends on exactly which employment right the seafarer is trying to enforce. To demonstrate this, consider two of the most common types of claims brought in employment disputes.
(1) Wrongful Dismissal
A claim for wrongful dismissal is a claim that the dismissal was in breach of contract. Accordingly, the choice of law set out in the SEA will govern any claim for wrongful dismissal. However, the MLC also sets minimum notice periods where the flag state is has ratified the convention.
(2) Unfair Dismissal
Typically, rights around dismissal would be governed by the law of the flag state of the vessel.
However, the Courts have considered this issue.
In Lawson v Serco Ltd, three conjoined appeals heard before the House of Lords, considered the territorial scope of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 – i.e. the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Of these three conjoined cases Crofts v Veta Ltd is of particular relevance as it concerned an overseas employer employing somebody within the United Kingdom. In these appeals the House of Lords considered the status of peripatetic employees (meaning those who work away) and determined that, for the purposes of determining a peripatetic employees place of employment, the question of where they were based was key. The decision in these three appeals became collectively known as the Lawson Principles.
Crofts referred to airline pilots, as opposed to mariners or seamen of any stripe, which did leave some uncertainty as to whether this determination was applicable or not.
In Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd the Court of Appeal considered the Lawson Principles and determined that the decision therein also applied to mariners as, to have it not apply to them, would leave arbitrary differences between employees aboard aircraft and those aboard ships. However, the Court of Appeal took Diggins a step further, holding that where a seafaring employee is based is where his duty begins and ends.
However, it should be highlighted that Section 199 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 specifically sets out that the Unfair Dismissal provisions of the Employment Rights Act do not apply to employment as a master, or member of crew, aboard a fishing vessel where remuneration is based on a share of the profits or gross earnings of the vessel (share fishermen in ordinary language).
A final point to note, with the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Government has indicated its intention to produce a mandatory Seafarer’s Charter (the current charter is voluntary), which may see further expansions of the UK’s employment jurisdiction over seafarers as well as tightening of work conditions.