Practice unveils weaknesses: analysing the implementation of regulations on seafarers’ work/rest hours
Authors:   , Bhatia Bikram 
Published: October 2024

Seafarers’ fatigue risk management is rooted in regulations on manning and work/rest hours. These regulations establish a minimum fatigue management standard achieved through work/rest hours compliance. Seafarers must maintain daily records of their work/rest hours and report any non-compliance to their company. However, adjustments to these records have been reported in the literature. Such malpractice obscures instances of non- compliance and hinders the feedback necessary for resolving these issues, including flag State review and amendments to minimum safe manning documents. It compromises the integrity of fatigue risk management and underscores the need for further research. This study examined the implementation of work/rest hours regulations using a framework from the Implementation Theory (ITFRAM). The ITFRAM assessed seafarers’ work/rest hours recording practices and port State control (PSC) officers’ work/rest hours inspection practices as the Implementation Output (IOp) and compared their reported compliance with work/rest hours as the Implementation Outcome (IOc). Data from multiple States – including 6,304 seafarers’ survey responses, 55 PSC officer interviews, and 16,269 PSC inspections from eight reports – revealed significant implementation weaknesses. Seafarers reported unreliable recording practices, with 64.3% admitting to adjusting their records. PSC officers revealed challenges in detecting non- compliance and adjustment during inspections. A stark contrast in compliance outcomes emerged, with seafarers reporting low compliance rates (11.7% to 16.1%) while PSC officers reported high compliance rates (90.0% to 99.3%). This discrepancy highlights malpractices in recordkeeping and ineffective work/rest hours inspection. The study identified multiple feedback flaws within the ITFRAM. The first was suppressed feedback, with 66.7% of seafarers reporting that companies had questioned their non- compliance reports, 60.1% indicating an expectation from companies that records be adjusted to achieve compliance, and 49.1% stating that they were instructed to do so. The second was under-utilised feedback, where resolution of non-compliance through adjustments between seafarers and companies prevented their escalation to flag States for reviewing and amending a minimum safe manning document. The third was skewed feedback, where higher compliance reported by PSC contradicted seafarers’ reports of low compliance, creating an illusion of compliance at the policy level. The fourth was ignored feedback, as the adjustment issue persisted even after academic sources had highlighted it over two decades; suggesting a disconnect between policy and science and putting fatigue risk management in shipping in danger. The study contributes to the Implementation Theory and the fatigue domain, with findings indicating severe implications for the shipping industry. The adjustment of work/rest records negatively affects seafarers’ health and safety, misleads casualty investigations by relying on inaccurate work/rest histories, misrepresents regulatory compliance (which influences insurance liabilities), disturbs the industry’s level playing field by creating unfair competition and disadvantaging properly compliant entities, and challenges the industry’s reliance on a paper-based method for safety and environmental compliance. Addressing this systemic issue of record adjustment requires action from the shipping industry.