MLC 2006 superyacht:
compliance, DMLC and crew payroll in 2026

MLC 2006 in a nutshell

The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) is an instrument adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and entered into force on 20 August 2013. Often called the “fourth pillar” of international maritime law alongside SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW, it consolidates more than seventy earlier conventions on seafarers’ working conditions into a single text.

The aim is twofold: guarantee decent living and working conditions on board, and create a level playing field between shipowners by imposing a minimum standard applicable everywhere. The convention has been ratified by more than 100 States representing the vast majority of world tonnage, which makes it a de facto universal standard for the commercial fleet.

For superyachts, the reading is more nuanced. The convention targets commercial vessels ≥500 GT in international navigation, which unambiguously covers all large commercial yachts (charter, hire). For strictly private yachts, applicability depends on the flag choice and the declared use of the vessel. This grey area occupies a large share of modern ship management practice: between the fully MLC-aligned commercial yacht and the under-24m tender clearly out of scope, there is a whole spectrum of situations that requires a flag-by-flag reading.

The MLC is not just about collective rights or moral statements. It imposes concrete documentary obligations: signed Seafarer’s Employment Agreements (SEA), work and rest hour registers, Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), written complaint procedures, financial security certificate for repatriation. Audits focus largely on this documentation — far more than on intrusive physical inspections.

Application to private vs commercial yachts

The private vs commercial distinction structures the whole practical application of MLC to yachts. A commercial yacht — used for charter or any revenue-generating activity — falls within the ordinary scope of the convention as soon as it reaches 500 GT and operates internationally. For those units, MLC compliance is not optional: without a valid certificate, the yacht cannot operate or access most member-State ports.

For a private yacht — used exclusively by its owner and guests, without financial consideration — the question is less clear-cut. The MLC leaves it to flag States to define their position. Three main approaches coexist:

• Full exclusion: some flags consider that private yachts fall outside the convention, which targets “seafarers” employed on a vessel with commercial activity. Historically this is a more British and Caribbean reading.
• Voluntary application: other flags publish guidelines inviting private yacht owners to voluntarily apply MLC standards, particularly on contract, payroll, accommodation and medical care. The Cayman Islands Shipping Registry (CISR) and the Malta Maritime Authority are representative of this pragmatic approach.
• Full or near-full application: France and certain other European flags impose on private yachts registered under their flag a stricter alignment with MLC standards, integrated into national maritime labour law.

Several reasons drive private yacht owners to align voluntarily with the MLC even when the flag does not formally require it:

• Crew mobility: seafarers recruited on the international market expect MLC-compliant conditions and favour yachts with recognised standards.
• Insurance: P&I clubs and hull insurers expect solid employment terms; a complete absence of MLC framework can increase premiums or restrict cover.
• Use continuity: a yacht may switch from private to commercial during its life. Having maintained an MLC framework simplifies that switch.
• Reputation and social risk: an on-board incident (accident, dispute, repatriation) takes a very different legal dimension if the owner cannot produce a clear contract, hours register or financial guarantee.

Common practice in family offices and ship management firms is to apply an MLC-equivalent regime on private yachts ≥500 GT, formalised in an internal crew manual and audited by the flag or by an appointed class society. This is in particular the approach Cursorio implements for its private clients, who want a readable framework without turning their yacht into a commercial unit.

The five titles of MLC

The convention is built around five titles, each covering a major area. The structure deliberately parallels SOLAS and MARPOL, which makes integrating MLC into the vessel’s quality system easier.

Titles 2 and 5 carry most of the operational issues on a superyacht. Title 3 (accommodation) is largely handled at vessel design stage and rarely generates late non-conformities. Titles 1 and 4 are more stable provided medical certificates and crew training records are kept up to date.

DMLC Parts 1 & 2: what the flag imposes vs what the owner declares

The Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC) is the MLC’s documentary pivot. It comprises two complementary parts that answer two distinct questions: what does the flag law require? and how does the owner address it on board?

DMLC Part 1: issued by the flag authority. It lists, point by point, the national requirements applicable in each of the 14 areas reviewed (minimum age, medical certificate, qualifications, recruitment agencies, SEA, wages, work/rest hours, manning levels, accommodation, recreation, food, health, medical care on board, complaint procedures, payment of wages). It is standardised per flag — a Cayman-flagged yacht has the same Part 1 as any other Cayman yacht.

DMLC Part 2: drafted by the owner or its representative (ship management firm, master, agent). It describes, for each of the 14 points, the concrete measures adopted on board to meet the requirement. It is vessel-specific and must reflect operational reality. The flag validates it at the initial audit but does not rewrite it.

A poorly drafted DMLC Part 2 is one of the most frequent audit pitfalls. Two typical traps:

• Generic copy-paste: a Part 2 that paraphrases Part 1 without describing any actual procedure. The auditor will ask how the procedure is applied — a crew manual, a register, a named focal point — and the conversation will go nowhere.
• Disconnect with reality: a Part 2 describing procedures that do not exist on board (no WRH register, complaint procedure unknown to crew, standard contract not used). This gap between paper and field is the number-one cause of major non-conformities.

A good Part 2 is operational, dated, signed, and verifiable. It points to existing internal procedures (crew manual, registers, forms), names a responsible person (often the master or shore-based crew manager) and indicates review frequencies. For a deeper dive into DMLC Part 2 pitfalls in the private yacht context, see our article MLC 2006 — Practical guide for private superyachts.

Seafarer’s Employment Agreements (SEA)

The Seafarer’s Employment Agreement (SEA) is the individual contract signed between the owner (or its representative) and each crew member. The MLC makes it a central document: no compliant SEA, no compliance. Regulation 2.1 sets minimum mandatory elements:

• Full identity of the parties (seafarer, owner or signing representative)
• Place and date of contract
• Position of the seafarer
• Wages or wage calculation formula
• Paid annual leave
• Termination conditions (notice, grounds)
• Health and social security cover
• Right to repatriation
• Reference to applicable collective agreements where relevant
• Duration of the contract (fixed-term, open-ended, voyage)

The SEA must be drafted in a language understood by the seafarer, signed in two originals (one for the seafarer, one kept on board), and the seafarer must have had time to review it before signing. The last point is regularly tested in audit, including by direct interview with a randomly selected crew member.

Several yacht-specific issues deserve close attention:

• Duration and seasonality: many crews alternate Mediterranean and Caribbean seasons with rest periods. The contract should reflect this reality, either through successive fixed-term contracts (with caution on requalification risk) or annualised part-time open-ended contracts.
• Multiple currencies: a master may be paid in EUR, a steward in USD, a chef in GBP. Each SEA must fix the reference currency, payment frequency and transfer method. The MLC requires at least monthly payment, without unreasonable fees.
• Probation period: allowed under most national laws, but must appear explicitly in the SEA and cannot be used to bypass MLC protections.
• Early termination: grounds and notice must be listed. Dismissal without documented grounds exposes the owner to employment litigation, covered or not by the P&I depending on the policy.

Wages, working time, rest

Working time and rest is the most audited MLC topic. The convention sets two alternative limits the flag State may choose to apply:

• Maximum hours of work: 14 in 24, 72 in 7 days; or
• Minimum hours of rest (most commonly retained): 10 in 24, 77 in 7 days

Rest may be divided into a maximum of two periods, one of which at least 6 consecutive hours, and the interval between two rest periods must not exceed 14 hours. These rules are called WRH (Work and Rest Hours) and generate individual registers signed monthly by both seafarer and master.

In superyacht practice, season peaks (owner cruise, intensive charter, transocean transit) put these thresholds under heavy strain. Three good practices limit risk:

• Daily input tool: an app or shared spreadsheet that each crew member fills at end of watch. Retrospective end-of-month entries are systematically spotted by auditors.
• Rotation plan: on units with limited permanent crew, using relief personnel in high season is often the only realistic way to keep WRH within limits during a dense programme.
• Master review: the master must review records each month, identify drifts and formalise corrective actions. This loop is verifiable in audit.

On the payroll side, the MLC requires regular payment, at least monthly, in the currency and following the modalities of the SEA. Bank transfer fees may not be unreasonable and must be disclosed to the seafarer. Payslips must be issued to the seafarer, clearly mentioning the wage components, deductions and net paid.

Multi-currency payroll, frequent on yachts, is not prohibited but requires rigorous setup: documented FX rate, choice of a reference currency per contract, management of flag and seafarer-residence taxation. For a French firm like Cursorio, this is a daily topic: outsourcing payroll secures both MLC compliance and accounting consistency, while reducing the master’s workload at sea.

A recurring French pitfall: a foreign-flagged yacht employing French tax-resident seafarers may generate declaration and withholding obligations not covered by the MLC alone. An upstream legal review is necessary as soon as a significant share of the crew is French-resident.

Accommodation, food, medical care

Title 3 sets minimum standards for accommodation, recreation and catering on board. For yachts, these standards are mostly integrated at design stage: crew cabins with ventilation, sanitary facilities, minimum space per occupant, separation of owner/guest and crew areas. Flags publish yacht equivalences (Cayman LY3, REG yacht code, French yacht code) that adjust SOLAS and MLC standards to the geometric reality of superyachts.

A few points require regular operational follow-up:

• Crew area upkeep: cleanliness, ventilation, mattress and bedding condition. The auditor visits those spaces.
• Catering: the MLC requires food in sufficient quantity and satisfactory quality, taking into account crew cultural and religious specifics. The ship’s cook must be qualified (formal training). Cold chain control and shelf-life monitoring are expected.
• Drinking water: regular analyses, traceability, maintenance of fresh-water production systems.

Title 4 covers medical protection. On board, this means a medical room (or adaptable cabin), a medical kit consistent with tonnage and navigation area, crew trained in first aid, and access to medical teleconsultation (often via TMAS — Telemedical Maritime Assistance Service). Ashore, the seafarer must access care equivalent to that of local workers at the port of call, without charge for care related to a service-related event.

The financial security of regulation 4.2 (shipowner’s liability for injury, sickness or death of the seafarer) requires a certificate posted on board, typically issued via the P&I club. Its consistency with the P&I cover must be verified at each renewal.

Complaints and on-board procedures

The MLC requires an on-board complaint procedure accessible to every crew member. The procedure must be written, communicated to each seafarer (often attached to the SEA or crew manual), and ensure that the seafarer can lodge a complaint without retaliation risk.

Three levels are foreseen:

1. Complaint to direct superior (head of department, master depending on hierarchy)
2. Complaint to the master if unresolved
3. Complaint ashore: to the owner, DPA, flag authority or port-State authority

The seafarer may be assisted by another crew member of their choice. Complaints and follow-ups must be recorded. In audit, the auditor may request the complaints register (or a register attesting absence of complaints over the period). Absence of a procedure known to the crew is a frequent non-conformity — the auditor often verifies through direct interview with a randomly selected seafarer.

On the port State side, the MLC also provides for a port-State complaint procedure open to seafarers during port calls: a seafarer may report a non-conformity to the port authority, which may trigger a deeper inspection. On yachts the scenario is rare but exists — and it generally triggers a full documentary review.

MLC audits: who audits what, frequency, sanctions

The MLC control regime combines two levels: Flag State Control, which issues and renews the certificate, and Port State Control (PSC) during port calls.

Flag cycle:

• Initial audit at MLC certificate issuance. Full review of DMLC, contracts, registers, procedures.
• Intermediate audit between 24 and 36 months. Verification of continued compliance.
• Renewal audit at 60 months at the latest. Certificate is valid for 5 years maximum.

The flag audit is generally conducted by a Recognised Organisation (RO) acting on behalf of the flag State (DNV, Lloyd’s, Bureau Veritas, RINA, ABS, etc.). The ship management firm or master assists the auditor, presents documents, organises crew interviews.

Port State Control: during a port call, PSC may inspect the yacht and verify the validity of the MLC certificate, the DMLC consistency, and operational standards. A PSC inspection may be routine or triggered by a complaint. Results are categorised:

• Observation: a remark without immediate consequence.
• Deficiency to correct within deadline: usually before departure or within a short timeframe.
• Detention: the yacht cannot leave port before major non-conformities are lifted. A detention impacts both flag and owner reputation, and appears in public databases such as Equasis.

Classic major non-conformities on yachts: missing or manifestly falsified WRH registers, overdue wages, no valid repatriation financial security, complaint procedure unknown to crew, SEAs not signed or manifestly non-compliant.

For an operational deep dive on preparing an MLC audit in the private superyacht context, see our article MLC 2006 — Practical guide for private superyachts.

2022/2024 developments and yacht impact

The MLC evolves through cycles of amendments adopted by the Special Tripartite Committee (STC) at the ILO. The 2018 amendments entered into force at the end of 2020, followed by the 2022 amendments that entered into force in December 2024. Several changes have a concrete impact on superyachts.

Captivity and abandonment: reinforcement of financial guarantees and clarification of repatriation obligations in case of crew abandonment, in particular following the 2020-2022 pandemic situations. For yachts, this reinforces the importance of keeping the regulation 2.5 financial security certificate up to date and documenting the owner/manager/agent chain of responsibility.

Harassment and violence on board: explicit recognition of the obligation to prevent and address harassment and workplace violence on board. For yachts, where proximity and hierarchical asymmetry can create sensitive situations, this implies a written anti-harassment policy in the crew manual and management training.

Personal protective equipment: clarification on PPE provision and maintenance by the owner, at no cost to the seafarer.

Recruitment and placement: reinforced requirements for recruitment agencies used by owners. Ship management firms that source crew must document their compliance (or their partners’) with regulation 1.4.

Internet connectivity: the committee discussed access to reasonable and affordable means of communication for the crew. On yachts, internet access is generally far better than on commercial ships, but the spirit of the provision — preserving family ties — remains relevant.

Beyond formal amendments, two background trends shape practice:

• Digitisation of registers: flags now largely accept electronic WRH registers, provided they guarantee data integrity (timestamps, modification traceability, accepted e-signature). This digitisation simplifies audits but creates new risks (data loss, after-the-fact falsification).
• MLC / ISM / ISPS / EU convergence: flags and class societies push to integrate MLC into the existing ISM safety management system. This integration reduces documentary load but demands a manual overhaul.

For Cursorio, these developments confirm the value of outsourced follow-up: keeping DMLCs, financial guarantees, registers and internal policies up to date is continuous work that often exceeds the bandwidth of a master at sea or a generalist family office.