Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - Argentina (Ratification: 1936)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 1 (hours of work (industry)), 14 (weekly rest (industry)) and 30 (hours of work (commerce and offices)) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (CGT RA), received on 29 August 2025. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Legislative developments. Articles 2(b) and (c), 4 and 5 of Convention No. 1, Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14, and Articles 4 and 6 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours of work. Total or partial exceptions to the principle of weekly rest. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that section 197 bis of Act No. 20744/1976 on contracts of employment (LCT), added by section 79 of Decree No. 70/2023 on foundations for rebuilding the economy, provides that “collective agreements, respecting the minimum requirements of 12 hours of rest between working days, as well as the legal limits based on the nature of each activity, may establish arrangements that are adapted to changes in production methods and the specific conditions of each activity, taking into account, in particular, the benefit and interests of workers. To this end, overtime, time banking and compensatory time off may be collectively arranged.”

The Committee also notes that the CGT RA indicates in its observations that section 197 bis allows for the establishment of various arrangements on the legal working day, including periods of rest, which could jeopardize compliance with the legal minimums that guarantee workers’ basic rights.

The Committee notes that the Government reports that the National Labour Court of Appeal declared that sections 53 to 97 of Decree No. 70/2023 were unconstitutional and that a final ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice is pending.

In this regard, the Committee observes that section 197 bis of the LCT does not clearly define the circumstances in which variable distribution of hours of work is permitted, the reference periods or the exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, and that it only establishes a limit of 12 hours of rest between working days.

The Committee recalls that, in general, Conventions Nos 1 and 30 only authorize the calculation of hours of work over a reference period of one week, provided that the daily limit of nine and ten hours is not exceeded (Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1 and Article 4 of Convention No. 30), and that, in all other cases where the averaging of working hours over reference periods exceeding one week is exceptionally permitted, the circumstances must be clearly specified, in the following terms:

• where persons are employed in shifts it shall be permissible to employ persons in excess of 8 hours in any one day and 48 hours in any one week, if the average number of hours over a period of 3 weeks or less does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1);
• in processes that, by their nature, must be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, the daily and weekly limits of hours of work may be exceeded, subject to the condition that the working hours shall not exceed 56 in the week on the average (Article 4 of Convention No. 1); and
• in exceptional cases where the limits of 8 hours per day and 48 per week cannot be applied, agreements between workers’ and employers’ organizations may set a longer daily limit of work, provided that the average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, does not exceed 48 (Article 5 of Convention No. 1) and that hours of work in any day do not exceed 10 hours (Article 6 of Convention No. 30).

With regard to weekly rest, the Committee recalls that Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 provide that, in cases of total or partial exceptions to the principle of weekly rest of 24 hours, proper humanitarian and economic considerations must be taken into account and employers’ and workers’ organizations must be consulted in advance. They also establish that, as far as possible, compensatory periods of rest should be provided for the exceptions.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the CGT RA indicates that the Chamber of Deputies is currently analysing several bills that propose the creation of optional alternative workday arrangements, which would tailor the working day to the nature of each activity, allowing the elimination of the daily limit of eight hours.

The Committee requests the Government to report on any developments regarding the precautionary suspension of Decree No. 70/2023, which added section 197 bis to the LCT, in relation to hours of work and weekly rest. Moreover, while noting that, according to the CGT RA, several bills on working time are being analysed in Congress, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any amendment to labour legislation on hours of work and periods of rest takes into consideration the requirements established in these Articles of the Conventions.

Hours of work

Article 2 of Convention No. 1, and Article 3 of Convention No. 30. Daily and weekly limits on hours of work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the national legislation establishes an alternative limit on hours of work of 8 hours per day and 48 per week (section 1 of Act No. 11544 of 1929 on working days, section 1 of Decree S/N/1930 and Decree No. 16115/1933, which regulate Act No. 11544, and section 1 of Decree No. 562/1930, which regulates the work of personnel assigned to maritime, river and port services). The Committee also notes that the working hours of National Public Administration personnel must be between 120 and 180 hours per month, with a daily period of rest of 12 hours between working days (section 43 of Decree No. 214/2006 approving the general collective labour agreement for the National Public Administration). In this regard, the Committee observes that section 43 of Decree No. 214/2006 does not establish daily or weekly limits on hours of work. The Committee recalls that the Conventions provide for a double limit – daily and weekly – on hours of work and that this limit is cumulative, not alternative. In this context, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in law and in practice, that normal hours of work do not exceed 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week, both for workers in industry and for those in commerce and offices, including those in the National Public Administration.

Articles 2(b) and (c), 4 and 5 of Convention No. 1 and Articles 4 and 6 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours of work. With regard to its previous comments on section 198 of the LCT, the Committee notes that the section allows collective agreements to establish methods for calculating the maximum working day based on an average, based on the nature of the activity. In this regard, the Committee observes that the aforementioned section does not establish the specific circumstances in which the number of hours of work may be calculated on average, nor does it define the reference period for this calculation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the reference period over which the average number of hours of work are calculated under section 198 of the LCT and under what conditions calculations based on an average are permitted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the aforementioned section in practice.

Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1. Variable distribution of hours of work over periods exceeding one week. Employment in shifts. The Committee notes that section 3 of Act No. 11544 and section 10 of Decree S/N/1930 regulate the calculation of the average number of hours of work over a period of up to 3 weeks, with a limit of 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week on average. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1 requires in such cases that a double cumulative, not alternative, limit of 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week be respected. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, where persons are employed in shifts, the average number of hours over a period of up to 3 weeks does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week.

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the CGT RA indicates that: (i) there has been a gradual blurring of the principle of limited working hours as a result of flexible working arrangements, extended rotating shifts and unrecorded overtime, which has intensified in sectors such as logistics, urban transport, work in distribution centres, as well as in pseudo-monotax arrangements; (ii) in the context of teleworking and the platform economy, working hours are vague, long and unrecorded; and (iii) the recent initiative to amend the LCT by means of Decree No. 70/2023, which relaxes the provisions on working days, periods of rest and labour registration, represents a step backward in the effective implementation of Convention No. 1. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Weekly rest

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the CGT RA claims that, in certain sectors such as oil, transport and logistics, extended working hours and rotating shifts could effectively deprive workers of their weekly rest. In this regard, the CGT RA emphasizes the effects on the physical and mental health of workers who do not have access to weekly rest and indicates that it is necessary to strengthen labour inspection mechanisms in order to guarantee such rest as an essential component of decent work. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect, as well as information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office with respect to all the issues raised if it deems it necessary.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions – Compensatory rest. The Committee understands that legislative amendments to Act No. 20744 of 1976 on employment contracts, and particularly to sections 204 and 207 on exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, are currently under examination by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The proposed amendments seek to regulate more effectively exceptions to weekly rest and to reinforce the right to compensatory rest. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any legislative amendments which may concern the provisions of Act No. 20744 respecting weekly rest, or which could have an impact on the implementation of the Convention. The Committee also notes the comments of the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA), received on 30 August 2013, in which the CTA indicates that the Government should ratify the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations regarding exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, to the effect that sections 3 and 5 of Act No. 18204 of 1969, read in conjunction with sections 203 and 204 of Act No. 20744 of 1976, authorize exceptions to the weekly rest of 33 hours (from 1 p.m. on Saturday to midnight on Sunday) only in the event of an accident, danger, force majeure and exceptional requirements of the national economy or the enterprise. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide details of the consultations held with employers’ and workers’ organizations on the abovementioned exceptions, the manner in which humanitarian, and not only economic, considerations were taken into account in this context, and of any compensatory rest due to persons called upon to work on a day of weekly rest. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate any new regulations issued under sections 3 or 5 of Act No. 18204 to establish exceptions to the principle of weekly rest and the arrangements for their application.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts of reports by the labour inspection services indicating the number and nature of contraventions reported and the penalties imposed, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, copies of collective agreements containing relevant clauses, etc.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because they continued to respond to current needs (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken or envisaged in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

In its report, the Government refers to Act No. 18204 of 12 May 1969 to institute a uniform system of weekly rest to be observed throughout the Republic. The Committee asks the Government to indicate any regulations related to exceptions which under sections 3 and 5 of the Act may be made from the principle of weekly rest in the industrial sector.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which reads as follows:

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the SOMU indicated previously that, by adopting Decree No. 845 under Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995, the Executive had vetoed section 3 of the Act providing for trade unions to be consulted in determining the non-availability of national labour. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is currently guaranteed in the establishments referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, and particularly in the ship-building sector. The Committee also refers to the comments it has made under Convention No. 98.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the SOMU indicated previously that, by adopting Decree No. 845 under Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995, the Executive had vetoed section 3 of the Act providing for trade unions to be consulted in determining the non-availability of national labour. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is currently guaranteed in the establishments referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, and particularly in the ship-building sector. The Committee also refers to the comments it has made under Convention No. 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) alleging that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1492/92 annulled almost all collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. The Committee notes that, in its reply to the comments of the SOMU, the Government refers to Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995 (promulgated on 22 June 1995), adopting various measures concerning "national labour". The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments, as well as the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU), received on 2 December 1994 and transmitted to the Government by a letter of 20 December 1994. The Committee observes that SOMU continues to allege that the adoption of Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 adversely affect workers in the maritime and related sectors. The Committee further notes that SOMU has recently informed the Office by correspondence dated 5 January 1995, that certain provisions of Decree No. 817/92 which effectively abolish the right to collectively bargain conditions of work, including the right to weekly rest, have been declared unconstitutional. In light of this information, the Committee refers to the previous observations made by SOMU in April 1993 and communicated to the Government for comment in May 1993, indicating that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. In reply to those observations, the Government states in its report for the period ending 30 June 1994, that the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, has in no way been affected.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would further elaborate, in its next report, how the annulment of collective agreements by virtue of Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 has not affected the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1. It also would appreciate comments, in particular, from the Government on SOMU's recent observations concerning the unconstitutionality of Decree No. 817/92.

The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

In its previous comments the Committee referred to the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) alleging that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime-related sectors. SOMU had indicated that certain provisions of Decree No. 817/92 which effectively abolished the right to collectively bargain conditions of work, including the right to weekly rest, had been declared unconstitutional. The Committee notes that SOMU has submitted further observations in August and September 1995. It also notes that the Government, in a communication of July 1995, has indicated that comments by SOMU were being examined and that a response would be given in the near future.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is assured in the establishments covered by Article 1 of the Convention and in particular in the shipbuilding industry. The Committee also refers to its comments under Convention No. 98.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

1. The Committee notes the comments made by the Workers' Congress of Argentina (CTA) received by the Office in June 1993 and transmitted to the Government for its comments. The Committee further notes that no comments have been received from the Government in this regard. The CTA has indicated that draft labour legislation has been prepared by the Government to make weekly rest provisions more flexible, but that, in actual fact, the proposals lead to the loss of the right to weekly rest. The Government is requested to provide information, in its next report, on any measures taken which would affect the application of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes the comments made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) received in April and communicated to the Government for comment in May 1993. The Committee further notes that no comments have been received from the Government in this regard. SOMU has indicated that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 have annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, whether the annulment of collective agreements by virtue of the above-mentioned Decrees has affected in any way the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention.