Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

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 No. 1 and 47 (hours of work) together.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the adoption of a new Labour Code (Law No. XII-2603) on 14 September 2016, which entered into force on 1 July 2017 and repealed the previous Labour Code (Law No. IX-926), with all amendments and additions.

Hours of work

Articles 2(b), 2(c), 4, and 5 of Convention No. 1 and Article 1 of Convention No. 47. Variable distribution of working hours. Circumstances. The principle of a 40-hour week. The Committee notes that sections 113 to 116 of the Labour Code regulate working time arrangements which include the averaging of working hours. Specifically, it notes that section 113(1) provides that the reference periods for these arrangements may not exceed three consecutive months; while section 114(2) sets as maximum limits for these arrangements 12 working hours per day and 60 per week, which is to include overtime and work done according to an agreement on additional work. In this respect, the Committee observes that none of these provisions sets any precise circumstances under which resort to averaging of working hours is allowed. The Committee recalls that the averaging of hours of work in general is authorized in the Convention only over a reference period of one week, and provided that a daily limit of nine hours is required (Article 2(b)); and that in all the other cases in which the averaging of working hours is allowed over reference periods longer than a week, the circumstances are clearly specified, as follows:

• (i)in case of shift work, 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 three weeks or less does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c));
• (ii)in those processes which are required by reason of the nature of the process to be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, the daily and weekly limit 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); and
• (iii)in exceptional cases where it is recognised that the limits of 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week cannot be applied, agreements between workers' and employers' organizations may fix a longer daily limit of works, provided that the average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, shall not exceed 48 (Article 5).

Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the above provisions of the Labour Code in conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 1.

Regarding the principle of the 40-hour week, the Committee notes that, in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that section 112(3) of the Labour Code provides that an employee’s standard working hours shall be 40 per week. The Committee observes however that by virtue of section 121 of the Labour Code, Government Resolution No. 534 of 28 June 2017 determines the peculiarities of working time and rest time in transport, electronic communications, postal, agricultural, peat excavation, agricultural processing, energy companies, medical and social care, educational institutions, fishing vessels and other economic activities, and provides for a list of jobs for which working hours of up to 24 hours a day may be applied. The Committee also observes that section 114(2) of the Labour Code prescribes, in cases of averaging in working time arrangements, maximum limits of 12 and 60 daily and weekly working hours respectively, in a context of undefined circumstances for resorting to averaging and over reference periods that extend up to three months. Recalling that these provisions authorize practices that would possibly lead to unreasonably long hours of work, in direct contradiction to the principle of progressive reduction of hours of work, the Committee requests the Government to take the measures necessary to ensure that the principle of a 40-hour week provided for by Convention No. 47 is fully applied both in law and in practice.

Article 6 of Convention No. 1. Temporary exceptions. Circumstances. The Committee notes that section 119(2) of the Labour Code stipulates that the employer may only instruct an employee to perform overtime work with the employee's consent, except in cases where:

• (i)unplanned work critical to society must be performed or action must be taken to prevent calamities, dangers, accidents or natural disasters or to eliminate the consequences thereof that require prompt eradication;
• (ii)it is necessary to complete a job or eliminate a failure due to which a large number of employees would have to cease work or materials, products or equipment would be damaged; and
• (iii)this is stipulated in the collective agreement.

In this respect, the Committee observes that section 119 only prescribes the circumstances under which an employer may request an employee to work overtime without his or her consent, while remaining silent on the circumstances under which resort to overtime can be made with the employee’s consent and by collective agreement. The Committee recalls that temporary exceptions to normal hours of work are authorized in the Convention in very limited and well-circumscribed cases. Recalling the impact that long hours of work can have on workers’ health and work–private life balance, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to define the exceptional circumstances under which normal hours of work may be temporarily increased in industrial establishments, in accordance with this Article of the Convention.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. The principle of the 40-hour week. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it plans to revise the Labour Code, and in that context, Government Resolution No. 587 of 2003 on the list of activities where working time duration up to 24 hours may be applied will be modified, and another provision limiting the period of being on duty up to 16 hours will be introduced. In this regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the new draft Labour Code should not authorize practices that would possibly lead to unreasonably long hours of work and would thus directly contradict the principle of progressive reduction of hours of work. The Committee recalls, in this respect, Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which indicates that averaging should be permitted only when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it. It also recalls paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time in which it pointed out that undue facilitation of overtime, for example, by not limiting the circumstances in which it may be permitted or by allowing relatively high maximums, could in the most egregious cases tend to defeat the Recommendation’s objective of a social standard of a 40-hour week and make irrelevant the provisions as to normal working hours. The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments in the process of revision of the Labour Code, and to transmit a copy of the new legislation once it has been adopted.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum limit on hours of work per day. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it noted that section 144(4) of the Labour Code and Government Resolution No. 587 of 14 May 2003 provide for specific occupations and works (including telecommunications, public utility services, seaport navigation, air traffic control, railway transport, oil and gas production) in which the duration of working time may be up to 24 hours per day provided that the average working hours do not exceed 48 hours per week and that the rest period between working days is not shorter than 24 hours. The Committee observed, in this regard, that such provisions directly contradict the letter and the spirit of ILO Conventions on hours of work which seek to establish reasonable legal standards of hours of work in order to provide adequate protection against undue fatigue and to ensure meaningful leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life for all workers. The Committee considers it important to recall that the same concerns have been raised by the European Committee of Social Rights which in its 2007 conclusions found that the situation in Lithuania is not in conformity with Article 2(1) of the European Social Charter, since for some categories of workers, a working day of up to 24 hours may be allowed, and, under flexible working-time regimes, the working week may be more than 60 hours. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Social Security and Labour will submit to the social partners and concerned institutions a draft law amending Resolution No. 587 of 2003 and providing for a 16-hour daily limit, instead of the 24-hour limit currently applicable. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to revise the relevant provisions regarding the limits on the maximum number of hours of work per day to ensure that the Convention is given full effect in this respect.

Article 5. Averaging of working time. The Committee refers to its previous comment in which it noted that in a considerable number of sectors, the Labour Code (section 149(1)) and Government Resolution No. 587 of 2003 allow for the averaging of working hours with a reference period of four months and one year, respectively, and it drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the Convention allows for the averaging of working hours only in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the normal hours of work cannot be applied. In its latest report, the Government indicates its intention to review the Labour Code and states that the Committee’s comments will be taken into consideration in this process. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard and to transmit a copy of the revised Code once it has been adopted.

Article 6(1)(b). Temporary exceptions. Recalling that section 151 of the Labour Code, as it currently stands, permits overtime in circumstances which go beyond those provided for in Article 6(b) of the Convention (e.g. exceptional cases of pressure of work, accident, force majeure, urgent repair work) and in the absence of the Government’s reply on this point, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate steps in the context of the revision process of the Labour Code to ensure that section 151 is fully aligned with the requirements of this Article of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. The Committee notes that section 149 of the Labour Code permits the averaging (or “summary recording”) of working hours over a reference period not exceeding four months provided that the average maximum working time does not exceed 48 hours in a week and 12 hours in a day while Government Resolution No. 587 of 2003 provides for a reference period of up to one year for those employed, among other sectors, in transport and energy production. The Committee considers that these provisions, even though they may reflect a general tendency for more flexible working-time arrangements, they call into question the object and purpose of the Convention inasmuch as unreasonably long reference periods for the averaging of hours cannot guarantee full application of the principle of the 40-hour week.

In addition, the Committee notes that section 144(4) of the Labour Code and Government Resolution No. 587 of 2003 provide for specific occupations and works (including on-duty works in health care, education, social care, telecommunications, public utility services, seaport navigation, air traffic control, railway transport, oil and gas production) in which the duration of working time may be up to 24 hours per day provided that the average working hours do not exceed 48 in a week and that the rest period between working days is not shorter than 24 hours. The Committee observes that such provisions directly contradict the letter and the spirit of ILO Conventions on hours of work which seek to establish reasonable legal standards of hours of work in order to provide adequate protection against undue fatigue and to ensure meaningful leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life for all workers. The Committee considers it important to recall that the same concerns have been raised by the European Committee of Social Rights which in its 2007 conclusions found that the situation in Lithuania is not in conformity with article 2(1) of the European Social Charter since for some categories of workers a working day of up to 24 hours may be allowed and under flexible working-time regimes the working week may be more than 60 hours. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional explanations on the rationale of the provisions mentioned above and indicate how these provisions may be construed to be consonant with the requirements of the Convention, read in conjunction of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116). The Committee also requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Articles 2 and 5 of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1).

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide together with its next report up to date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, extracts from labour inspection reports showing the number and nature of contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; statistics concerning the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has been applied and the number of hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has not as yet been applied and the normal hours of work applicable to these workers; official studies or reports on working time issues and especially the question of the reduction of hours of work in relation to factors such as the effect of new technologies and employment policy objectives; trends on working time arrangements as reflected in recent collective agreements, etc.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum limit of working hours per day. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations concerning the 12-hour limit of daily work established under section 144(5) of the Labour Code for those employed in more than one undertaking. It also notes the reference to Government Resolution No. 1043 of 19 August 2003 concerning the Employment Agreement on Peculiarities of Secondary Duties. Recalling that the general eight-hour limit laid down by this Article of the Convention is a daily limit of hours of work irrespective of the number or form of employment contracts under which that work is performed, the Committee once again requests the Government to take appropriate measures in order to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point. In addition, the Committee would appreciate receiving a copy of Government Resolution No. 1043 of 2003.

With regard to the treatment of working time spent “on duty” at home, as provided for in section 155(2) of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the relevant provisions of the Labour Code have been the subject of consultations and agreement with the social partners, and that as a matter of practice, any time spent “on duty” at home is remunerated at the full rate. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider the possibility of revising the relevant provision of the Labour Code in order to bring it into line with established practice.

Articles 2 and 5. Reference period for averaging working time. The Committee notes that the Government’s reply on this point refers only to section 149(1) of the Labour Code which provides for averaging of working time over a period of four months for those undertakings operating continuously by a succession of shifts. However, Government Resolution No. 587 of 14 May 2003 provides for a reference period of one year for those employed, among other sectors, in transport (passenger, road, railway, civil aviation, maritime, inland waterways, including maintenance services), and energy production. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that the Convention allows for the averaging of hours of work only under the limited and well-circumscribed conditions of Articles 2(c) (shift work), 5 (exceptional cases – bilateral agreement transformed into regulations) and 6 (permanent and temporary exceptions). The Government’s attention is drawn to paragraphs 85–168 of the General Survey of 2005 on hours of work which contain a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Convention as regards the variable distribution of working hours and permissible exceptions. Even though nothing in the Convention indicates the maximum length of the period over which the variable distribution of working hours might extend, the Committee once more observes that the reference period for averaging hours of work should not be unreasonably long in order to ensure that the workers’ health and welfare is adequately protected. It therefore requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the circumstances under which industrial undertakings may have recourse to averaging of working hours over a period longer than a week and specify how it is ensured that the object and purpose of the Convention are met under those circumstances.

Transport by road, rail and inland waterway. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Government Resolution No. 587 of 2003 which replaced Government Resolution No. 248 of 1996. It notes, in particular, that the maximum daily driving time for road transport drivers is nine hours in general, but can be extended to ten hours twice a week while the maximum driving time in two consecutive weeks may not exceed 90 hours. With respect to rail transportation, the Committee notes that whereas the hours of work for railway workers in general are limited to 12 per day and 48 per week over a period of six months, employees serving passengers on board may work up to 16 hours a day and 60 hours a week and workers accompanying and storing freight trains may work up to 24 hours a day followed by a 24-hour rest. Moreover, the Committee notes that the maximum limits of working hours for inland water transport are set at 14 hours a day and 72 hours a week. Recalling that the Convention prescribes a double limit of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week, with very limited exemption possibilities, the Committee asks the Government to re-examine the appropriateness of the 16- and 24-hour daily limit for certain rail transport workers or the 72-hour weekly limit for workers in inland water transportation, which are manifestly inconsistent with the Convention, and need to be revised. The Committee notes with surprise that Government Resolution No. 587 contains a list of works for which a maximum limit of up to 24 hours per day may be established (in contrast, Government Resolution No. 248 referred to jobs where the duration of work may exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period), which is, of course, contrary to the letter and the spirit of this Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 1(b). Temporary exceptions. While noting the Government’s statement that the grounds for temporary exceptions referred to in section 151 of the Labour Code have been the subject of consultations and agreement with the social partners, the Committee once again wishes to point out that the Convention permits temporary exceptions only in exceptional cases of pressure of work and therefore the relevant provision of the Labour Code should be modified accordingly.

Article 7. List of exceptions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no legislative or regulatory text specifying the types of enterprises whose operation is deemed to be continuous within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. Despite the absence of a specific legal text, however, the Committee requests the Government to provide a complete list of all industrial undertakings falling within the scope of application of the Convention for which exceptions to limits on normal daily and weekly hours of work may have been put in place and transmit a copy of any relevant legal text which may not have been communicated previously.

Part VI of the report form. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing up to date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, the approximate number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, labour inspection results showing the number and nature of working time-related offences observed and sanctions imposed, copies of collective agreements containing clauses on working time arrangements, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information supplied in reply to its previous comments.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 148 of the Labour Code of 2002, some unspecified sectors of economic activity may, taking into consideration the seasonal nature of work and other conditions, be exempt from the provisions regulating the hours of work. The Committee requests therefore the Government to indicate whether any industrial enterprises within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention have so far been exempted from the provisions of the Labour Code on working time and also to indicate the working time regulations applicable to the workers concerned.

Article 2. The Committee notes that under section 144(5) of the Labour Code, the working day of persons employed in one undertaking but under two or more employment contracts may not be longer than 12 hours (including breaks to rest and eat). The Committee considers that such an arrangement may only undermine the purpose of setting a daily limit on working time and is therefore inconsistent with the basic requirement of this Article of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention in this respect.

In addition, the Committee notes that with reference to on-call or stand-by assignment, section 155(2) of the Labour Code provides that the entire duration of being "on duty" at the enterprise and at least half of the time spent "on duty" at home must be counted as working time. The Committee recalls in this respect that, if being on duty requires the worker to be at the disposal of the employer and the worker is restricted from engaging in personal activities during that time, the time spent on duty must be considered as hours of work and should be remunerated accordingly regardless of the location in which the on-call assignment is carried out. The Committee draws attention to paragraph 51 of the 2005 General Survey on hours of work on this topic. The Committee would appreciate receiving additional explanations of the scope of on-call or stand-by as referred to in section 155(2) of the Labour Code.

Article 4. The Committee notes that section 5 of Government Resolution No. 248 of 20 February 1996 allows averaging of working time over a period of up to one year. The Committee reminds the Government that respect for daily and weekly limits on hours of work is an essential guarantee to safeguard workers’ health and welfare, and therefore the reference period for the purpose of averaging working time should not be unreasonably long.

Articles 2 and 5. The Committee notes that section 10 of Government Resolution No. 248 of 1996 sets limits not on the hours of work but on driving time for those working in road transportation. However, section 8 of the Resolution defines working time as including driving time as well as time spent on other non-driving tasks. Therefore, the actual working time remains unregulated by the Resolution. Recalling that working time is time during which the employee is at the disposal of the employer, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate action to bring its legislation into conformity with the maximum working time limits prescribed by these Articles of the Convention.

As regards rail transportation, the Committee notes that section 16 of Government Resolution No. 248 allows employees who service train passengers to work up to 18 hours per 24-hour period and up to 60 hours per week. Section 16 further provides that the period of rest per 24-hour period must account for at least 50 per cent of their working time. The Committee requests the Government to specify how working time is calculated for workers in rail transportation and to indicate the actual hours of work these workers are allowed to perform per day or week. While recalling that the Convention only allows work up to 48 hours per week on average, the Committee asks the Government to clarify how could the above provisions be construed as being in line with the requirements of the Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 1(b). The Committee notes section 151 of the Labour Code which permits overtime, among other cases, in the case of: (i) work performed in the place of another shift worker who failed to arrive at the workstation, if the working process may be impeded because of this absence; and (ii) work related to loading and unloading and other related transportation work, when it is necessary to vacate warehouses of transportation enterprises and in order to avoid the accumulation of freight in dispatch and designation points and idle vehicle time. The Committee considers, however, that the above circumstances go beyond the wording of the Convention which only authorizes temporary exceptions in exceptional cases of pressure of work. It therefore requests the Government to consider appropriate modifications in order to bring the relevant provisions of the Labour Code into closer conformity with the temporary exception possibilities set out in this Article of the Convention.

Article 7. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply in its next report detailed information on: (i) the enterprises which are deemed to be necessarily continuous in character; (ii) the working of any agreements falling within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention; and (iii) the regulations on permanent and temporary exceptions, as required under this Article of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Lithuanian Trade Union of Constables and Police Employees (LPTU). The Government has not, as yet, commented on these observations.

The LPTU alleges that the working-time provisions contained in the new Internal Services Act No. IX 1538 of 29 April 2003, which came into effect on 1 May 1993, is contrary to the principle of a 40-hour working week provided for in the Convention. The LPTU observes that under the new Act, whilst certain sections of the Act express that the norm for police officers cannot be longer than 40 hours per week (seven-day period), the section concerning overtime provides that, in certain circumstances, overtime work is compulsory. The LPTU states that the Act allows the Internal Affairs Office executive to require certain officers to work longer than the ILO norm. The LPTU observes that, under the new Act, the normal hours of work for certain workers will be 48 hours per week, as they will no longer receive overtime rate of pay for work carried out above 40 hours.

The Committee, in its direct request in 2003, requested the Government to indicate to what extent hours may be worked in excess of a 40-hour week as section 144(3) of the new Labour Code merely stipulates that the maximum working time, including overtime, must not exceed 48 hours per seven working days. The Committee noted that this provision could be used to arrange for a regular working time of up to 48 hours, which would run counter to the principle of the 40-hour week.

The Committee requests the Government to respond to these issues and generally on how the working-time provisions contained in the new Internal Services Act comply with the provisions contained in the present Convention both in law and in practice. It also requests the Government to provide information requested in its last direct request in the next report.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the new Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force on 1 January 2003, extends the possibilities to deviate from the 40-hour week, as laid down in section 144, paragraph 1, of the new Labour Code. The old Law on Labour Protection of 1993, in section 44, paragraph 4, allowed exemptions from the general principle of the 40-hour week only in exceptional and categorized cases, which needed to be approved by the Government. Now, the new Labour Code merely stipulates in section 144, paragraph 3, that maximum working time, including overtime, must not exceed 48 hours per seven working days. The Committee notes that this provision may be used to arrange for a regular weekly working time of up to 48 hours, which would not be in line with the 40-hour principle of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the extent to which hours may be worked in excess of the 40-hour week, either (i) on a regular basis for all workers, (ii) on a regular basis by certain categories of workers or for certain types of work, or (iii) as overtime, with particulars of the rate of pay for overtime.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's last report and the information provided in reply to its previous comments on the legislative provisions which give effect to Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the abuses which may result from the strict application of section 44 of the Labour Code. This section envisages the possibility of having recourse to an irregular arrangement of daily working hours calculated as an average on an annual basis in certain branches of activity which require the irregular arrangement of working hours due to the nature of the work or technical reasons and subject to an authorization by the labour inspectorate. This arrangement of working hours is only limited by the obligation to restrict weekly working hours to a maximum of 60 hours. On this point, the Committee recalls that, although Article 2(b) of the Convention does indeed provide for the possibility of having recourse to an irregular arrangement of normal working hours, the daily limit of the eight hours may not be exceeded by more than one hour. The Committee hopes that the Government will take into account the above comments in order to envisage the necessary change in the national legislation.

Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide, in so far as possible, the information requested under Parts III, V and VI of the report form, which are useful for it to assess the manner in which effect is given in practice to the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the information in the Government's report. It requests the Government to furnish further information on the following points:

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Do cases exist in which hours of work on one or more days of the week are less than eight and the limit of eight hours is exceeded on the remaining days of the week? Please indicate the pertinent legal provisions covering such workers.

Article 6. Please provide information concerning hours of work for workers whose work is essentially intermittent.

The Committee notes that the Government has no possibilities yet to give detailed information due to the lack of relevant labour statistics and because the state labour inspection has not yet been established. It hopes that the Government will be in a position to supply such information in its next report, in particular concerning the following points:

Part III of the report form. Please supply the information required under Article 7 (points (a) and (c)), as well as under Parts V and VI concerning practical application of the Convention.