Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Government wishes to recall that following previous comments made by the Committee of Experts, Act No. 18-372 of December 1984 was adopted with the aim of bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

It realises that despite this effort, the Committee considers that differences continue to exist between the law and the Convention.

The Government has taken note of these comments and is studying them with special interest. Unfortunately, the report containing them arrived at a time which did not permit a complete statement to be made as requested by the Committee of Experts to this session of the Conference.

In addition, a Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour of Chile, after stressing the efforts which his Government had made to co-operate with various ILO supervisory bodies, pointed out that in December 1984 Act No. 18,372 had been adopted, which provided for a maximum working week of 48 hours spread over not more than six nor less than five days, with a maximum working day of ten hours. This Act had been adopted for the express purpose of adapting national legislation to the requirements of ILO Conventions, especially Conventions Nos. 1 and 30. However, both the special committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution and the Committee of Experts had considered that, in spite of the amendment introduced by Act No. 18, 372, there were still divergencies between the provisions of the Convention and national legislation so far as the unequal distribution of the working day and of overtime were concerned. Those divergencies were being carefully studied by his Government, so that action could be taken on the comments made.

The Employers' members noted the consistent efforts made by the Government to co-operate with the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including the present Committee. In fact, it could be ascertained from the report of the Committee of Experts that the number of problems relating to Convention No. 1 had been reduced to some extent by the amendements to the national legislation. However, problems still remained in respect of Act No. 18,372 of 1984. The Employers' members expressed their concern over the maximum working hours and the uneven distribution of overall working time, which posed the danger that the daily limit of ten working hour would be exceeded. Similar problems arose with the question of overtime and the conditions in which overtime was permitted. In that respect the Convention called for a clearer set of regulations. The problems in question had arisen after the 1984 Act had come into force and involved highly technical issues. It was the Employers' members' understanding that the Government was prepared to remedy the situation along the lines suggested by the Committee of Experts and to bring its legislation fully into line with the Convention.

The Workers' members drew attention to two divergencies in Chile's implementation of Convention No. 1: first, the maximum working day in Chile was ten hours, instead of nine hours stipulated by the Convention; second, there were problems concerning the regulation of overtime. The Government had stated that its labour law gave precedence to the mutual will of the parties. Such mutual will might very well exist, but when too much flexibility was permitted, Convention No. 1 was not being fully observed. Regulations to govern exemptions to general rules were therefore required. The Workers' members trusted that the Government would take the necessary steps to give full effect to the Convention as soon as possible.

The Worker member of Chile stressed the great importance of this Convention, which limited the working week to 48 hours. In the context of the widespread unemployment caused by automation and population growth, it was highly desirable that the working week should be reduced further, rather than extended. The Government representative had referred to Act No. 18,372, and it had been stated that section 37 of Legislative Decree No. 2,200 stipulated that the maximum working hours should be ten per day. However, under the same provision the period could be extended to 12 hours a day in the case of intermittent work (that of waiters, nightwatchkeepers, etc.). Since that provision was open to abuse, the Chilean workers hoped that the Government would show its good faith by repealing it. The Committee of Experts was right to insist that the working day should not be more than nine hours, since Chile, under collective agreements, had a five-day working week, with a nine-and-a-half-hour working day. On that point too, the Government could show its good faith by resolving the problem once and for all, so that there would be no need for the Committee to consider Chile's implementation of this Convention again in the years to come.

The Government representative noted that, with the adoption of Act No. 18,372, the length of the comments made by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee with regard to his country's implementation of Conventions Nos. 1 and 30 had been substantially reduced. Only two problems remained with regard to Convention No. 1. The problem of the length of the working day arose only when working hours were distributed over five days, with the result that, with a 48-hour working week, the normal time worked per day could be 36 minutes longer than nine hours. In any case, it should be pointed out that the amendment had been adopted with the express intention of ensuring conformity with Conventions Nos. 1 and 30, in spite of opposition from certain sectors of the workers who preferred a system that enabled them to have more full rest days in exchange for longer working days.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. It observed that, while legislation had recently been amended with a view towards implementing the Convention, some remaining divergencies had been noted by the Committee of Experts and by the committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution concerning Chile's observance of the Convention. The Committee hoped that the Government would take further measures to ensure the full application of the convention in respect of the points raised and that in its next report it would be able to indicate the progress achieved.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

See under Convention No. 1, as follows:

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Government wishes to recall that following previous comments made by the Committee of Experts, Act No. 18-372 of December 1984 was adopted with the aim of bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

It realises that despite this effort, the Committee considers that differences continue to exist between the law and the Convention. The Government has taken note of these comments and is studying them with special interest. Unfortunately, the report containing them arrived at a time which did not permit a complete statement to be made as requested by the Committee of Experts to this session of the Conference.

In addition, a Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour of Chile, after stressing the efforts which his Government had made to co-operate with various ILO supervisory bodies, pointed out that in December 1984 Act No. 18,372 had been adopted, which provided for a maximum working week of 48 hours spread over not more than six nor less than five days, with a maximum working day of ten hours. This Act had been adopted for the express purpose of adapting national legislation to the requirements of ILO Conventions, especially Conventions Nos. 1 and 30. However, both the special committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution and the Committee of Experts had considered that, in spite of the amendment introduced by Act No. 18, 372, there were still divergencies between the provisions of the Convention and national legislation so far as the unequal distribution of the working day and of overtime were concerned. Those divergencies were being carefully studied by his Government, so that action could be taken on the comments made.

The Employers' members noted the consistent efforts made by the Government to co-operate with the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including the present Committee. In fact, it could be ascertained from the report of the Committee of Experts that the number of problems relating to Convention No. 1 had been reduced to some extent by the amendements to the national legislation. However, problems still remained in respect of Act No. 18,372 of 1984. The Employers' members expressed their concern over the maximum working hours and the uneven distribution of overall working time, which posed the danger that the daily limit of ten working hour would be exceeded. Similar problems arose with the question of overtime and the conditions in which overtime was permitted. In that respect the Convention called for a clearer set of regulations. The problems in question had arisen after the 1984 Act had come into force and involved highly technical issues. It was the Employers' members' understanding that the Government was prepared to remedy the situation along the lines suggested by the Committee of Experts and to bring its legislation fully into line with the Convention.

The Workers' members drew attention to two divergencies in Chile's implementation of Convention No. 1: first, the maximum working day in Chile was ten hours, instead of nine hours stipulated by the Convention; second, there were problems concerning the regulation of overtime. The Government had stated that its labour law gave precedence to the mutual will of the parties. Such mutual will might very well exist, but when too much flexibility was permitted, Convention No. 1 was not being fully observed. Regulations to govern exemptions to general rules were therefore required. The Workers' members trusted that the Government would take the necessary steps to give full effect to the Convention as soon as possible.

The Worker member of Chile stressed the great importance of this Convention, which limited the working week to 48 hours. In the context of the widespread unemployment caused by automation and population growth, it was highly desirable that the working week should be reduced further, rather than extended. The Government representative had referred to Act No. 18,372, and it had been stated that section 37 of Legislative Decree No. 2,200 stipulated that the maximum working hours should be ten per day. However, under the same provision the period could be extended to 12 hours a day in the case of intermittent work (that of waiters, nightwatchkeepers, etc.). Since that provision was open to abuse, the Chilean workers hoped that the Government would show its good faith by repealing it. The Committee of Experts was right to insist that the working day should not be more than nine hours, since Chile, under collective agreements, had a five-day working week, with a nine-and-a-half-hour working day. On that point too, the Government could show its good faith by resolving the problem once and for all, so that there would be no need for the Committee to consider Chile's implementation of this Convention again in the years to come.

The Government representative noted that, with the adoption of Act No. 18,372, the length of the comments made by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee with regard to his country's implementation of Conventions Nos. 1 and 30 had been substantially reduced. Only two problems remained with regard to Convention No. 1. The problem of the length of the working day arose only when working hours were distributed over five days, with the result that, with a 48-hour working week, the normal time worked per day could be 36 minutes longer than nine hours. In any case, it should be pointed out that the amendment had been adopted with the express intention of ensuring conformity with Conventions Nos. 1 and 30, in spite of opposition from certain sectors of the workers who preferred a system that enabled them to have more full rest days in exchange for longer working days.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. It observed that, while legislation had recently been amended with a view towards implementing the Convention, some remaining divergencies had been noted by the Committee of Experts and by the committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution concerning Chile's observance of the Convention. The Committee hoped that the Government would take further measures to ensure the full application of the convention in respect of the points raised and that in its next report it would be able to indicate the progress achieved.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

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

Legislation. The Committee notes with interest the reference by the Government in its report to the approval and entry into force of Act No. 21.561 of 26 April 2023, amending the Labour Code and reducing normal working hours from 45 to 40 a week, to be applied gradually, with working hours being reduced to 44 the first year, 42 the third year and 40 the fifth year, counting from the publication of the Act in the Official Journal. The Committee also notes that section 38(10) of the Labour Code, introduced by the 2023 amendment, provides that regulations issued by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, following a report by the Department of Labour, shall determine the limits and parameters governing the distribution of exceptional systems of hours of work and rest. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the adoption of these regulations.

Article 5 of Convention No. 1 and Article 6 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours over periods longer than a week. The Committee notes that section 22 bis, introduced by Act No. 21,561, of 26 April 2023, allows the calculation of the normal 40 hours of work over periods of up to four weeks, by agreement between the employer and the workers, and that normal hours of work may not exceed 45 hours in each week, and that this limit may not be maintained for more than two weeks continuously during the cycle. It also notes that, through collective bargaining or direct agreements with the unions, only covering their own members, the agreement may establish a weekly limit of up to 52 hours of work. The Committee notes that, in accordance with section 28, ordinary daily hours of work may in no case exceed ten hours a day.

The Committee recalls that the Conventions: (i) only allow the distribution of hours of work over periods in excess of a week in exceptional circumstances; and (ii) provide that the average hours of work during the specified period shall not exceed 48 hours a week. The Committee also recalls that Convention No. 1 requires such modifications in hours of work to be agreed between employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the hours of work envisaged in section 22bis of the Labour Code: (i) are only used in exceptional cases, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Convention No. 1 and Article 6 of Convention No. 30; and (ii) do not exceed on average 48 hours a week. It also requests information on the measures adopted to guarantee the participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in agreements introducing the averaging of hours of work for periods of over one week, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Convention No. 1.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

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

Articles 6(1)(b) and 2 of Convention No. 1 and Articles 7(2), (3) and (4) and 8 of Convention No. 30. Temporary exceptions. Circumstances, limits and compensation. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 31 and 32 of the Labour Code allow the performance of overtime hours in circumstances that go beyond those set out in the Conventions. In particular, these sections provide that, where there is a need to deal with a temporary requirement or situation in an enterprise, workers and their employer may agree on a maximum of two hours’ overtime a day to be performed in jobs which, by their nature, are not harmful to the health of the workers. The Committee recalls the importance of restricting recourse to exemptions from normal hours of work to cases of clear, well-defined and limited circumstances, such as accidents, actual or threatened, force majeure or urgent work to plant or machinery (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraph 119). The Committee also recalls that Convention No. 30 requires the determination of a reasonable limit for additional hours, not only in the day, but also in the year. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee that: (i) recourse to additional hours is restricted to clear and well-defined circumstances; and (ii) the maximum number of additional hours that may be authorized in a year is fixed.

The Committee also notes that the amendment to section 32 of the Labour Code, which will enter into force in April 2024, introduced by Act No. 21,561 of 26 April 2023, provides that the parties may agree in writing that additional hours shall be compensated by two additional days of holiday. In such a case, up to five additional working days of rest a year may be agreed, which must be used by the workers within six months following the period in which the overtime originated. The compensation of overtime hours by additional days of holiday shall be subject to the same higher rate as for their pay, that is each hour of overtime shall be compensated by one-and-a-half hours of holiday.

The Committee recalls the need to ensure, in all circumstance, the payment for additional hours at a rate of no less than one-and-a quarter times the regular rate, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Convention No. 1 and Article 7(4) of Convention No. 30, irrespective of any compensatory rest granted to the workers concerned.

The Committee considers that within the framework of the amendments introduced by Act No 21,561 of 2023, account could have been taken of the comments that it has been making for several years. Under these conditions, the Committee firmly hopes that all the necessary measures will be taken to bring the national legislation into conformity with these provisions of the Conventions. The Committee reminds the Government that, in this process, it may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office if it considers it necessary.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report that a bill amending the Labour Code, reducing working hours from 45 to 40 hours per week, is currently being considered. The Committee also notes that, according to the information available on the official website of the Senate of the Republic, the bill was introduced on 8 March 2017 and is currently going through its second constitutional reading, and on 19 October 2022, a new Labour and Social Welfare Committee preliminary report on the bill was unanimously adopted (Official Gazette No. 11179–13). In this regard, taking into consideration all of these elements and in order to enable it to carry out the analysis of the application of these Conventions with as much updated information as possible, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the stage reached in the adoption process of the aforementioned bill; (ii) the categories of workers concerned and the practice followed in cases in which sections 38 (exceptional systems for the distribution of hours of work and periods of rest authorized by the Director of Labour) and 39 (biweekly working hours) of the Labour Code (in particular, in relation to the mining sector) are applied; and (iii) any relevant legislative or other information relating to the application of the Conventions. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard, as necessary.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum daily hours of work. Further to its numerous previous comments, the Committee recalls that, under section 28 of the Labour Code, working hours can be set at ten hours a day, provided that they do not exceed 45 hours in a week. The Committee nevertheless wishes to recall that, in accordance with Article 2(b) of the Convention, in industrial undertakings, when the hours of work on one or more days of the week are less than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded but in no case shall the daily hours of work ever exceed nine hours in a day. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures, in the near future, to bring the national legislation into full conformity with Article 2(b) of the Convention.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments by the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) received on 22 May 2013 and forwarded to the Government on 8 October 2013. The CGT indicates that the draft Act of 7 January 2013 to adapt labour standards in the tourism sector, and which was approved on first reading by the Chamber of Deputies on 19 June 2013, is not in conformity with the standards on hours of work. The CGT indicates, in particular, that the right to an eight-hour working day and a 48-hour working week is not guaranteed to workers in the tourism sector and that some workers already work up to 60 hours in a week. According to the CGT, the draft Act would provide for a 13-hour working day and would have a serious impact on work–life balance. The CGT further states that the catering sector alone comprises 270,000 workers, 75 per cent of whom live far from their workplace. The Committee wishes to recall, however, that the Convention covers only industrial undertakings, while the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), does not apply, in accordance with Article 1(2)(b), to hotels, restaurants, boarding houses, clubs, cafes and other refreshment houses. The Committee nevertheless invites the Government to forward any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the CGT.

Article 6. Temporary exceptions. Additional hours. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 7(2) and (3) of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30).

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

Article 7(2) and (3) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions. Additional hours. The Committee recalls that, under sections 31 and 32 of the Labour Code, where there is a need to deal with temporary needs or situations prevailing in an enterprise, workers and their employer may agree on a maximum of two hours’ overtime per day to be performed in jobs which, by their nature, are not harmful to the health of workers. However, the Committee wishes to recall its previous comments in which it pointed out that Article 7(2) of the Convention only allows temporary exceptions to normal hours of work in specific cases, particularly those involving abnormal pressure of work. The Committee also recalls that the Convention calls for imposing a reasonable limit on overtime thus authorized, not only in the day but also in the year. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take the necessary steps in the very near future in order to bring the national legislation into full conformity with Article 7(2) and (3) of the Convention.

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

Article 5 of the Convention. Working hour limits – Exceptional cases. The Committee notes the adoption of resolution No. 1082 of 22 September 2005, which authorizes the introduction of an exceptional system for the distribution of working hours and rest periods for drivers and auxiliaries employed in intercity transport services and on railways. It notes that this resolution introduces three types of distribution: (i) seven consecutive days’ work followed by two days’ rest; (ii) nine consecutive days’ work followed by three days’ rest; and/or (iii) ten consecutive days’ work followed by four days’ rest. In this regard, the Committee recalls that under the Convention exceptions to the daily and weekly hours of work may only be granted in exceptional cases rendering the normal working hour limits inapplicable by means of an agreement between the workers’ and employers’ organizations (Article 5, paragraph 1) and provided that the average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, does not exceed 48 hours (Article 5, paragraph 2). The Committee notes that, although section 3 of the resolution mentioned above requires a prior agreement between the transport enterprise and its employees before a request for authorization may be examined, it does not contain a provision on the daily and weekly limits applicable in the context of this exceptional system. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide further information on this point and to indicate how it is ensured that the average number of hours worked per week does not exceed 48 hours.

With regard to Articles 2 (normal daily and weekly working hours), 5 (distribution of working hours over a period longer than one week) and 6 (permanent and temporary exceptions), the Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Convention No. 30.

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

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that industrial workers in the public sector, such as workers of the National Copper Corporation (CODELCO) and the National Oil Company (ENAP), are covered by the provisions of the Labour Code in the absence of specific statutes such as those established by Acts Nos 18.834 and 18.883 concerning administrative and municipal employees.

Article 7. Rosters. Further to its previous comment on this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of the notices and rosters currently used to make known to the workers of each enterprise the rest days and hours, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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, information concerning the number of workers covered by the legislation, extracts from the reports of the inspection services indicating the number of violations reported with regard to weekly rest and the sanctions imposed, copies of relevant collective agreements, 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.238/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 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application – Homeworkers and telework. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that workers who work at home or in a place chosen by them, as well as those who perform their work outside the enterprise and by IT means and telecommunication tools, continue to be excluded from the rules respecting the limitation of hours of work. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Convention envisages specific and limited possibilities for exemption, namely: (i) establishments in which only members of the employer’s family are employed; (ii) offices in which the staff is engaged in connection with the administration of public authority; (iii) persons occupying positions of management or employed in a confidential capacity; and (iv) travellers and representatives, in so far as they carry on their work outside the establishment. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the hours of work of homeworkers do not exceed eight in the day and 48 in the week.

Article 6. Working hour limits – Exceptional cases. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Directorate has determined a series of criteria through which any discretionary and arbitrary decision can be avoided when establishing exceptional systems for the distribution of hours of work and periods of rest under section 38(6) of the Labour Code. It also notes the indication that, even in exceptional cases, maximum weekly working time may not exceed 45 hours. In this respect, the Government refers to a form for applications to introduce an exceptional system. The Committee requests the Government to specify the criteria referred to above (and to indicate the law or regulation which provides that the limit of 45 hours in the week also applies to exceptional systems) and to provide a copy of the form for the application to introduce an exceptional system, which was not attached to the Government’s report.

Distribution of hours of work over a period longer than one week. Further to its previous comment concerning section 39 of the Labour Code respecting labour outside urban centres, the Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government that the fact that normal hours of work are spread over periods of two weeks without interruption is justified in particular in cases in which the distance between the usual place of residence and the place of work is so great that the ordinary system of distribution of hours of work is not applicable and the workers must necessarily spend the night at their workplace. The Committee recalls that the distribution of hours of work over a period in excess of one week can only be authorized by regulations made by the public authority and on condition that the average hours of work calculated over the number of weeks in consideration does not exceed 48 hours in the week. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention on this point.

Article 7. Temporary exceptions – Commercial employees. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Act No. 20.215 of 10 September 2007 which limits to nine days the period during which the normal hours of work of commercial employees may be extended before Christmas. However, the Committee is bound to recall that such exceptions require the adoption of regulations after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. These regulations must determine the number of additional hours of work which may be allowed not only in the day, but also in the year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Ministries and public services. In the absence of information on this subject, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide examples of cases in which the administrative authorities have made use of section 60 of Act No. 18.834 and to indicate the maximum number of additional hours that may have been determined in each case.

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 instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services indicating the number of violations reported in relation to hours of work and the sanctions applied, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, copies of relevant collective agreements, etc.

The Committee also notes that the Government has not provided any further information on the Bill to amend the Labour Code with a view to providing greater flexibility in relation to hours of work. It further notes that, among the many draft texts that are currently being adopted, there is a Bill to reduce the working week to 42 hours as from January 2009. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in this field and to provide a copy of any relevant text as soon as it is adopted.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum working day. The Committee notes with regret that the Government only provides very partial replies to the various points that have been raised for many years. Further to its previous comments concerning section 28 of the Labour Code, which sets a maximum working day of ten hours, the Committee regrets that the Government limits itself to indicating that, since it is a legislative matter, the competent authorities will be informed so that they take into consideration the amendment of the above section during future reforms of the labour legislation. The Committee expresses its firm hope that the comments that it has made on this matter will be taken into account promptly and requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this regard.

With regard to Article 6 (overtime in the case of temporary exceptions), the Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 7 of Convention No. 30.

Furthermore, the Committee addresses a request to the Government directly on other points.

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Temporary exceptions – additional hours. The Committee notes with regret that the issue of overtime hours and the harmonization of sections 31 and 32 of the Labour Code with the provisions of the Convention have been raised for many years without result. In its latest report, the Government indicates that there are no special circumstances which have resulted in the conclusion of agreements under the above sections. The Committee also notes that, although Act No. 19.759 of 27 September 2001 restricts recourse to overtime hours to responses to “a temporary need or situation prevailing in the enterprise”, section 31 of the Labour Code nevertheless still allows the parties to agree that overtime hours will be performed up to the limit of two hours in the day in jobs which, by their nature, are not harmful to the health of workers. The Committee recalls once again that Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention only allows temporary exceptions in specific cases, namely: (i) in case of accident, actual or threatened, force majeure or urgent work to machinery or plant, but only so far as may be necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the establishment; (ii) in order to prevent the loss of perishable goods or avoid endangering the technical results of the work; (iii) in order to allow for special work such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets, settlement days, liquidations, and the balancing and closing of accounts; and (iv) in order to enable establishments to deal with case of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances, insofar as the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures.

Moreover, with regard to collective agreements containing provisions respecting overtime hours, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been no change in the legislation in this field and that the limit of overtime hours is determined by day and not in the year, contrary to Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention which requires, in respect of temporary exceptions, that the number of additional hours of work which may be allowed to be determined in the day and in the year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide copies of collective agreements establishing systems of overtime hours.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. 1. Home work and telework. Section 22 of the Labour Code excludes from the rules on the limits on the hours of work, inter alia, workers who work at home or in a place chosen by themselves. Since the adoption of Act No. 19.759, workers who by preference perform their tasks outside the enterprise and make use of information technology or telecommunications equipment are also excluded. The Committee reminds the Government that the exceptions set out in Article 1 of the Convention are exhaustive and do not include these categories of workers. It requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to ensure that the hours of work of these workers do not exceed eight hours in the day and 48 hours in the week.

2. Part-time work. Furthermore, Act No. 19.759 introduced into the Labour Code rules on part-time work, defined in section 40bis as being work not exceeding two-thirds of normal working hours. Under the terms of section 40bis(C), the parties may agree on alternative schemes for the distribution of hours of work, between which the employer may then choose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the forms that may be taken by these schemes and on the measures adopted to ensure that they comply with the weekly and daily limits on normal hours of work.

Article 6. 1. Exceptional systems. The Director of the Labour Administration may, in specific cases and with the agreement of the workers concerned, establish exceptional systems for the distribution of hours of work and rest periods by means of a decision for which reasons are given and of which the validity may not be more than four years (section 38 of the Labour Code). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the daily and weekly limits applicable in the context of these exceptional systems. The Government is also requested to provide copies of any decisions of this type adopted by the Director of the Labour Administration.

2. Work outside urban centres. Under the terms of section 39 of the Labour Code, where work is performed outside urban centres, the parties may agree that the normal hours of work shall be arranged over periods of two weeks without interruption, provided that compensatory rest days are granted for any Sundays and national holidays that are worked. The Committee recalls that the exceptions allowed by Article 6 of the Convention are limited to exceptional cases in which the daily and weekly limits on working time are recognized as being inapplicable. However, this is not necessarily the case of work performed outside urban centres as workers may have access to means of transport. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to this provision and to specify whether the agreements referred to ensure compliance with the limit of 48 hours in the week for the average weekly hours of work.

Article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 8. 1. Commercial employees. The Committee notes that section 24 of the Labour Code authorizes the employer to extend the normal hours of work of commercial employees by up to two hours in the day during the periods immediately preceding Christmas, the national holiday and other official holidays. Under the terms of Article 7, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention, such exceptions require the adoption of regulations after consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned. These regulations have to determine the number of additional hours of work which may be allowed, not only in the day, but also in the year. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that additional hours by commercial employees are only authorized in compliance with the above conditions.

2. Ministries and public services. Act No. 18.834 issuing the administrative regulations establishes rules on hours of work for employees of ministries and public services who are being excluded from the scope of the Labour Code under section 1. Section 60 of the Act provides that authorities empowered to do so may require the performance of additional hours in cases where the work to be undertaken cannot be postponed. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of cases in which the administrative authorities have made use of this provision. The Government is also requested to indicate the maximum number of additional hours that may be imposed in each case.

Bill to amend the Labour Code. The Committee also notes that the Government has submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend the Labour Code with a view, inter alia, to provide greater flexibility in relation to hours of work. As indicated by the Government in Message No. 136-343, attached to its report, the Bill is designed to transfer areas of competence from the legislative authority to autonomous collective use. For example, an employer and a trade union could, subject to approval by the majority of the workers concerned, conclude an agreement for the monthly averaging of working hours, with a maximum of 186 hours of work in the month and the possibility to perform a maximum of 30 additional hours in the month. In this case, the maximum daily hours of work would be raised to 12 hours. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that such provisions could be contrary to the requirements of the Convention, and particularly Article 3. It requests the Government to provide all relevant information on the examination of this Bill by Parliament and the effects that its adoption could have on the application of the Convention.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Homeworkers. 1. Section 22 of the Labour Code excludes from the limit on working hours, among others, persons who work at home or in a place of their choice. The Committee reminds the Government that the exceptions allowed by Article 2 of the Convention are exhaustive and do not include these categories of workers. It requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to ensure that the working hours of these workers do not exceed eight hours a day and 48 hours a week.

2. Part-time work. Act No. 19.759 introduced into the Labour Code rules on part-time work, which is defined in section 40bis as work that does not exceed two-thirds of the normal working hours. However, section 40bis A provides that the normal working day of part-time workers shall not exceed ten hours. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with Article 2(b) of the Convention, which sets a limit of nine hours for the normal working day. Under section 40bis C, the parties may agree to alternative ways of distributing working hours, and the employer may then choose among them. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these various arrangements and on the measures taken to ensure that they comply with the daily and weekly limits on normal working hours.

Article 5. 1. Monthly accounting of working hours. Section 25 of the Labour Code provides for monthly accounting of the working hours of drivers and auxiliaries employed in inter-city transport services and on railways, the monthly hours of work being 180 hours. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that an agreement between workers’ and employers’ organizations is required in order to distribute working hours over a period longer than one week. It accordingly asks the Government to indicate whether an agreement has been concluded to count the working hours of the above categories of workers on a monthly basis.

2. Exceptional systems. The Director of Labour Administration may, in specific cases and with the agreement of the workers concerned, establish exceptional systems for the distribution of working hours and rest periods by a substantiated decision, the validity of which may not exceed four years (section 38 of the Labour Code). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the daily and weekly limits that apply in these exceptional systems. The Government is also requested to provide copies of any decisions of this kind adopted by the Director of Labour Administration.

3. Work outside urban centres. Pursuant to section 39 of the Labour Code, where work is carried on outside urban centres, the parties may agree to normal working hours being spread over uninterrupted two-week periods, provided that compensatory rest days are granted for Sundays and holidays that are worked. The Committee recalls that Article 5 of the Convention which enables modification to the daily limit of work over a longer period than one week, is limited to exceptional cases, in which it is recognized that such limits on working hours cannot be applied. The Committee considers that the fact that work is performed outside urban centres may not in itself amount to being an exceptional case within Article 5. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice and to specify whether the agreements referred to ensure compliance with the 48-hour limit on average weekly working time.

Article 6. Ministries and public services. Act No. 18.834 issuing the Administration Regulations sets rules on the hours of work of the staff of ministries and public services, the latter being excluded from the scope of the Labour Code by section 1 of the Code. Section 60 of the abovementioned Act provides that the competent authorities may require overtime to be performed where the tasks to be accomplished cannot be postponed. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of cases in which the administrative authorities have used this provision. The Government is also asked to indicate the maximum amount of overtime that may be required in each case.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government on average working hours. It nevertheless asks the Government to provide all relevant particulars as to the number of workers who are subject to unequal distribution of working hours over the week.

Bill to amend the Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government has submitted to Parliament a bill to amend the Labour Code, among other things to secure greater flexibility in working hours. As the Government indicates in Message No. 136-343, appended to its report, the bill aims to transfer authority from the law to collective agreements. Thus, an employer and a trade union could, with the agreement of the majority of the workers concerned, conclude an agreement to place working hours on a monthly basis, allowing normal monthly working time to amount to a maximum of 186 hours and monthly overtime to amount to a maximum of 30 hours. This would bring maximum daily working time up to 12 hours. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that such provisions could be contrary to the Convention, particularly Article 2. It requests the Government to provide all relevant information on Parliament’s examination of the bill and the implications that its adoption could have for the application of the Convention.

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

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Normal working hours. The Committee notes with interest that, following the adoption of Act No. 19.759 of 27 September 2001 amending the Labour Code, normal weekly working hours have been reduced from 48 to 45 with effect from 1 January 2005 (section 22, as amended, of the Labour Code). The Committee notes with regret, however, that the Government did not take the opportunity at the same time to amend section 28 of the Labour Code to bring it into line with Article 2(b) of the Convention. Although the normal working week of 45 hours amounts to nine hours a day for a working week of five days, where hours of work are unevenly distributed the nine-hour limit may be exceeded since section 28 sets a maximum working day of ten hours. The Committee is therefore bound to request once again the Government to take the necessary steps to prevent the daily limit of nine hours from being exceeded, in accordance with Article 2(b) of the Convention.

Article 6. 1. Overtime. Section 31 of the Labour Code still allows parties to agree to overtime of up to two hours a day in jobs which, by their nature, do not harm the health of the workers. Act No. 19.759 has placed a limit on the cases in which recourse to overtime is allowed (section 32, as amended). For overtime to be allowed, there must now be a "need or temporary situation prevailing in the enterprise". These terms are defined by section 4 of Circular 0332/0023 of 30 January 2002 as non-permanent circumstances in which the productive activity of the enterprise is carried out, which are the result of occasional occurrences or factors that cannot be avoided, and which generate excess work for a given period. The Committee requests the Government to provide more specific information on the circumstances in which such agreements may be concluded, given that Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention allows temporary exceptions to normal working hours only to enable enterprises to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work and on condition that the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures.

2. Renewal of collective agreements. Although agreements for the performance of overtime may not initially be for more than three months, they may be renewed, under section 32 of the Labour Code, where the circumstances that led to their need persist. The Labour Code establishes only a daily limit to authorized overtime. As already pointed out by the Committee, if not accompanied by a reasonable annual limit, a daily limit of two hours’ overtime could give rise to abuse. Consequently, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to establish in advance, the maximum amount of overtime that may be authorized per year. The Government is also asked to provide copies of collective agreements, if any, establishing overtime arrangements.

The Committee raises other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 7 of the Convention. 1. Additional hours. Section 31 of the Labour Code still allows the parties to agree that up to two additional hours in the day may be worked in jobs which by their nature do not harm the health of the worker. Act No. 19.759 of 27 September 2001, amending the Labour Code, restricted the cases in which recourse to additional hours is authorized (section 32, as amended, of the Labour Code). Henceforth, the performance of additional hours has to respond to a "need or temporary situation prevailing in the enterprise". These terms are defined in section 4 of Circular No. 0332/0023, of 30 January 2002, as non-permanent circumstances in which the production activities of the enterprise are carried on, arising out of occasional events or factors which cannot be avoided, and which result in a greater volume of work during a given period. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, with the exception of cases of force majeure or urgent work, as covered by section 29 of the Labour Code, Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention authorizes temporary exceptions in order to prevent the loss of perishable goods or avoid endangering the technical results of the work, to allow for special work or to enable establishments to deal with cases of abnormal pressure of work, in so far as the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the circumstances in which agreements may be concluded under sections 31 and 32 of the Labour Code.

2. Renewal of collective accords. Although accords for the performance of additional hours may not have an initial duration in excess of three months, they may be renewed insofar as the circumstances leading to their conclusion persist (section 32 of the Labour Code). The Labour Code only establishes a daily limit on the number of additional hours authorized. However, Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention requires that the number of additional hours of work allowed shall be determined not only in the day, but also in the year. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to determine in advance the maximum number of additional hours which may be allowed in the year. The Government is also asked to provide copies of any collective accords which establish a system of additional hours.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

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

The Committee notes the information provided with the last report and the Government’s reply to its previous comments. It further notes that Law No. 19759 of 27 September 2001 modifies the Labour Code and Law No. 1 of 31 July 2002 contains its consolidated version. The Committee asks the Government to supply further details on the following questions.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 1 of the Labour Code exempts the public service from its scope inasmuch as specific statutes cover it. It requests the Government to indicate the measures which ensure the application of the Convention to industrial workers in the public sector.

Article 7. The Committee notes the provisions made under sections 153-156 concerning the keeping of records and the posting of hours of work and weekly rest as a means of ensuring the proper administration of weekly rest. It requests the Government to supply specimen copies of notices and rosters specified in virtue of Article 7 of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. Please continue to supply, with future reports information on the working of inspection in respect of weekly rest, including, where appropriate, relevant extracts from inspection reports and statistics on the number and nature of any contraventions of the weekly rest provisions of the Labour Code.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) on the application of the Convention and the shortcomings noted in a tyre enterprise. The Committee also noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to its observations, in particular, on the nature of contraventions reported in this enterprise by the labour inspection and the penalties imposed. Finally, it notes the Government's indications in respect of the state of national legislation with regard to the possibility of establishing exceptions to the common regime of weekly rest.

Recalling that under Article 4 of the Convention, total or partial exceptions may be authorized only after consultation with the representative organizations of the employers and workers concerned, and that compensatory periods of rest for the suspensions on diminutions made must be established (Article 5), the Committee requests the Government to supply a list, in its subsequent reports, of the exceptions authorized as well as general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, specifying, for example, the number of workers protected by the legislation as well as the number and nature of contraventions reported, as required by Article 6 of the Convention and Part V of the report form.

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

The Committee notes the Government's last report on the application of the Convention and the information supplied in response to its observation of 1994. It notes with regret that, with regard to the application of Articles 2(b) and 6 of the Convention, on which the Committee has been commenting for very many years, the Government merely repeats the arguments put forward in its previous report.

The Government indicates that the distribution of weekly hours of work over five days, as provided in section 28 of the Labour Code, which means exceeding the daily maximum of nine hours allowed by Article 2(b) of the Convention, is justified because the worker is granted an additional day of rest. The Government emphasizes that such distribution is voluntary, exceptional and limited. The Committee wishes to recall that Article 2(b) was so drafted as to stress the need to protect workers by placing a limit on the number of hours that may be worked per day in excess of the daily limit in the event of unequal distribution of the working week. To that end, daily overtime is restricted to one hour. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any relevant information as regards the number of workers covered by this exceptional working-time arrangement.

Furthermore, the Government indicates that the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the Labour Code, which allow overtime of up to two hours per day in certain jobs, are adequately restricted by section 29, which lays down the exceptions which may be allowed to normal daily working hours. The Committee wishes to remind the Government, however, that reasonable limits to such exceptions need to be set. To allow two hours' overtime per day without establishing other safeguards, such as a monthly or annual limit, is contrary to the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention and the intent of the Conference, in that it could lead to abuses. Consequently, the Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this Article of the Convention is fully applied.

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

The Committee notes the Government's latest report and the information supplied therein in response to its previous observations.

With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee recalls that it has for some years noted that section 31 of the Labour Code, which makes general allowance for extending normal working hours by permitting the parties to an employment contract to agree to work two additional hours in the day in jobs which by their nature do not harm the health of the worker, violate the Convention, which specifies that exceptions to normal hours of work may only be made in the cases provided for in Article 7 of the Convention. It wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the limitation to hours of work determined by Article 3 of the Convention are restricting in character, notwithstanding the permanent or temporary exceptions specified by the Convention, and that they may not be altered by contractual changes, even where these are provided for by law.

The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

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

The Committee notes the detailed information and attached documentation provided in the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1994. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide further information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, in accordance with Part V of the report form. It requests the Government to supply in particular statistics on the number of workers affected when exceptions from the weekly rest provisions are made under section 38(2) of the 1994 version of the Labour Code for the copper mining industry.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the CODELCO-CHILE Workers' Union No. 7, El Teniente division, concerning the application of the Convention in the copper mines. In reply, the Government has referred to its report for the period ending 30 June 1990.

The Government has indicated in previous reports that, for technical and economic reasons, the work undertaken in the copper mines cannot be interrupted and is, therefore, excepted from the obligation to provide a weekly rest day on Sundays by virtue of section 37(2) of the Labour Code and point 2 of the Second Category set forth in Decree No. 101 of 16 January 1918. In its comments for 1989, the Committee had noted in this respect that, in the light of the information available to it, the application of the Convention had not been questioned.

The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, where such exceptions are permitted, section 37 of the Code calls for an equivalent period of compensatory rest to be granted. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice by providing, in accordance with Part V of the report form, statistics on the number of workers affected by the exception made for the copper mining industry and copies of the sections concerning weekly rest and any special rotation systems established which form part of the internal orders called for under sections 149 and 150 of the Code.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information supplied in answer to its previous comments, as well as the observations submitted by a trade union organization ("Sindicato de Trabajadores Num. 7, Division el Teniente, Codelco Chile") alleging non-observance of the Convention. It notes, however, that the Government does not add any new information relevant to the comments made by the Committee in its previous observations on the application of Articles 2(b) and 6 of the Convention, except for the indication that hours worked in excess of normal working hours are voluntary, exceptional and limited.

The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that: (i) the limit of nine hours of work per day prescribed by Article 2(b) of the Convention may not be exceeded; (ii) exceptions to normal working hours are only allowed in the cases provided for in the Convention and that the maximum number of additional hours that may be authorized is fixed in advance, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the information on the practical application of the Convention and would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide available information in answer to the request contained in Part VI of the report form.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information supplied in answer to its previous comments. It notes, however, that the Government provides no new information on the comments made by the Committee in its previous observations on the application of Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention, except to indicate that hours worked in excess of normal working hours are voluntary, exceptional and limited. The Committee pointed out that overtime worked by employees in commerce may be authorized only by regulations established after consultation with employers' and workers' organizations.

The Committtee must therefore recall that exceptions to normal working hours are allowed only in the cases provided for in Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention and that the maximum number of additional hours that may be allowed must be fixed on a daily basis with regard to permanent exceptions and on a yearly basis for temporary exceptions (Article 7, paragraph 3). Furthermore, these exceptions must be determined after consultation with employers' and workers' organizations (Article 8).

The Committee once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation fully into conformity with the Convention in respect of these points.

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

The Committee notes the Government's statement in reply to a comment from a trade union alleging that the Convention is not applied, to the effect that the dialogue on the application of the Convention is being pursued with the Committee of Experts. The Committee regrets to note, however, that the Government has provided neither a report nor a reply to its observation of 1990.

Article 2(b) of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee pointed out that the text of the new Labour Code of 1987 had not changed the situation on which it had been commenting for many years.

The Code establishes a working week of 48 hours (section 23) and an ordinary working day of a maximum of ten hours (section 27).

The Committee noted in this connection that the division of the working week into five working days of nine hours and 36 minutes is offset by an additional rest day. The Committee none the less considered that this was at variance with Article 2(b) of the Convention.

The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the daily limit of nine hours laid down in Article 2(b) of the Convention is not exceeded.

Article 6. The Committee pointed out that sections 30 and 31 of the Labour Code permit up to two hours overtime per day in certain jobs and that, under section 31(2), the hours worked in excess of the established working hours are considered as overtime, the employer alone being aware of them, and considered that these provisions were contrary to those of the Convention. Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention lays down that temporary exceptions to normal working hours may be permitted only to allow establishments to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work, and article 6(2) lays down that the maximum number of additional hours that may be authorized must be fixed in advance.

The Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary measures so as to permit exceptions to normal working hours only in the cases set out in the Convention and to fix in advance the maximum number of additional hours that may be authorized. It recalls that a limit of two additional hours per day without a reasonable annual limit could give rise to abuses and would be definitely contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was formulated.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the application of the Convention by supplying, for example, as provided for by Part VI of the report form, extracts of inspection reports, statistics or any other relevant information.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993].

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports, which were received by the Office on 16 January and 13 November 1989 and include replies to its previous comments. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary measures to amend section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 2200 of 1978 (as amended by Act No. 18018 of 1981 and by Act No. 18372 of 1984) so as to authorize overtime by workers in commerce only through regulations issued after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations. The Committee also referred to section 42 of Legislative Decree No. 2200 (as amended), which permitted the parties to agree to work two additional hours in the day in jobs which, by their nature, do not harm the health of the worker. Furthermore, by virtue of section 43(2) of the same Legislative Decree, working hours that exceed the normal working week, of which the employer is aware, were authorized as overtime hours, even in the absence of a written agreement. The Committee notes that the new Labour Code (Act No. 18-620 of 6 July 1987), section 454 of which repeals the above Legislative Decree No. 2200, does not change the previous situation. It is therefore bound to point out that exceptions to normal working hours are only permitted in the cases laid down in Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, and that the maximum number of additional hours of work which may be allowed must be determined in the day in respect of permanent exceptions and yearly as regards temporary exceptions (Article 7, paragraph 3). Furthermore, these exceptions must be determined after consultation with the workers' and employers' organizations concerned (Article 8). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention on these various points.

The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the comments made in February 1992 by the "Sindicato de Trabajadores Num 7, Division el Teniente, Codelco Chile", which contain a statement to the effect that the Government does not comply with its obligations under the Convention. It also notes that these comments were sent to the Government, in March 1992, in order that the Government may make such remarks as it deems appropriate. It therefore requests the Government to refer to these comments, as well as to reply to the 1990 Observation of the Committee, in its forthcoming report on the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee refers to its previous direct request. In two successive communications, the National Federation of Telephone and Telecommunication Workers' Unions, the Administrative and Specialised Workers' Union No. 9 of the Chilean Telephone Company and the National Telephone Union have submitted comments on the application of the Convention. These organisations referred in particular to the unilateral decision taken by the management of the Telephone Company of Chile to change the working hours of its commercial operations staff by increasing them to 50 hours and 15 minutes per week and alleged the violation of section 23 of the Labour Code, which sets the normal duration of a working week at 48 hours, and of Article 3 of the Convention which lays down that the hours of work of persons to whom this Convention applies shall not exceed 48 hours in the week.

These comments were transmitted to the Government by letters dated 6 and 20 December 1988. The Government gave its reply in a communication dated 21 March 1989. It states that in fact the working week for the workers concerned, which was originally 41 hours and 30 minutes distributed over five days, has been increased to 45 hours and 15 minutes distributed over six days, but that the five hours set aside for meals, which the trade union organisations consider to be a part of the working week (which would bring the working week up to 50 hours and 15 minutes), must not be counted in working hours, under section 33 of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes the Government's reply. It points out that Article 2 considers as hours of work "the time during which the persons employed are at the disposal of the employer; it does not include rest periods during which the persons employed are not at the disposal of the employer". It therefore appears to the Committee that, in this particular case, the working hours in the week, which were originally 41 hours and 30 minutes distributed over five days and which have been increased to 45 hours and 15 minutes distributed over six days, remain in conformity with Article 3, which sets the limit of working hours in the week at 48 hours.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report, including the replies to its previous comments. Following its examination of Act No. 18620 of 6 July 1987 respecting the Labour Code, which repeals the previous provisions on which its earlier comments had been based, the Committee notes that the divergencies that it had pointed out with certain provisions of the Convention persist in the new Labour Code.

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Section 39 of Legislative Decree No. 2200 of 1978 (as amended by Act No. 18018 of 10 August 1981 and Act No. 18372 of 12 December 1984), which limited the working week to five days (nine hours 30 minutes per day) and the working day to ten hours per day, while maintaining the working week at 48 hours, was considered to be contrary to this provision of the Convention, which sets the maximum limit of nine hours on the working day in public or private industrial undertakings. Section 27 of the new Labour Code contains identical provisions. The Committee notes that the division of the working week into five days, which results in working days of nine hours and 36 minutes, is recompensed by an additional weekly rest day. It also notes the Government's concern not to establish a difference in the legal treatment of industrial workers and those in commerce, for whom the working day may reach ten hours. However, the Committee considers that there remains a discrepancy with Article 2(b) of the Convention and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to prevent the working day exceeding by 30 minutes the nine hours admitted by this provision of the Convention.

Article 6. Section 42 of Legislative Decree No. 2200, which permitted the parties to agree that up to two additional hours daily could be worked in jobs which, by their nature, do not harm the health of the workers, and section 43(2), which authorised as overtime hours those hours worked in excess of the established working hours, with the employer only being aware of them, had been considered to be contrary to the provisions of this Article of the Convention. In fact, Article 6, paragraph 1(b) lays down that temporary exceptions to normal working hours may be permitted to allow establishments to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work, and Article 6, paragraph 2, lays down that the maximum of additional hours that may be authorised must be fixed in advance. The Committee here again notes that sections 30 and 31 of the new Labour Code allow these earlier discrepancies to persist. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to only permit exceptions to normal working hours in the cases set out in the Convention and to fix in advance the maximum number of additional hours that may be authorised. It points out that a limit of two additional hours per day without a reasonable annual limit could give rise to abuses and would be definitely contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was formulated.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take measures in the near future to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports, which were received by the Office on 16 January and 13 November 1989 and include replies to its previous comments.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary measures to amend section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 2200 of 1978 (as amended by Act No. 18018 of 1981 and by Act No. 18372 of 1984) so as to authorise overtime by workers in commerce only through regulations issued after consultation with the employers' and workers' organisations.

The Committee also referred to section 42 of Legislative Decree No. 2200 (as amended), which permitted the parties to agree to work two additional hours in the day in jobs which, by their nature, do not harm the health of the worker. Furthermore, by virtue of section 43(2) of the same Legislative Decree, working hours that exceed the normal working week, of which the employer is aware, were authorised as overtime hours, even in the absence of a written agreement.

The Committee notes that the new Labour Code (Act No. 18-620 of 6 July 1987), section 454 of which repeals the above Legislative Decree No. 2200, does not change the previous situation. It is therefore bound to point out that exceptions to normal working hours are only permitted in the cases laid down in Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, and that the maximum number of additional hours of work which may be allowed must be determined in the day in respect of permanent exceptions and yearly as regards temporary exceptions (Article 7, paragraph 3). Furthermore, these exceptions must be determined after consultation with the workers' and employers' organisations concerned (Article 8).

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention on these various points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the Confederation of Copper Workers concerning the application of the Convention and the comments forwarded by the Government on this subject. According to the Confederation, the management of the Codelco Salvador enterprise is strongly pressuring workers employed in the extraction of minerals to accept exceptions to rest-days on Sundays and public holidays, although such exceptions are only authorised in the cases listed restrictively in section 37 of the Labour Code (among which the work of extraction does not appear).

In its comments, the Government indicates that, after examining the situation, the Labour Directorate arrived at the conclusion that the observations submitted by the Confederation of Copper Workers were groundless. The workers in question are employed in work which, for technical and economic reasons, cannot be interrupted. They can therefore be excepted from the rest-day on Sundays and on public holidays, in accordance with the provisions of section 37(2) of the Labour Code and of point 2 of the IInd category under Decree No. 101 of 16 January 1918, issuing regulations respecting the rest-day on Sundays.

In the light of the information available to it, the Committee notes that the application of the Convention has not been questioned. It also points out that Article 4 of the Convention clearly establishes that the State may authorise total or partial exceptions to the principle of the weekly rest-day, provided that special regard is had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations.