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

Previous comment on Convention No. 1: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 14: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 30: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 52: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 106: Direct request

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 1 (hours of work industry), 14 (weekly rest in industry), 30 (hours of rest in commerce and offices), 52 (holidays with pay), 101 (holidays with pay in agriculture) and 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) together.

A. Hours of work

Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 1 and Article 7(2) and (3) of Convention No. 30. Temporary exceptions. Limits on authorized overtime. The Committee notes the reference made by the Government in its report to the current legislation, indicating that it does not set a limit on the maximum number of overtime hours that may be authorized each year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Conventions, by providing for the annual limit of additional hours which is required to be set in relation to temporary exceptions in conformity with the provisions of Article 7(3) of Convention No. 30.

B. Weekly r est

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 and Article 7 of Convention No. 106. Special weekly rest schemes. Compensatory rest. While noting the lack of information in response to its previous request concerning continuous processes, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers who are asked to work on a weekly rest day receive compensatory rest of at least 24 hours.

C. Paid l eave

Article 1 of Convention No. 52. Scope of application – Homeworkers. In response to the Committee’s previous comment concerning the exclusion of homeworkers from the provisions on paid annual leave, the Government indicates that under article 61 of the Labour Code, duties and obligations may also be set out in the contract of employment. While noting, once again, the lack of legislative provisions in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee homeworkers’ right to paid annual leave.

Article 2(3) of Convention No. 52 and Article 5(d) of Convention No. 101. Exclusion of absence due to sickness from annual leave. While noting the lack of information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that interruptions of work due to illness are not included in the calculation of paid annual leave.

Article 2(4) of Convention No. 52 and Article 6 of Convention No. 101. Postponement of annual holidays. While noting the lack of information in this regard and recalling that only the fraction of paid leave exceeding the minimum period laid down in Convention No. 52 may be deferred, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring articles 223 and 224 of the Labour Code into conformity with Article 2(4) of the Convention.

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application – Homeworkers. Following up on its previous comment, the Committee understands that there are currently no legal provisions which would entitle homeworkers – who are excluded from the scope of application of the Labour Code – to the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take steps to regulate the right to annual holidays with pay of homeworkers.

Articles 2 and 4. Exclusion of absence due to sickness from annual leave – Postponement of annual holidays. The Committee recalls its previous comment, in which it noted the absence of express legal provisions to ensure (i) that no interruptions of attendance at work due to sickness may be included in the annual holiday with pay, and (ii) that only the part of the annual holiday exceeding the minimum provided for by the Convention (that is, six working days after one year of service) may be deferred. In the absence of any new information, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to bring the national legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in this regard.

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that any employer or enterprise wishing to obtain an exemption from the weekly rest provisions of the Labour Code, must request approval by the administrative labour authority and, in so doing, must explain its motives for the request. The Government further indicates that the special weekly rest schemes and temporary exceptions authorized under section 213 of the Labour Code are scarce and are limited to cases in which enterprises are facing important and significant time sensitive demands, that is seasonal shops during the new year, the beginning of the school year and special festivities. The Committee requests the Government to specify how weekly rest is regulated in the case of continuous processes, referred to in section 216 of the Labour Code, and in particular how it is ensured in law and in practice that workers to whom special weekly rest schemes apply do not have to work for unreasonably lengthy periods (for instance, for more than three weeks) without receiving the weekly rest days to which they are entitled.

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 7 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention. Limits of overtime work and overtime pay. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 7 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30).

In addition, the Committee notes the collective agreement concluded between ITAIPU, the bi-national entity that administers hydroelectric plants, and three trade unions, STEIBI, SICONAPS and SICHAP. It notes, in particular, that under sections 18(2) and 82 of that collective agreement, overtime hours of work may be compensated by extra time off instead of payment in cash. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that under Article 6(2) of the Convention, compensatory rest may not be an alternative to cash payment and overtime remuneration at least at 125 per cent of the ordinary wage rate must be paid in all cases. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any steps taken to ensure full conformity with this requirement of the Convention.

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

Article 7(2) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions – Limits on authorized overtime. The Committee notes that, under section 201 of the Labour Code, additional hours may not exceed three per day and the overall number of hours of work in the week may not exceed 57. It also notes that, under section 59(2) of Public Service Act No.1.626 of 27 December 2000, additional hours may not exceed three hours per day and eight hours per week. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that in the interest of preventing any possible abuse, the Convention requires the adoption of regulations – after consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned – which must set the limits to the total number of additional hours which may be allowed in the day but also in the year. As the Committee emphasized in its General Survey of 2005 on hours of work (paragraph 144), “even though the establishment of specific limits to the total number of additional hours is left to the competent authorities, this does not mean that such authorities have unlimited discretion in this regard. Taking into account the spirit of the Convention, it is appropriate to conclude that such limits must be “reasonable” and they must be prescribed in line with the general goal of the Convention, namely to establish the eight-hour day and 48-hour week as a legal standard of hours of work in order to provide protection against undue fatigue and to ensure reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life”. The Committee recalls that, at the time of the adoption of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), the limits considered to be permissible amounted to 150 hours a year in the case of temporary exceptions (abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances) and 60 hours a week in the case of permanent exceptions (work inherently intermittent or complementary). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how effect is given to this requirement of the Convention.

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

Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes and temporary exemptions. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee observes that the Government’s report does not contain any clarification regarding the matters raised in its previous direct request. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate more precisely the categories of establishments which may qualify for exemptions to the rules on weekly rest pursuant to sections 213 and 216 of the Labour Code. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether workers covered by a special weekly rest scheme under section 216 of the Labour Code are granted 24 consecutive hours of rest on another day of the week.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government, particularly with regard to inspections undertaken between 2007 and 2009. It requests the Government to continue to supply such information, including, if possible, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, reports from the inspection services, the number of reported infringements of the legislation relating to weekly rest, and any remedial action taken in this regard.

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

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. Hours of work. Public service. The Committee notes that section 59 of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that the normal working hours are 40 hours per week but that the extension of the normal working day aimed at increasing the duration of weekly rest does not constitute performance of additional hours. It notes that such extension is therefore not limited to three hours per day and eight hours per week as provided for by section 59(2) of this Act. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the duration of the normal working day and the extent to which it may be extended under section 59 mentioned above to enable workers to benefit from a longer weekly rest period.

Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, in its report under the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), the Government recalls that no regulations have been adopted to date on the basis of section 211 of the Labour Code and that, if need be, such regulations would be adopted after consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with the practice followed by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee wishes, however, to emphasize once again that section 212(1) of the former Labour Code of 1961 expressly provided that the adoption of special regulations for special work had to be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned and that this requirement has not been included in section 211 of the Labour Code of 1993. The Committee therefore repeats its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention concerning temporary exceptions to the normal rules on hours of work, particularly with regard to the obligation to hold prior consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government does not reply specifically to its previous comments concerning the maximum number of additional hours authorized. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether the limits established by section 201 of the Labour Code, namely up to three additional hours per day and a maximum of 57 hours per week in total, are general in scope and therefore also applicable in the context of the exceptions authorized under section 202 of the Labour Code, particularly paragraph (c).

Furthermore, the Committee understands that workers may agree to work additional hours in cases other than those set out in section 202 of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether that is indeed the case and, if so, to indicate whether checks are carried out by the national authorities with regard to the circumstances justifying the performance of additional hours. In this regard, it draws the Government’s attention to the fact that exceeding the ordinary limits concerning hours of work – eight hours per day and 48 hours per week – is authorized only in the cases specifically set out in the Convention, in particular: in case of a general interruption of work (Article 5); where exceptional circumstances justify the distribution of the hours of work over a period longer than the week (Article 6); in the context of permanent exceptions for intermittent, preparatory or complementary work, or in shops or other establishments where the nature of the work, the size of the population or the number of persons employed render inapplicable the working hours (Article 7(1)); or, in the context of temporary exceptions in case of accident, force majeure or urgent work, to prevent the loss of perishable goods or avoid endangering the technical results of the work, to allow for special work such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets, or, under certain conditions, to enable establishments to deal with cases of abnormal pressure of work (Article 7(2)).

In addition, the Committee notes that section 59(2) of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that additional hours may not exceed three hours per day and eight hours per week and must be authorized in writing. It requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances in which additional hours may be authorized under this provision, given that the restrictions imposed by the Convention in this regard, which are listed above, also apply to public sector employees.

Part IV of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes with interest the court decisions copies of which were attached to the Government’s report. It requests the Government to continue providing information on court decisions handed down which contain questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the complete text of Decision No. 27 of 31 March 1993, No. 35 of 26 May 1998, No. 20 of 22 April 1999, and No. 94 of 7 October 2001, extracts of which were reproduced in its report.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the outcome of an inspection relating, in particular, to hours of work. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistics on the number of workers in the commerce and offices sectors protected by the legislation relating to hours of work, as well as the number and nature of violations reported and the follow-up action.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest the conclusion, on 23 February 2009, of a tripartite agreement on a Decent Work Country Programme for Paraguay. It notes that this programme refers, in particular, to the improvement of the implementation of international labour standards in the light of the comments made by the supervisory bodies and to the need to train judges, inspectors and lawyers on this subject. The Committee also notes that, in this context, the national authorities have expressed their concern at the difficulties relating to the operation of the labour inspection system and have requested the support of the ILO in drawing up and implementing the necessary reforms to the national legislation. It hopes that the implementation of this programme, with technical assistance from the Office if necessary, will improve the application of the Convention in national law and practice.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Necessarily continuous processes. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that, under the terms of section 198 of the Labour Code, in the context of shift work or continuous processes, working hours may not exceed six in the day or 36 in the week. It requests the Government to provide further information on the rules applicable in relation to working time in hydroelectric power stations, to which it referred in its previous report.

Article 6, paragraphs 1(b) and 2. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, no regulations have been issued up to now under section 211 of the Labour Code. It also notes the Government’s indications that such regulations would be adopted after consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with the practice followed by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any regulations that may be issued in the future under section 211 of the Labour Code and on the outcome of any consultations held on this subject with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.

The Committee also notes that section 202 of the Labour Code sets out the cases in which a worker may be obliged to work overtime hours. It understands that workers may agree to do overtime in cases other than these, subject to compliance with the limits set out in section 201 of the Labour Code, namely three additional hours a day and a maximum of 57 hours of work in the week. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that this is indeed the case and, if so, to indicate whether there is supervision by the national authorities as to the circumstances justifying overtime work. In this respect, it draws the Government’s attention to the fact that hours of work in excess of the normal limits, namely eight hours in the day and 48 in the week, are only allowed in the specific cases explicitly envisaged by the Convention, and particularly in the case of continuous processes (Article 4), in exceptional cases when so justified (Article 5) and in the case of intermittent, preparatory or complementary work, as well as to allow establishments to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work (Article 6).

Part V of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes with interest the extracts from court decisions reproduced in the Government’s report. It requests the Government to attach the full text of these decisions to its next report. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of ruling No. 9, issued on 19 March 1997 by the labour appeal court, to which the Government refers in its report, but which was not attached thereto.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the outcome of an inspection during which a violation was noted of the provisions of the Labour Code respecting hours of work. It also notes the third report on the human rights situation in Paraguay, adopted in March 2001 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which notes violations of the legislation on hours of work, particularly in the transport sector. It understands that strikes have been organized in the public transport sector with a view, among other aims, to achieving compliance with the principle of the eight-hour day. The Committee further notes that in January 2009 a project on decent work in public transport was launched under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice and Labour. It notes that this project, the planned duration of which was two weeks, was aimed at reinforcing supervision of compliance with labour legislation, particularly with regard to daily hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved in the context of the project on decent work in public transport. The Government is also requested to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if such statistics are available, information concerning the number of workers in the industrial sector covered by the legislation respecting hours of work, and the number and nature of the contraventions reported and the measures adopted to resolve them.

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

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee notes section 213 of the Labour Code, under which all workers are entitled to a day of weekly rest, normally on Sunday. It also notes that as an exception a period of 24 consecutive hours of rest may be envisaged during the following week instead of Sunday rest in the following cases: (a) operations which cannot be interrupted, due to the needs that they meet, for reasons of a technical nature or in the case of grave risks threatening the general interest or the enterprise concerned; (b) repairs and cleaning of equipment, installations or industrial or commercial premises, considered to be indispensable so that the operations planned during the week are not interrupted; (c) where appropriate, work of evident and urgent necessity in view of an imminent risk of damage, accident, accidental cases, force majeure or any other temporary event to which it is necessary to respond without delay. The Committee further notes section 216 of the Labour Code, under which work that has to be performed on a continuous basis will be covered by regulations so that the workers benefit from the compulsory number of weekly rest days envisaged in the Labour Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that it has not availed itself of the possibility offered by Article 4 of the Convention to authorize exceptions to the normal weekly rest scheme. However, as it emphasized in its General Survey of 1964 on weekly rest in industry, commerce and offices (paragraph 109), one of the main features of special weekly rest schemes, as governed by Article 4 of the Convention, are that rest is taken on a day other than that prescribed by the normal scheme. In this respect, the Committee notes court ruling No. 144 of 4 October 2000, of which the Government quotes extracts in its report and which makes explicit reference to the Convention. It notes that the court emphasized in this ruling that the weekly rest normally coincides with a Sunday, but that the essential rule to be followed in this regard is the granting of 24 consecutive hours on each period of seven days and that, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to fix it on a working day of the following week. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 6 of the Convention, which provides that each State party to the Convention must draw up and communicate to the Office a list of the exceptions to weekly rest made under Article 4. It observes that the scope of the exceptions envisaged in sections 213 and 216 of the Labour Code may be vast. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate more precisely, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the categories of establishments which may benefit from exemptions from the weekly rest rules under the terms of sections 213 or 216 of the Labour Code.

The Committee further notes that the 1961 Labour Code contained, in section 217, a provision almost identical to section 216 of the current Labour Code. However, it observes that the previous section 217 included a second subsection envisaging that the parties should determine by common agreement the days on which workers could benefit from rest during the week in place of the compulsory rest day. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers covered by an exemption from the weekly rest scheme under section 216 of the Labour Code benefit from 24 consecutive hours of rest on another day of the week.

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the inspection report, a copy of which was attached to the Government’s report and which refers to the failure to comply in the enterprise that was inspected with certain provisions of the Labour Code, including those respecting the posting of hours of work and the keeping of a record of overtime hours. It also notes with interest that the Government includes in its report an extract from a court ruling containing issues of principle relating to the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Convention, including information on the outcome of labour inspection activities, and an indication of the number of infringements of the weekly rest legislation reported and the measures taken to bring them to an end.

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

Article 1, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention. Home work. The Committee notes that, under section 147 of the Labour Code, the provisions of that Code relating to annual holiday with pay are not applicable to homeworkers. It draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention only allows persons employed in undertakings or establishments where members of the employer’s family are employed to be exempt from the application of this Convention. However, although the definition of home work set out in section 137 of the Labour Code includes work carried out in family workshops, it is not limited to such work and also extends to any work carried out for other people at the worker’s home or in another place chosen by the worker, without the direct supervision of the employer or his representative. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether other legal provisions regulate the right to annual holiday with pay of homeworkers, who are covered by the Convention, and, if so, to provide a copy of any relevant texts.

Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 4. Postponement of annual holidays with pay. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government merely recalls that, under section 223 of the Labour Code, where holidays are granted after expiry of the normal time limit, the employer must pay the worker double salary for the holiday period and therefore the postponement of annual holiday with pay is rare. It recalls that, in its 2006 report, the Government recognized that the national legislation was not in compliance with the provisions of the Convention on this point and indicated that it would ensure appropriate follow-up of the Committee’s comment. While recalling once again that the Convention allows the postponement of the part of the holiday exceeding the minimum provided for by the Convention (namely six working days after one year of service), the Committee trusts that the Government will take the measures required without delay to amend the Labour Code in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2, paragraph 3(b). Exclusion of absence due to sickness from the annual holiday with pay. The Committee notes that no provisions of the Labour Code exclude interruptions of attendance at work due to sickness from the annual holiday, as required by this provision of the Convention. It recalls in this regard that Act No. 506 of 27 December 1974 had amended section 219 of the Labour Code of 1961, then applicable, by inserting a provision under which “absences from work due to sickness may never be deducted from the annual holiday with pay”. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the measures required to include in the Labour Code a provision similar to that included in section 219 of the Labour Code of 1961, as amended by Act No. 506 mentioned above.

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the extracts of court decisions on the application of the legal provisions relating to annual holiday with pay and the information on inspections in a supermarket, which the Government enclosed with its report. It requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of the Convention in practice, including, in particular, statistical data on the number of workers covered by the Labour Code and extracts from the reports of the labour inspection services indicating the number and type of violations reported relating to annual paid holidays and any measures taken in response.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has not replied to its previous comment concerning the decisions taken by the ILO Governing Body on the proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards. It recalls that the Governing Body considered that Convention No. 52 was outdated and invited the States parties to that Convention to examine the possibility of ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be fully up to date but remains relevant in certain respects (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 for persons employed in economic sectors other than agriculture by a State party to Convention No. 52 ipso jure involves the immediate denunciation of that Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision it might take in this regard.

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

Article 5(c) of the Convention. Proportionate holidays. The Committee notes that section 218 of the Labour Code establishes the right to annual holidays with pay, of a duration that varies according to the seniority of the worker, upon completion of a period of continuous service of one year with the same employer. It further notes that, under section 219 of the Labour Code, in the case of work that is not performed regularly throughout the year, the condition of continuous service is deemed to be met where, during the year, the employee has worked for at least 180 days. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, for other types of work, a worker whose period of service with the same employer is less than one year but more than a specified minimum period is entitled to proportionate holidays or payment in lieu thereof, as envisaged in this Article of the Convention. Where appropriate, the Government is asked to provide copies of the texts that are applicable.

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the documentation attached to the Government’s two last reports, and particularly the extracts from court rulings relating to the application of legal provisions respecting annual holidays with pay, the copy of an inspection report, the model register for annual holidays and the copy of the labour inspection manual. With regard to labour inspection activities and the violations of the legislation respecting holidays with pay that have been identified, the Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments that it is making under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

The Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, at the proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body considered that Convention No. 101 was outdated and invited the States parties to the Convention to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 132, which is not considered as being fully up to date but remains relevant in certain respects (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 for persons employed in agriculture by a State party to Convention No. 101 involves ipso jure the immediate denunciation of the latter Convention. The ratification of Convention No. 132 would appear particularly appropriate since the legislation of Paraguay respecting annual holidays with pay is clearly more favourable than the requirements of Convention No. 101, even though the level remains below that of Convention No. 132 (three weeks of holiday for each year of service) in the case workers who have not been in the employment of the enterprise for over five years. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision that may be taken with regard to the ratification of Convention No. 132.

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

Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes and temporary exceptions. The Committee notes section 213 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which all workers are entitled to a weekly rest day, normally on Sunday. It further notes that, as an exceptional measure, a period of
24 consecutive hours of rest may be granted during the following week instead of the Sunday rest day, in the following cases: (a) operations which cannot be interrupted in view of the needs to which they respond, for reasons of a technical nature or grave risks threatening the general interest or the enterprise concerned; (b) repairs and cleaning of equipment, installations or industrial or commercial premises considered indispensable so that the operations planned during the week are not interrupted; and (c) where appropriate, work that is clearly and urgently needed in view of an imminent risk of damage, accident, unforeseen circumstances, force majeure or any other temporary conditions to which a response is needed without delay. The Committee further notes section 216 of the Labour Code, under which work that has to be carried on continuously will be subject to regulations so that the workers can benefit from the number of compulsory weekly rest days envisaged in the Labour Code.

As the Committee emphasized in its General Survey of 1964 on weekly rest in industry, commerce and offices (paragraph 109), one of the features of special weekly rest schemes governed by Article 7 of the Convention is the granting of rest on a day other than that prescribed by the normal scheme. As the scope of the special weekly rest schemes and the temporary exceptions allowed by
sections 213 and 216 of the Labour Code may be vast, the Committee requests the Government to indicate more precisely the categories of establishments to which these provisions are applicable.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the 1961 Labour Code contained in section 217 a provision that is almost identical to that of section 216 in the current Labour Code. However, the former section 217 contained a second paragraph envisaging that the parties should determine by common agreement the days on which workers could benefit from rest during the week instead of the compulsory rest day. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Paragraph 3 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), under which special weekly rest schemes, such as those envisaged by section 216 of the Labour Code, should be established so as to ensure that persons to whom they apply do not work for more than three weeks without benefiting from the rest periods to which they are entitled. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers covered by a special weekly rest scheme under section 216 of the Labour Code benefit from 24 hours of rest on another day of the week.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that it does not currently have information on the application of the Convention in practice, nor on any relevant court rulings. The Committee requests the Government to make an effort to collect and transmit such information, including indications of the outcome of labour inspection activities showing the number of infringements of the legislation regarding weekly rest that have been identified and any measures taken in response.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Article 6, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention. Permanent exceptions. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report, section 211 of the Labour Code, addressed by the Committee in its previous comments, does not apply to preparatory or complementary or intermittent work but to essentially continuous work and special tasks which are not of a usual nature. Hence, the provisions of section 211 of the Labour Code are examined below in regard to the relevant Articles of the Convention.

Article 6, paragraphs 1(b) and 2. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that under section 211 of the Labour Code the administrative labour authorities may adopt special regulations regarding working hours for work of a special nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s report, this is not usual work and the regulations in question therefore make temporary exceptions, not permanent exceptions. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to comply with the requirements of Article 6, paragraphs 1(b) and 2, of the Convention for the application of temporary exceptions. These exceptions must endeavour to respond to exceptional pressure of work and shall be made after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned and shall fix the maximum of additional hours authorized in each case.

In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, up until the present, circumstances have not made it necessary to adopt regulations in application of section 211 of the Labour Code but that, where necessary, such regulations would be adopted in consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that, in contrast to section 212, paragraph 1, of the 1961 Labour Code, which it reproduces almost verbatim, section 211 of the 1993 Labour Code, currently in force, does not provide that the adoption of special regulations for special work must be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention governing temporary exceptions to the rules on hours of work and, in particular, those regarding compulsory prior consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, by virtue of section 201 of the Labour Code, when, owing to particular circumstances, hours of work have to be increased, the additional hours shall be counted as overtime in regard to payment and shall not in any case exceed three extra hours per day, or a total working week of 57 hours, subject to exceptions specifically laid down in the Labour Code. It also notes that, in accordance with section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code, the additional hours are specifically authorized temporarily to perform urgent work or to respond to exceptional pressure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the limit of 57 hours per week applies when additional hours are worked in application of section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure there is consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations prior to the application of such temporary exceptions, as set out in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Article 4. Work that is necessarily continuous. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the work that has to be performed continuously covered by section 211 of the Labour Code includes in particular the activities of hydroelectric companies which continue regardless of national legislation and in compliance with the standards laid down by the bi-national body (an entity under international public law) which administers dams and the agreements concluded between these entities and their workers. On this score, the Committee recalls that, under Article 1, paragraph 1(b), combined with Article 2, the Convention applies to all industrial, public or private establishments, of whatever nature, including industries responsible for the production of electricity. Any excess in the maximum working hours for work that is necessarily continuous in these enterprises must therefore be in conformity with the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. More specifically, when the work is performed by a succession of shifts, the working hours shall not exceed 56 in the week on average. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, specifically Article 4, in hydroelectric enterprises.

Part VI of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistical data on the number of workers protected by legislation, exceptions granted on the basis of section 202, paragraph (c), and section 211 of the Labour Code, the number and nature of contraventions, etc.

 

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Permanent exception. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report, section 211 of the Labour Code, addressed by the Committee in its previous comments, does not apply to preparatory or complementary or intermittent work but essentially to continuous work and specials tasks which are not of a usual nature. Hence, the provisions of section 211 of the Labour Code are examined below in regard to the relevant Articles of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, under section 211 of the Labour Code, the administrative labour authorities may adopt special regulations regarding hours of work for work of a special nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s report, this is not usual work and the regulations in question therefore make temporary exceptions, not permanent exceptions. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) and Article 8 of the Convention for the application of temporary exceptions. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the work of a special nature covered by section 211 of the Labour Code is work of the type listed in Article 7(2)(c) of the Convention, such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets or closing of accounts.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that regulations setting up temporary exceptions shall be made after consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, special regard being paid to collective agreements, if any, concluded between these organizations. On this score, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, up to the present, circumstances have not made it necessary to adopt regulations in application of section 211 of the Labour Code but that, in the event, such regulations would be adopted in consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes, however, that, in contrast to section 212, paragraph 1, of the 1961 Labour Code, which it reproduces almost verbatim, section 211 of the 1993 Labour Code, currently in force, does not provide that the adoption of special regulations for special work must be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention regulating temporary exceptions to the rules on hours of work and, in particular, those regarding compulsory prior consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, by virtue of section 201 of the Labour Code, when, owing to particular circumstances, hours of work have to be increased, the additional hours shall be counted as overtime in regard to payment and shall not in any case exceed three extra hours per day, or a weekly total of 57 hours, subject to exceptions specifically laid down in the Labour Code. It also notes that, in accordance with section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code, the additional hours are specifically authorized temporarily to perform urgent work or to respond to exceptional pressure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the limit of 57 hours per week applies when additional hours are worked in application of section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure there is consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations prior to the application of such temporary exceptions, and that collective agreements concluded between them are taken into account, as laid down in Article 8 of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistical data on the number of workers protected by legislation, exceptions granted on the basis of section 202, paragraph (c), and of section 211 of the Labour Code, the number and nature of contraventions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 4 of the Convention. Postponement of annual paid holiday. The Committee notes that, according to the indications supplied by the Government in its report, it is rare for holiday to be postponed at the worker’s request as allowed in section 224 of the Labour Code because, under section 223 of the Code, when holidays are granted after expiry of the normal time limit, the employer must pay the worker double salary for the holiday period. The Committee also notes that the Government itself recognizes that national legislation is not in compliance with the provisions of the Convention in regard to the possibilities for postponing the holiday, that it notes the Committee’s comment on the matter and will make appropriate follow-up. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will speedily take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not oppose the part of the holiday exceeding the minimum provided by the Convention (namely six working days after one year of service) being postponed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any future developments on this matter.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if such statistics are available, information concerning the number of workers (classified into adults and young persons under 16 years of age, including apprentices) covered by the relevant legislation, the number and nature of the contraventions reported, etc.

The Committee also takes this opportunity to recall that, on a proposal by the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body considered Convention No. 52 to be outmoded and requested States parties to that Convention to examine the possibility of ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be fully up to date but is relevant in certain regards (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 for persons employed in economic sectors other than agriculture by a State party to the Convention involves the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 52. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision taken on this matter.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that effect cannot be given to Article 6 of the Convention, in that the exceptions to normal working hours provided for in the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) in sections 202 and 203 are, by nature, unforeseeable and so cannot be determined in advance in regulations made by public authority. The Committee once again refers to section 211 of the Labour Code, which it addressed in its previous comments, and wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, in its view, the activities cited in this provision which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work may include the exceptions to normal working hours allowed for preparatory or complementary work or for workers whose work is intermittent. For these cases among others Article 6, paragraph 2, provides that regulations shall be made by public authority after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. In these circumstances, the Committee again recalls the need to provide, as section 211 of the Labour Code previously did, for the consultation of organizations of employers and workers. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to this end and to explain how effect is given to section 211 in practice taking account of the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that under section 224 of the Labour Code (promulgated by Act No. 213 of October 1993), holidays cannot be accumulated; nevertheless, at the worker's request they can be accumulated for two years provided that the firm's interests are not prejudiced. Under section 225, workers are entitled to a holiday period without a break except where the employer, for urgent reasons, can require them to return to work. In this case, the worker does not lose his entitlement to resume his holidays.

The Committee recalls that under the Convention every person to whom it applies shall be entitled to an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days (Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Convention) and that only the part of the holiday which exceeds this minimum may be postponed (Article 2(4)).

Furthermore, the Committee states that similar provisions in the former Labour Code of 1961 had already been amended by Act No. 506 of 1976 to harmonize them with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention enjoy an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that under section 224 of the Labour Code (promulgated by Act No. 213 of October 1993), holidays cannot be accumulated; nevertheless, at the worker's request they can be accumulated for two years provided that the firm's interests are not prejudiced. Under section 225, workers are entitled to a holiday period without a break except where the employer, for urgent reasons, can require them to return to work. In this case, the worker does not lose his entitlement to resume his holidays.

The Committee recalls that under the Convention every person to whom it applies shall be entitled to an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days (Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Convention) and that only the part of the holiday which exceeds this minimum may be postponed (Article 2(4)).

Furthermore, the Committee states that similar provisions in the former Labour Code of 1961 had already been amended by Act No. 506 of 1976 to harmonize them with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention enjoy an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information it contains in reply to its previous direct request, particularly regarding the normal hours of work for work of a continuous character. It also notes the statement that effect cannot be given to Article 6 of the Convention, in that the exceptions to normal working hours provided for in the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) in sections 202 and 203 are, by nature, unforeseeable and so cannot be determined in advance in regulations made by public authority. The Committee once again refers to section 211 of the Labour Code, which it addressed in its previous comments, and wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, in its view, the activities cited in this provision which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work may include the exceptions to normal working hours allowed for preparatory or complementary work or for workers whose work is intermittent. For these cases among others Article 6, paragraph 2, provides that regulations shall be made by public authority after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. In these circumstances, the Committee again recalls the need to provide, as section 211 of the Labour Code previously did, for the consultation of organizations of employers and workers. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to this end and to explain how effect is given to section 211 in practice taking account of the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

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

The Committee notes that under section 224 of the Labour Code (promulgated by Act No. 213 of October 1993), holidays cannot be accumulated; nevertheless, at the worker's request they can be accumulated for two years provided that the firm's interests are not prejudiced. Under section 225, workers are entitled to a holiday period without a break except where the employer, for urgent reasons, can require them to return to work. In this case, the worker does not lose his entitlement to resume his holidays.

The Committee recalls that under the Convention every person to whom it applies shall be entitled to an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days (Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Convention) and that only the part of the holiday which exceeds this minimum may be postponed (Article 2(4)).

Furthermore, the Committee states that similar provisions in the former Labour Code of 1961 had already been amended by Act No. 506 of 1976 to harmonize them with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention enjoy an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information it contains in reply to its previous direct request, particularly regarding the normal hours of work for work of a continuous character. It also notes the statement that effect cannot be given to Article 6 of the Convention, in that the exceptions to normal working hours provided for in the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) in sections 202 and 203 are, by nature, unforeseeable and so cannot be determined in advance in regulations made by public authority. The Committee once again refers to section 211 of the Labour Code, which it addressed in its previous comments, and wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, in its view, the activities cited in this provision which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work may include the exceptions to normal working hours allowed for preparatory or complementary work or for workers whose work is intermittent. For these cases among others Article 6, paragraph 2, provides that regulations shall be made by public authority after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. In these circumstances, the Committee again recalls the need to provide, as section 211 of the Labour Code previously did, for the consultation of organizations of employers and workers. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to this end and to explain how effect is given to section 211 in practice taking account of the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information it contains in reply to its previous direct request, particularly regarding the normal hours of work for work of a continuous character. It also notes the statement that effect cannot be given to Article 6 of the Convention, in that the exceptions to normal working hours provided for in the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) in sections 202 and 203 are, by nature, unforeseeable and so cannot be determined in advance in regulations made by public authority. The Committee once again refers to section 211 of the Labour Code, which it addressed in its previous comments, and wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, in its view, the activities cited in this provision which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work may include the exceptions to normal working hours allowed for preparatory or complementary work or for workers whose work is intermittent. For these cases among others Article 6, paragraph 2, provides that regulations shall be made by public authority after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. In these circumstances, the Committee again recalls the need to provide, as section 211 of the Labour Code previously did, for the consultation of organizations of employers and workers. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to this end and to explain how effect is given to section 211 in practice taking account of the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

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

The Committee notes that under section 224 of the Labour Code (promulgated by Act No. 213 of October 1993), holidays cannot be accumulated; nevertheless, at the worker's request they can be accumulated for two years provided that the firm's interests are not prejudiced. Under section 225, workers are entitled to a holiday period without a break except where the employer, for urgent reasons, can require them to return to work. In this case, the worker does not lose his entitlement to resume his holidays.

The Committee recalls that under the Convention every person to whom it applies shall be entitled to an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days (Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Convention) and that only the part of the holiday which exceeds this minimum may be postponed (Article 2(4)).

Furthermore, the Committee states that similar provisions in the former Labour Code of 1961 had already been amended by Act No. 506 of 1976 to harmonize them with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention enjoy an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its observation and to the new Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993). It would be grateful if the Government would supply additional information on the following points:

1. Please indicate whether continuous shift work (section 210 of the Labour Code) is subject to normal working hours (set out in section 194).

2. The Committee notes that section 211 of the new Labour Code no longer refers (as former section 212 did) to the consultation of the organizations of employers and workers for the adoption of regulations applicable to activities which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work. It recalls that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, regulations to determine permanent and temporary exceptions shall be made after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. Please indicate the manner in which effect is given to these provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that under section 224 of the Labour Code (promulgated by Act No. 213 of October 1993), holidays cannot be accumulated; nevertheless, at the worker's request they can be accumulated for two years provided that the firm's interests are not prejudiced. Under section 225, workers are entitled to a holiday period without a break except where the employer, for urgent reasons, can require them to return to work. In this case, the worker does not lose his entitlement to resume his holidays.

The Committee recalls that under the Convention every person to whom it applies shall be entitled to an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days (Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Convention) and that only the part of the holiday which exceeds this minimum may be postponed (Article 2(4)).

Furthermore, the Committee states that similar provisions in the former Labour Code of 1961 had already been amended by Act No. 506 of 1976 to harmonize them with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention enjoy an annual holiday with pay of at least six working days.

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

The Committee refers to its observation and to the new Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993). It would be grateful if the Government would supply additional information on the following points:

1. Please indicate whether continuous shift work (section 210 of the Labour Code) is subject to normal working hours (set out in section 194).

2. The Committee notes that section 211 of the new Labour Code no longer refers (as former section 212 did) to the consultation of the organizations of employers and workers for the adoption of regulations applicable to activities which have special characteristics or require the continuous performance of work. It recalls that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, regulations to determine permanent and temporary exceptions shall be made after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. Please indicate the manner in which effect is given to these provisions of the Convention.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the new Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) repeals section 205 of the former Labour Code which permitted the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours a day in the case of technical or specialized work.

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

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

See the comments under Convention No. 1 concerning the promulgation of the new Labour Code, No. 213 of 21 June 1993, as follows:

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the new Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) repeals section 205 of the former Labour Code which permitted the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours a day in the case of technical or specialized work.

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

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 according to which it intends to take account, in the preliminary draft of the new Labour Code, of the Committee's previous comments related to repealing section 205 of the current Labour Code. This section, in certain cases, permits the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours. The Committee points out that it has been commenting on this matter since 1969 and trusts that the Government will take these measures as soon as possible and that it will report any development to the ILO.

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

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government according to which it intends to take account, in the preliminary draft of the new Labour Code, of the Committee's previous comments related to repealing section 205 of the current Labour Code. This section, in certain cases, permits the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours.

The Committee points out that it has been commenting on this matter since 1969 and trusts that the Government will take these measures as soon as possible and that it will report any development to the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government according to which it intends to take account, in the preliminary draft of the new Labour Code, of the Committee's previous comments related to repealing section 205 of the current Labour Code. This section, in certain cases, permits the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours.

The Committee points out that it has been commenting on this matter since 1969 and trusts that the Government will take these measures as soon as possible and that it will report any development to the ILO.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government in its report that section 205 of the Labour Code, which permits the extension of the normal length of the working day to 12 hours in certain cases, has still not been repealed.

The Committee recalls that it has been making comments on this question since 1969, and notes that no progress has been made in spite of direct contacts in 1977 and 1981. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the measures necessary to assure that the national legislation is in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Convention.

The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.

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

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, as follows:

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government in its report that section 205 of the Labour Code, which permits the extension of the normal length of the working day to 12 hours in certain cases, has still not been repealed.

The Committee recalls that it has been making comments on this question since 1969, and notes that no progress has been made in spite of direct contacts in 1977 and 1981. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the measures necessary to assure that the national legislation is in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Convention.