Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

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 14 (weekly rest (industry)), 47 (40-hour week), 106 (weekly rest (commerce and offices)) and 132 (annual holidays with pay) together.

Weekly rest

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 and Article 8 of Convention No. 106. Special weekly rest schemes – Temporary exemptions – Compensatory rest. Further to its previous comments on sections 113 and 153 of the Labour Code allowing work to be performed on a weekly rest day in a wide range of circumstances without compensatory rest, the Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any relevant information on this issue. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that work on a weekly rest day is authorized only in limited and well-defined circumstances and that employees who may be required to perform work during their weekly rest day, either regularly or temporarily, enjoy a compensatory rest of a total duration of at least 24 hours, irrespective of any monetary compensation, as required by these Articles of the Conventions.

Hours of work

Article 1 of Convention No. 47. Forty-hour week. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that: (i) under section 99 of the Labour Code, overtime is allowed not only in the listed temporary and exceptional circumstances, but also in other non-specified situations with the employee’s written consent; and (ii) section 104 of the Labour Code allows for the averaging of working hours with a reference period of up to one year. The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that overtime is not a systematic practice, but it may occur occasionally in certain cases. The Committee observes that the above-mentioned provisions, which authorize additional hours in unprecise circumstances, as well as the calculation of hours of work as an average over a reference period of up to one year without stipulating absolute weekly limits in a concrete week, could possibly lead to unreasonably long working hours, in direct contradiction to the principle of progressive reduction of hours of work. In this respect, the Committee recalls that too many exceptions to normal hours of work can result in highly variable working hours over long periods, long working days and the absence of compensation (2018 General Survey on working-time instruments, paragraph 68). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the principle of a 40-hour week provided for by the Convention is fully applied both in law and in practice.

Annual leave with pay

Article 4 of Convention No. 132. Proportionate leave. The Committee notes that in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that sections 291 and 295 of the Labour Code allow proportionate leave at a rate of two working days per month of work for employees with contracts of up to two months and for those engaged in seasonal work. The Committee however observes that the labour legislation does not provide for the possibility of granting annual paid leave in proportion to the time worked by other employees whose length of service in the first year of employment is less than six months. The Committee recalls that according to Article 4 of the Convention, workers whose length of service in any year is less than that required for the full holidays with pay entitlement shall be entitled in respect of that year to a holiday with pay proportionate to their length of service during that year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. In reply to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s explanations that under certain conditions provided for under section 97 of the Labour Code, an employer may engage a worker for an overtime period beyond the statutory working time applicable to that worker under the Labour Code or under other Federal laws or collective agreements, arrangements, local regulations or an employment contract. In this respect, the Government indicates the conditions under which overtime may be required with the written consent of the worker and the circumstances where an employer may ask a worker to perform overtime without his/her consent. The Committee observes that the Government’s report essentially reproduces information provided in its previous report and does not indicate any new legislative or other measures that would further implement the Convention, in particular as regards overly long reference period of one year for the averaging of hours of work. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the negative effects that an excessive working day can have on the health of workers and on the balance between their private life and work. Furthermore, the implementation of such working time arrangements should be possible only in well-defined cases. In this regard, the Committee once again refers to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which mentions the possibility of calculating normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week “when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the daily hours of work and the reference period applied in the context of such arrangements.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Proportionate leave. The Committee notes that under section 122 of the Labour Code, during the first year of work, the employee acquires the right to annual paid leave after six months of continuous work for the employer, while leave for the second and subsequent years of work may be granted at any time of the working year in accordance with the priority of granting annual paid leave established in the enterprise. Noting that the Labour Code does not expressly provide for the right to paid leave pro rata to the length of service, the Committee requests the Government to specify how it is ensured in law and in practice that a person – whose length of service in the first year of employment is less than six months – is entitled in respect of that year to a holiday with pay proportionate to his/her length of service.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the statistical information provided in the Government’s first report according to which, during the first half of 2012, 8,644 inspections relating to work and rest practices were conducted and 36,410 violations were observed. The Government indicates that the most frequent offences in respect of annual paid holidays include granting holidays of a shorter duration than that specified by law, recalling workers from leave without their consent, or failing to pay monetary compensation for unused leave at the time of dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice including, for instance, the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation and the nature and extent of any problems encountered in the implementation of the Convention.

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions – Compensatory rest. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 8 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Article 8 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes – Temporary exemptions – Compensatory rest. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it drew the Government’s attention to section 113 of the Labour Code, which permits work to be performed on a weekly rest day not only in the exceptional cases provided for in the Convention (for example accident, abnormal pressure of work) but also in other undefined cases provided that the worker concerned consents in writing and the trade union concerned is consulted. In addition, the Committee observed that section 153 of the Labour Code, which provides that workers required to work on a weekly rest day are entitled to double pay and that they may be granted, if they so wish, a compensatory rest day without pay, is not consistent with the requirements of Article 8(3) of the Convention. As the Government’s report provides no new information on these points, the Committee is obliged to recall that the Convention seeks to ensure that work on a weekly rest day should be authorized only in limited and well-defined cases, and also that employees who may be required to perform work during their weekly rest day, either regularly or temporarily, must receive compensatory rest of a total duration of at least 24 hours (irrespective of any monetary compensation) considering that a minimum period of weekly rest is essential for the workers’ health and well-being. The Committee understands that the Labour Code of 2001 has been amended by several Acts up to May 2013. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether sections 113 and 153 of the Labour Code have been modified, and if not, to take appropriate steps so that the provisions of the Labour Code are fully aligned with the requirements of Article 8(1) and (3) of the Convention.

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

The Committee requests the Government to refer to its comments made under the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes that section 111(3) of the Labour Code provides that, in establishments where it is impossible to suspend work for reasons connected with production or on technical or organizational grounds, each group of employees shall have a different weekly rest day, in accordance with the internal regulations of the establishment concerned. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 7(4) of the Convention provides that any measures relating to the application of special weekly rest schemes, such as weekly rest on a rota basis, must be taken in consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned. In view of the fact that section 111(3) of the Labour Code only refers to the internal regulations of the establishment, the Committee requests the Government to supply further information on the steps taken to ensure the holding of consultations prescribed by the Convention.

Article 8, paragraph 1. Temporary exemptions. The Committee notes that section 113 of the Labour Code, which sets forth the circumstances in which it is permitted to employ workers during their weekly rest day, was amended in 2006 and 2008. However, it notes that this section still provides for the possibility for employees to work during their weekly rest day if they give their agreement in writing and if the trade union concerned has been consulted. The Committee emphasizes the importance of weekly rest for the protection of workers’ health and recalls that temporary exemptions in relation to normal rules may only be established in cases of accident, force majeure or urgent work, in the event of abnormal pressure of work, or in order to prevent the loss of perishable goods. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to limit the possibility of employing workers during their weekly rest day to the abovementioned cases.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that section 153 of the Labour Code provides for double pay for work done on a weekly rest day. It notes that workers may be given an additional rest day if they so wish but, if so, work done on the weekly rest day is paid at the normal rate and the rest day granted is unpaid. The Committee recalls that Article 8(3) of the Convention provides that compensatory rest of at least 24 consecutive hours shall be granted in any case when temporary exemptions apply, regardless of whether wages are paid at a higher rate. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend this provision of the Labour Code in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report to the effect that, during the first half of 2009, the labour inspection services carried out 6,130 inspections, during which 24,203 violations of the regulations concerning hours of work were reported. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from reports of the inspection services and, if possible, information on the number and nature of reported infringements of the legal provisions relating to weekly rest and any corrective measures taken in this regard.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of Regulation No. 16 of 25 June 1999 concerning hours of work and periods of rest for drivers and of Regulation No. 58 of 17 November 1997 concerning hours of work and periods of rest in communication enterprises, to which it refers in its report.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. In response to its previous comment concerning section 98 of the Labour Code which allowed an employer to employ a person under two different contracts to work beyond 40 hours in a week, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision has been repealed following the latest amendment of the Labour Code in 2006 (Federal Law No. 90-FZ of 30 June 2006).

In addition, the Committee notes that section 104 of the Labour Code permits the averaging of working hours over a reference period not exceeding one year. It also notes the Government’s explanations that averaging may be introduced by decision of the employer taking into account the opinion of the elected trade union organization, or without it, depending on the procedure established under the internal regulations of the enterprise. The Committee observes that such provisions call into question the object and purpose of the Convention inasmuch as recourse to long reference periods for the averaging of hours at the employer’s discretion may seriously reduce the application of the principle of the 40-hour week in practice. The Committee refers, in this connection, to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), designed to facilitate the implementation of the Convention, which provides that the calculation of normal hours of work as a an average over a period longer than one week should be permitted when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to further clarify the circumstances under which the averaging of working hours is permitted.

Moreover, the Committee notes that section 99 of the Labour Code permits an employer to request overtime work with the written consent of the worker and upon consideration of the opinion of the elected trade union of the enterprise in some unspecified cases other than emergencies and unforeseen circumstances. The Government explains in its report that the requirement for prior consultations is met if the employer informs in advance the workers’ representatives of the necessity and the volume of the overtime work in question. The Committee wishes to refer, in this respect, to Paragraph 14 of Recommendation No. 116, which envisages exceptions of three kinds (permanent, temporary, periodical) to the normal hours of work and provides that the competent authorities in each country should determine the circumstances and limits of such exceptions. The Committee further refers to paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time in which it noted that undue facilitation of overtime, for example, by not limiting the circumstances in which it may be permitted or by allowing relatively high maximums, could in the most egregious cases tend to defeat the Recommendation’s objective of a social standard of a 40-hour week and make irrelevant the provisions as to normal working hours. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the ILO Decent Work Country Report for the Russian Federation, published in 2008, 52 per cent of the employees in private enterprises performed overtime work in 2004, while in 2000 about 14 per cent of all workers worked more than the standard 40 hours per week. In the light of the above statistics and the relevant provisions of Recommendation No. 116, the Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed information on the conditions under which overtime is authorized. 

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

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

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:

Article 7, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to section 113, paragraph 4, of the 2001 Labour Code, employees can be involved in work on days off with their written consent, and considering the opinion of the elected trade union body of the given organization. It recalls that permanent special weekly rest schemes under Article 7 of the Convention are only permissible in exceptional circumstances and concerning specified categories of persons or specified types of establishments. Section 113, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code does not contain any such restrictions and thus appears not to be in compliance with Article 7.

Furthermore, temporary exemptions under Article 8 of the Convention, are only allowed under three enumerated conditions, namely: (a) in case of accident, force majeure or urgent work to premises and equipment; (b) in the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances; and (c) in order to prevent the loss of perishable goods. Section 113, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code does not contain any such restrictions and thus appears not to be in line with this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 113 of the Labour Code complies with these provisions of the Convention, and to keep the Office informed of all steps envisaged or taken to this end.

Moreover, section 113, paragraph 5, of the Labour Code stipulates that invalids and women having children under 3 years of age should be acquainted with their right to refuse to work on days off in written form. From the wording of this provision of the Labour Code, the Committee understands that other employees do not have the right to refuse to work on their day off. The Government is requested to clarify this provision and to indicate whether other employees do not have the right to refuse to work on their day off. However, Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention requires a compensatory rest period for temporary exemptions made from the weekly rest scheme. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how compliance with this provision is guaranteed, since section 113 of the Labour Code does not mention a compensatory rest period.

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

The Committee notes the adoption of the new Labour Code of 2002, which continues to give effect to the principle of the 40-hour week in its section 91. Under section 98, however, the new Labour Code allows work to be carried out beyond the set norm of 40 hours per week. Upon a request from an employee, an employer is permitted to allow an employee working on another labour agreement within the same organization on a different position, specialty or profession, to work beyond the normal length of working time (internal combination of jobs). Allowing employers to employ one person under two different contracts to work beyond 40 hours undermines the principle contained in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to review this provision to bring it in line with all other measures to facilitate the application of a 40-hour week.

It requests the Government to provide general information in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice and to communicate the information called for under Part V of the report form.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the present report have been communicated as required in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization.

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

See the comments under the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

The Committee notes the Labour Code of 31 December 2001.

Article 7, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention. According to section 113, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code, employees can be involved in work on days off with their written consent, and considering the opinion of the elected trade union body of the given organization. The Committee recalls that permanent special weekly rest schemes under Article 7 are only permissible in exceptional circumstances and concerning specified categories of persons or specified types of establishments. Section 113, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code does not contain any such restrictions and thus appears not to be in compliance with Article 7.

Furthermore, temporary exemptions under Article 8, are only allowed under three enumerated conditions, namely: (a) in case of accident, force majeure or urgent work to premises and equipment; (b) in the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances; and (c) in order to prevent the loss of perishable goods. Section 113, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code does not contain any such restrictions and thus appears not to be in line with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 113 of the Labour Code complies with these provisions of the Convention, and to inform the Committee of all steps envisaged or taken to this end.

Moreover, section 113, paragraph 5, of the Labour Code stipulates that invalids and women having children under 3 years of age should be acquainted with their right to refuse to work on days off in written form. From the wording of this provision of the Labour Code, the Committee would deduct that in reverse, this implies that other employees do not have the right to refuse to work on their day off. The Government is requested to clarify this provision and to indicate whether other employees do not have the right to refuse to work on their day off.

Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention requires a compensatory rest period for temporary exemptions made from the weekly rest scheme. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how compliance with this provision is guaranteed, since section 113 of the Labour Code does not mention a compensatory rest period.

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

The Committee notes the Government's last report, in which it states that national laws and regulations continue to give full effect to the Convention. It requests the Government to provide general information in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice and to communicate, in so far as possible, the information called for under Part V of the report form.