Direct Request (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 1 (hours of work), 52 (holidays with pay) and 171 (night work) together.

A. Hours of work

Article 2 of Convention No. 1. Daily and weekly limits on the hours of work. Shift work. Transport sector. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 13(1) of the Working Time in Transport Act, shifts are fixed at 15 hours for employees in railway transport and at 13 hours for train drivers. The Committee also notes that 10 daily working hours are permitted under section 26(1) of the Working Time in Transport Act for drivers working in passenger transport. The Committee observes that the abovementioned Act does not seem to contain a clear weekly limit to working hours for employees in railway transport. The Committee also recalls that the Convention establishes a double cumulative limit on normal working hours of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week, and that where persons are employed in shifts it shall be permissible to employ them in excess of eight hours in any one day and 48 hours in any one week, if the average number of hours over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed eight per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c)).The Committee requests the Government to indicate in which manner it ensures that the requirements of the Convention concerning daily and weekly working hours are applied to railway transport employees, train drivers and passenger transport drivers.

B. Annual paid leave

Article 1 of Convention No. 52. Application of the Convention to the civil service and workers performing public functions. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 2 of the Labour Code, the provisions of the Labour Code apply to the civil service and to workers performing public functions only where it is specified by special regulation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the Convention applies to workers in the civil service and performing public functions, including by specifying whether those workers are covered by the provisions of the Labour Code.

Article 4. Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holidays with pay. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 116(3) of the Labour Code does not allow for cash compensation in lieu of holidays in situations other than the termination of employment. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

C. Night work

Article 2 of Convention No. 171. Application of the Convention to the civil service and workers performing public functions. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 2 of the Labour Code, the provisions of the Labour Code apply to the civil service and to workers performing public functions only where it is specified by special regulation. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the Convention is applied to workers in the civil service and performing public functions when they are considered night workers or when they perform night work, including by specifying whether those workers are covered by the Labour Code.

Article 6(2). Persons permanently unfit for night work. Following its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, that workers permanently unfit for night work, and whose transfer to a similar position for which they are fit proves impracticable, are entitled to receive the same benefits as any other worker, in line with the principle of non-discrimination set out in the Anti-discrimination Act (365/2004). In addition, the Government indicates that entitlement to unemployment benefit, sickness or disability benefit, is regulated by the Act on Social Insurance (461/2003) and is based on the payment of regular contributions to the system of social insurance, which ensures equal treatment between persons who have been found unfit for night work and other workers who are unable to work or to secure employment. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article 9. Social services. Following its previous comments on measures taken to give effect to Article 9, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the employers’ obligation to take measures related to occupational safety and health, as well as to Part Seven of the Labour Code on the provision of catering, living conditions and recreation for workers. The Government further indicates that the implementation of those rules is handled at the undertaking level, with each employer identifying how to implement those provisions according to their needs. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide informationon any developments regarding measures taken, in law or in practice, on the provision of appropriate social services to night workers.

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

Article 2(b) and (c), and Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Averaging schemes. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes that: (i) section 87(1) of the Labour Code allows employers and workers, or their representatives, to agree on schemes to distribute working time unevenly over periods of up to four months; (ii) under sections 87(2) and (4) of the Labour Code averaging schemes can be concluded by collective agreement or by agreement between the employers’ and workers’ representatives, for periods of up to 12 months and daily working hours under such schemes cannot be longer than 12 hours; (iii) under section 87a of the Labour Code, working time accounts can be established, which, in effect, allow for the averaging of working hours with an average of 48 hours per week over a period of 12 months; and (iv) section 88 of the Labour Code allows for flexible hours arrangements under which a daily work shift can last 12 hours. In this respect, the Committee observes that none of these provisions sets any precise circumstances under which resort to averaging of working hours is allowed. The Committee recalls that the averaging of hours of work in general is authorized in the Convention only over a reference period of one week, and provided that a daily limit of nine hours is required (Article 2(b)); and that in all the other cases in which the averaging of working hours is allowed over reference periods longer than a week, the circumstances are clearly specified, as follows:

• (i) in case of shift work, it shall be permissible to employ persons in excess of 8 hours in any one day and 48 hours in any one week, if the average number of hours over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c));
• (ii) in those processes which are required by reason of the nature of the process to be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, the daily and weekly limit of hours of work may be exceeded subject to the condition that the working hours shall not exceed 56 in the week on the average (Article 4); and
• (iii) in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the limits of 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week cannot be applied, agreements between workers’ and employers’ organizations may fix a longer daily limit of works, provided that the average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, shall not exceed 48 (Article 5).

The Committee also recalls that calculating hours of work as an average over a reference period of up to one year allows for too many exceptions to normal hours of work and 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). Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code into conformity with the requirements of the Convention for the categories of workers under its scope of application. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which those provisions of the Labour Code are applied in practice, including the categories of workers concerned and the number of daily and weekly hours effectively worked.

Articles 3 and 6. Temporary exceptions. 1. Limits to overtime. Following its previous comments on section 97(5) of the Labour Code, which allows overtime to be imposed for reasons of public interest, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that “public interest” is not used in the private sector as a justification to impose overtime and that the term is interpreted very narrowly.

In response to the Committee’s previous comments on section 97(10) of the Labour Code, which authorizes a maximum of 400 hours of overtime per calendar year, the Government indicates that only 150 hours of those overtime hours can be imposed by employers, pursuant to section 97(7) of the Labour Code and the remaining number of hours of overtime permitted per year would be at the initiative of the worker themselves. In this regard, the Committee recalls the impact that long hours of work can have on workers’ health and work–private life balance, and emphasize the fundamental importance of keeping the number of additional hours allowed within reasonable limits that take into account both the health and well-being of workers, and the employers’ productivity needs. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring section 97(10) of the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention for the categories of workers under its scope of application, in consultation with social partners. It also requests the Government to provide further information on the application in practice of the provisions on overtime to workers in the country.

2. Compensation for overtime. Following its previous comments on section 121(3) of the Labour Code, pursuant to which an employee may choose to receive time off in compensation for overtime hours, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision has not caused any issues in practice in the country, and that, on the contrary, compensatory leave ensures the regeneration of the workforce, which contributes to the safety and health protection of employees. The Committee nevertheless recalls that, as it has underlined in its 2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraph 158, it is important for additional hours to be in all cases remunerated and paid at a higher rate than normal hours, even in the cases where compensatory time off is granted. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring section 121(3) of the Labour Code into conformity with Article 6(2) of the Convention.

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

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holidays with pay. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that section 116(3) of the Labour Code (Act No. 311/2001 Coll.), as amended, permits cash compensation in lieu of holidays in cases other than the termination of employment, which is not in compliance with Article 4 of the Convention, under which any agreement to relinquish the right to annual holiday should be void. The Committee once again requests the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

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

Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Uneven distribution of hours of work over a period longer than a week – Temporary exceptions – Overtime. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the most recent amendments to the Labour Code, as approved by Act No. 361/2012 Coll., which took effect in January 2013. In this connection, the Committee notes that the amended section 97(10) no longer provides for a maximum limit of 550 hours per year of authorized overtime work for managers, which had been the subject of critical comments previously submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR).

The Committee notes, however, that section 97(10) of the Labour Code retains the overall maximum of 400 hours per year of authorized overtime. The Committee is therefore bound to express once again its concern that, in its current reading, there is nothing in the Labour Code to prevent the possibility of employees being asked to perform excessive overtime hours in certain periods of the year. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to reconsider the maximum number of authorized overtime, and the legal limitations regulating the use of overtime work, to ensure that they meet the general goal of the Convention which is to establish the eight-hour day and 48-hour week as a legal standard of hours of work.

In addition, the Committee notes that, under section 121(3) of the Labour Code, an employee may choose to receive time off in compensation of overtime hours worked and, in such a case, the employee will not be entitled to overtime pay. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that the Convention requires overtime to be financially compensated in all cases, and that therefore extra time off may not replace overtime pay. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring section 121 of the Labour Code in line with the requirements of the Convention in this respect.

Moreover, the Committee notes that section 97(5) of the Labour Code remains unchanged despite the Committee’s repeated requests that the Government amend this provision to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that, first, by authorizing employers to impose overtime work for reasons of “public interest”, this provision leaves room for much broader exceptions than the exceptional cases of pressure of work provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention. Secondly, by stipulating that the rest period between two periods of duty may not be reduced to less than eight hours, this provision makes it technically possible to have workdays of up to 16 hours. The Committee wishes to emphasize that working extremely long hours is contrary to the letter and the spirit of this Convention and represents a serious risk for the workers’ health. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to amend section 97(5) of the Labour Code at the next suitable occasion to bring it in line with the requirements of the Convention both as regards the conditions under which overtime may be authorized, and also with respect to the maximum number of overtime hours authorized per day.

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

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:

Repetition

Article 4 of the Convention. Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee notes with interest that section 116(3) of the Labour Code (Act No. 311/2001 Coll.), as amended, permits cash compensation in lieu of holidays in cases other than the termination of employment and thus appears to be inconsistent with the Convention to the extent that it might as a result waive the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring its legislation in line with the Convention on this point and to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

Article 7. Record keeping. The Committee notes that under section 130(5) of the Labour Code, an employer is obliged to issue a written statement for an employee containing information on the individual components of the wages. It also notes that according to a Government’s earlier report, these wage statements contain information on the days worked, the claims made for annual holidays, the dates of annual holidays taken and the holiday pay. The Government further adds that there exist standard forms for maintaining those wage records. The Committee would appreciate receiving copies of the standard wage statement forms currently in use.

Article 8. Sanctions. The Committee notes that under section 17(1) of Act No. 95/2000 Coll. on labour inspection, a fine of up to 1,000,000 Slovak crowns (no longer in use) is provided for non-observance of the labour legislation. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide up to date information on the nature and amount of penalties currently applicable, and transmit copies of any relevant legal text not previously communicated.

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

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Persons permanently unfit for night work. While noting the Government’s reference to sections 55(2)(e) and 64(1)(e) of the Labour Code, the Committee recalls that there appears to be no provision in national legislation giving effect to Article 6(2) of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that under the Convention, workers permanently unfit for night work, and whose transfer to a similar position for which they are fit proves impracticable, should be entitled to receive the same benefits as other workers who are unable to work or to secure employment (i.e. unemployment, sickness or disability benefits). In the absence of any new information in the Government’s report in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the action it intends to take in order to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 9. Appropriate social services. While noting the Government’s reiterated reference to sections 1(6) and 231(1) of the Labour Code, under which collective agreements may provide for more favourable working and employment conditions than those laid down in the labour legislation, the Committee wishes to recall that pursuant to Article 9 of the Convention, specific measures should be taken to provide night workers with appropriate social services. In this connection, it refers to Paragraphs 13–18 of the Night Work Recommendation, 1990 (No. 178), which suggest a number of specific measures for night workers in relation to the organization of social services, such as collective transport arrangements, suitably equipped resting facilities, provision of food and beverages, flexible hours for crèches, and adaptable cultural, sporting or recreational activities. While recalling that the Convention offers the possibility of progressive implementation of the specific measures required by the nature of night work (Article 3), the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that establishments provide night workers with appropriate social services, as envisaged by the Convention and the Recommendation, and to forward copies of relevant collective agreements or of any legislative or regulatory text pertaining to this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions – Overtime. The Committee notes the comments of the Trade Union Confederation of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) dated 26 August 2011 concerning the amendments to the Labour Code which were approved by Act No. 257 of 13 July 2011 and entered into force on 1 September 2011. The KOZ SR expresses its concern over section 97(10) of the Labour Code, as amended, which increases the maximum limit of authorized overtime work to 400 hours per year (550 hours for managers). According to the KOZ SR, this new provision allows for a broad and arbitrary interpretation of the concept of manager, conflicts with the requirement of reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and has adverse effects on employment.

In its reply, the Government argues, firstly, that under Article 2 of the Convention, managers are excluded from its scope and, therefore, the comments of the KOZ SR are without merit on this point. Secondly, as regards the maximum annual limit of 400 hours of overtime for employees, the Government states that this limit represents an average of approximately eight hours of overtime per week (i.e. 400 hours divided by 52 weeks) which, even if added to the statutory 40–hour week, still does not exceed the 48-hour weekly limit prescribed by the Convention. The Government adds that, pursuant to section 97(5) of the Labour Code, an employer may only require overtime in cases of temporary and urgent increases in work demand or when public interest is concerned.

While noting the Government’s explanations, the Committee observes that section 97(10) of the amended Labour Code does not require that the 400-hour annual limit of overtime be divided into 52 equal weekly periods and, therefore, there is nothing in the Code to prevent the possibility of employees being asked to perform excessive overtime hours in certain periods of the year. In this connection, the Committee is obliged to recall that the limits to overtime, while not specifically prescribed in the Convention, must be reasonable and must be in line with the general goal of the instruments to establish the eight-hour day and 48-hour week as a legal standard of hours of work. The Committee therefore concludes that section 97(10) of the Labour Code authorizes overtime within limits that go well beyond those contemplated in the Convention and potentially pose serious problems to workers’ health and well-being. In addition, the Committee notes that section 97(10) provides for overtime where the public interest would so require, which clearly leaves room for much broader exceptions than the exceptional cases of pressure of work provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to review the provisions of the Labour Code on overtime in order to ensure that they are in full conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to reply in detail to the other important points it has raised in a direct request, formulated in 2008, with regard to the application of Articles 5 (averaging of hours of work) and 6 (daily working time limit in case of overtime and overtime pay).

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

Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Persons permanently unfit for night work. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it requested the Government to indicate how it is ensured in law and practice that workers who are permanently unfit to work at night – but may not necessarily be unfit for day work – and whose transfer to an alternative position proves impracticable, enjoy the same benefits (for instance unemployment, sickness or disability benefits) as those day workers who are generally unfit for work. In its reply, the Government indicates that Act No.461/2003 Coll. on social insurance and Act No. 462/2003 Coll. on income replacement in temporary incapacity for work of the employee give effect to these requirements of the Convention. However, the Committee has been unable to identify in these instruments any provision(s) specifically regulating the situation set out in Article 6(2) of the Convention. It accordingly requests the Government to specify the legal provision(s), and transmit copy of any relevant text, providing for the special treatment of workers permanently unfit to work at night, as prescribed by this Article of the Convention.

Article 9. Social services. In reply to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 1(6) and 231(1) of the Labour Code which provide, in general terms, for the possibility of concluding collective agreements establishing more favourable working and employment conditions than those laid down in the general labour legislation. Noting that the provisions of the Convention may be implemented not only by laws and regulations but also by collective agreements (Article 11), and also recalling that the Convention allows for the progressive implementation of the specific measures required by the nature of night work (Article 3), the Committee requires the Government to provide more detailed information – including copies of relevant collective agreements – on the different measures, benefits or facilities designed to address the specific constraints on night workers (for instance, in terms of family life, quality of rest, transport, etc.).

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to supply all available information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers employed at night, the sectors of economic activity concerned, labour inspection results showing the number of infringements of the labour legislation in respect of night work, etc.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee notes with interest that section 116(3) of the Labour Code (Act No. 311/2001 Coll.), as amended, permits cash compensation in lieu of holidays in cases other than the termination of employment and thus appears to be inconsistent with the Convention to the extent that it might as a result waive the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring its legislation in line with the Convention on this point and to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

Article 7. Record-keeping. The Committee notes that under section 130(5) of the Labour Code, an employer is obliged to issue a written statement for an employee containing information on the individual components of the wages. It also notes that according to a Government’s earlier report, these wage statements contain information on the days worked, the claims made for annual holidays, the dates of annual holidays taken and the holiday pay. The Government further adds that there exist standard forms for maintaining those wage records. The Committee would appreciate receiving copies of the standard wage statement forms currently in use.

Article 8. Sanctions. The Committee notes that under section 17(1) of Act No. 95/2000 Coll. on labour inspection, a fine of up to 1,000,000 Slovak crowns (no longer in use) is provided for non-observance of the labour legislation. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide uptodate information on the nature and amount of penalties currently applicable, and transmit copies of any relevant legal text not previously communicated.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided since the date of the ratification of the Convention any general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice. It therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report all available information in this regard, including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, extracts from reports of the labour inspection services showing the number and nature of contraventions reported and sanctions imposed, copies of collective agreements containing clauses on annual leave, etc.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that Convention No. 52 should be classified as an outdated instrument and consequently States parties to this Convention should be invited to consider ratification of the more recent Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132) (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). The acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 in respect of employed persons in economic sectors other than agriculture by a State which is a party to Convention No. 52 involves the immediate denunciation of that instrument. The ratification of Convention No. 132 is all the more advisable as the legislation of Slovakia, which provides for annual paid leave of four weeks, appears to be in substantial conformity with the requirements of that instrument. The Committee therefore requests the Government to favourably consider the possibility of ratifying Convention No. 132, and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken or envisaged in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report merely provides a brief and partial reply to its previous comment. It is therefore bound to raise the following points concerning the application of the Convention. The comments below are based on the provisions of the Labour Code as last amended by the Act of 28 June 2007.

Article 5 of the Convention. Uneven distribution of hours of work over a period longer than a week. The Committee notes that, under section 85(9) of the Labour Code, average weekly working hours, including overtime, may not exceed 48 hours. It also notes that, under section 87(1) of the Code, if the nature of the work or the conditions in which it is performed do not enable an even distribution of hours of work during the week, an employer may distribute the working time unevenly with the agreement of the representatives of the staff or worker concerned. In this case, average hours of work over a period of no more than four months may not exceed normal working time, that is a maximum of 40 hours per week. The Committee further notes that, for seasonal work, section 87(2) of the Labour Code allows the reference period to be increased from four months to one year, with the agreement of the representatives of the staff, or the agreement of the worker concerned.

The Committee recalls that the averaging of working time is only authorized by the Convention – apart from the specific cases of shift work (Article 2(c)) and continuous processes (Article 4) – in exceptional cases where the normal limits of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week cannot be observed (Article 5). Even though seasonal work which is covered by section 87(2) of the Labour Code appears to come under exceptional cases within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, the establishment of a system for averaging hours of work must be covered by an agreement between employers’ and workers’ organizations, which must then be converted into regulations by the competent national authority. However, section 87 of the Labour Code allows such an arrangement of working time on the basis of a mere agreement between the employer, on the one hand, and the representatives of the staff in the enterprise or otherwise the worker concerned, on the other. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the averaging of working time in the context of seasonal work is only authorized if a collective agreement is concluded to this effect and converted into regulations by the competent national authority. Moreover, with regard to the general provisions of section 87(1) of the Labour Code, which authorize the uneven distribution of hours of work if the nature of the work or the conditions in which it is performed do not permit an even distribution during the week, the Committee considers that this formulation is too vague and is not limited to the exceptional cases provided for by Article 5 of the Convention. It requests the Government to amend section 87(1) of the Labour Code so as to restrict its scope to exceptional cases in which the normal limits of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week cannot be observed. Finally, the Committee notes that, in cases where working time is averaged on the basis of section 87(1) or (2) of the Labour Code, section 87(4) limits daily working time to 12 hours. In view of the significant impact that prolonged days of work may have on workers’ health, the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to lower this limit in the near future.

Article 6, paragraph 1(b). Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that section 97(5) of the Labour Code allows employers to impose overtime work in exceptional and urgent cases of pressure of work. It requests the Government to clarify whether overtime work is authorized in other circumstances, provided that the workers concerned give their consent.

Work stoppages for climatic reasons. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 97(4) of the Labour Code, hours of work performed to make up for hours lost for climatic reasons are not considered as overtime. Even though Convention No. 1 does not contain any provision expressly regulating exceptions of this type, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 5 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), the spirit of which should be respected in the context of the implementation of Convention No. 1. This provision states that any increase in hours of work to make up for hours of work lost because of a general interruption of work (for example, for climatic reasons) may not be authorized for more than 30 days per year and must be undertaken within a reasonable lapse of time. Moreover, in this case, the daily hours of work may not be extended by more than one hour or exceed a total of ten hours. The Committee requests the Government to regulate, in the light of Article 5 of Convention No. 30, the circumstances in which it is possible to oblige workers to make up for hours of work lost for climatic reasons.

Article 6, paragraph 2. Temporary exceptions – number of overtime hours authorized. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 97(5) of the Labour Code, the rest period between two periods of duty may not be reduced to less than eight hours in cases where overtime is worked. It notices with concern that daily working time may be increased to 16 hours on the basis of this provision. It notes the conclusions adopted by the European Committee of Social Rights in December 2007, which emphasized the fact that extremely long periods of working time, especially those amounting to as much as 16 hours in a single day, are deemed unreasonable and are therefore contrary to the [European Social] Charter. The Committee recalls that, even though the Convention leaves it the competent national authorities to determine the authorized number of overtime hours, this limit must remain reasonable. It shares the concern of the European Committee of Social Rights on this point and considers that the possibility of employing a worker for up to 16 hours per day poses serious problems as regards requirements for the protection of workers’ health, which are the essential foundation of the Convention. The Committee therefore asks the Government to amend section 97(5) of the Labour Code in order to impose a reasonable limit on the number of overtime hours authorized per day.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, under section 97(6) of the Labour Code, an employee may only work an average of no more than eight overtime hours per week for a maximum period of four months – or a maximum period of 12 months if an agreement in this respect has been concluded between the employer and the employees’ representatives. It further notes that section 97(7) limits the authorized amount of overtime in a calendar year to 150 hours, with the possibility of increasing this limit to 250 hours under section 97(10) if the employer, for significant reasons, concludes an agreement to this effect with the worker concerned. However, as the Committee emphasized in its General Survey of 2005 on hours of work (paragraph 144, footnote 89), it was concluded from the preparatory work for Convention No. 1 that the limits considered to be permissible amounted to 150 hours per year in the case of temporary exceptions or 100 hours per year for non-seasonal activities. Moreover, raising the limit on the number of overtime hours authorized (250 instead of 150 hours) on the basis of a mere agreement between the employer and the worker concerned might pave the way for cases of abuse. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to keep the number of overtime hours per year authorized by the Labour Code within reasonable limits.

The Committee further notes that section 97(8) of the Labour Code provides that additional hours which give rise to compensatory rest are not included in the limits laid down by the Code. However, it considers that such a provision could enable an employer to surreptitiously undertake an uneven distribution of working time without respecting the conditions of section 87 of the Code. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 97(8) of the Labour Code in order to ensure the inclusion of all overtime hours worked in the number of authorized overtime hours per year, whether or not they give rise to compensatory rest.

Articles 3 and 6, paragraph 2. Accidents, urgent work and force majeure. The Committee notes that sections 97(8)(a) and (b) of the Labour Code exclude from the limits on the authorized number of overtime hours those hours which are worked to carry out repairs or urgent work to prevent the risk of accident or major damage, or in exceptional circumstances involving a hazard to life, health or the risk of major damage. It also notes that these provisions provide for the adoption of special implementing regulations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether such regulations have been adopted and, if so, to send a copy.

Article 6, paragraph 2. Overtime pay. The Committee notes that section 121(1) of the Labour Code provides for a rate of pay for overtime hours which is at least 25 per cent higher than the regular rate. However, it notes that employees are not entitled to this higher rate in cases where overtime hours give rise to compensatory rest. The Committee considers that the compensation of overtime by periods of rest, which was already examined above with regard to the limits on the number of overtime hours, should not occur at the expense of the higher rate of pay prescribed by the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, under section 121(2) of the Labour Code, a collective agreement may provide that the pay levels for a specific category of workers will cover the possibility of working up to 150 additional hours per year. It notes that the abovementioned formulation is based on the amendment of this provision by the Act of 28 June 2007, which constitutes progress since it was possible for a prior arrangement to that effect to be laid down in a mere individual work agreement. However, the Committee expresses its concern at the possible abuses which might arise from establishing a lump sum for overtime pay. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure a separate payment, and at a rate at least 25 per cent higher than the regular rate, for overtime hours worked in the context of temporary exceptions, whether or not those hours give rise to compensatory rest.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to give a general description of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistics on the number or workers in the industry covered by the provisions of the Labour Code with respect to hours of work, the number and nature of infringements reported, and any corrective measures taken in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s first report and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 55(2)(e) and 64(1)(e) of the Labour Code concerning the transfer of an employee working at night to a different work if by virtue of a medical opinion he/she is considered unfit for night work, and the related measures of protection against unfair dismissal during the period of an employee’s temporary incapacity to perform night work. The Committee recalls, however, that the Convention requires, in addition to the above measures, that workers who are permanently unfit to work at night, but may not necessarily be unfit for day work, and whose transfer to an alternative position proves impracticable, should be entitled to the same benefits, for instance unemployment, sickness or disability benefits, as those day workers who are generally unfit for work. The Committee requests therefore the Government to provide further explanations and to specify the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of the Convention in this regard.

Article 9. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 98(6) of the Labour Code which requires employers to negotiate regularly the organization of night work with the employees’ representatives and to secure that protective and preventive services or facilities relating to safety and protection of health at work are at the disposal of night workers. It also notes that sections 151 and 152 of the Labour Code refer to social policy in general and provide for the employer’s obligation to establish, maintain and improve the level of social facilities, sanitation amenities, and catering services offered at the workplace. In this connection, the Committee recalls that by "social services" the Convention intends to cover a large variety of measures, including but not limited to the provision of food and beverages. It also ventures to draw the Government’s attention to paragraphs 13-18 of the Night Work Recommendation, 1990 (No. 178), which offer guidance as to other measures which might be considered appropriate for night workers, such as collective transport arrangements, suitably equipped resting facilities, flexible hours for crèches, and adaptable cultural, sporting or recreational activities. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate any specific social services for night workers as may be established by laws, regulations or collective agreements.

Part V of the report form. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide in its next report general indications regarding the practical application of the Convention, including for instance, available statistics on the number of male and female workers employed at night, the branches of economic activity and occupational categories concerned, copies of collective agreements providing for additional benefits or guarantees in respect of night workers, extracts from inspection reports or official studies on the extent and effects of night working in general, as well as any difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention.

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

The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the following point.

Article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention. According to sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 241/1993, certain public holidays are regarded as annual holidays. On the other hand, section 112(3) of the Labour Code (Act 311/2001, as amended by Act 165/2002), prohibits to count as annual holidays only public holidays falling on a day which otherwise would be a normal working day. The Committee points out that, according to Article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention, the prohibition to include any public and customary holidays, whether falling on usual working days or not, in the annual holidays with pay is absolute. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the public holidays provided for under Act No. 241/1993 are holidays to be granted in addition to the minimum annual holidays with pay (section 103(1) of the Labour Code). If so, please adjust the relevant legislation, or, if not, please indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full compliance with the Convention in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Labour Code (Act No. 311 of 2001), as amended up to November 2003.

According to section 87, paragraph 1, of the Labour Code, an employer may arrange working time unevenly for individual weeks, after negotiation with the employees’ representatives or agreement with the employee, if the nature of the work or operational conditions do not allow for working time to be distributed evenly over individual weeks, while weekly working time may be averaged for a period of up to four months. Furthermore, section 87, paragraph 2, permits an averaging of weekly working time for a period of up to one year if it concerns activities that require different work demands in the course of the year, and for specific organizational units or types of works. For these provisions, section 87, paragraph 4, sets a daily limit of 12 working hours.

The Convention provides for an averaging of working time in Articles 2(c), 4 and 5. Articles 2(c), and 4, concern only shift work, while section 87, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Labour Code is not restricted to shift work.

Article 5 of the Convention permits furthermore that in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied, but only in such cases, agreements between workers’ and employers’ organizations concerning the daily limit of work over a longer period of time may be given the force of regulations. The Committee has acknowledged that the spirit of this provision may be said to be respected where this method of calculation is formally authorized and where consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations are ensured in a general way (see General Survey of 1967, paragraph 154).

Section 87 of the Labour Code of 2001, however, provides no safeguard through the formal and obligatory recourse to consultations with employers’ and workers’ representatives. Section 87 allows for an uneven distribution of working hours with the mere agreement of the employee. The negotiations with the employees’ representative mentioned in section 87 of the Labour Code of 2001 are not obligatory.

The Committee wishes to stress that exceptions to the general working time of eight daily and 48 weekly working hours, as established in the Convention, should not, as a general rule, be left to the discretion of the individual employer, even with the agreement of the worker. Permanent and temporary exceptions to the general working time always require, besides the cases of accidents, urgent work or "force majeure" of Article 3 and the continuous processes of Article 4 of the Convention, workers’ participation, in order to safeguard workers’ interests and to ensure that daily or weekly limits of working hours do not jeopardize the health of the workers and leave sufficient room for their social activities.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the exceptions made under section 87, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Labour Code and to indicate how it ensures that all exceptions to the ordinary working hours, as enshrined in Article 2, are in line with the requirements of the Convention.