Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

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 (industry)) and 30 (hours of work (commerce and offices)) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (CGT RA), received on 29 August 2025. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Legislative developments. Articles 2(b) and (c), 4 and 5 of Convention No. 1, Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14, and Articles 4 and 6 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours of work. Total or partial exceptions to the principle of weekly rest. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that section 197 bis of Act No. 20744/1976 on contracts of employment (LCT), added by section 79 of Decree No. 70/2023 on foundations for rebuilding the economy, provides that “collective agreements, respecting the minimum requirements of 12 hours of rest between working days, as well as the legal limits based on the nature of each activity, may establish arrangements that are adapted to changes in production methods and the specific conditions of each activity, taking into account, in particular, the benefit and interests of workers. To this end, overtime, time banking and compensatory time off may be collectively arranged.”

The Committee also notes that the CGT RA indicates in its observations that section 197 bis allows for the establishment of various arrangements on the legal working day, including periods of rest, which could jeopardize compliance with the legal minimums that guarantee workers’ basic rights.

The Committee notes that the Government reports that the National Labour Court of Appeal declared that sections 53 to 97 of Decree No. 70/2023 were unconstitutional and that a final ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice is pending.

In this regard, the Committee observes that section 197 bis of the LCT does not clearly define the circumstances in which variable distribution of hours of work is permitted, the reference periods or the exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, and that it only establishes a limit of 12 hours of rest between working days.

The Committee recalls that, in general, Conventions Nos 1 and 30 only authorize the calculation of hours of work over a reference period of one week, provided that the daily limit of nine and ten hours is not exceeded (Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1 and Article 4 of Convention No. 30), and that, in all other cases where the averaging of working hours over reference periods exceeding one week is exceptionally permitted, the circumstances must be clearly specified, in the following terms:

• where persons are employed in shifts 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 3 weeks or less does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1);
• in processes that, by their nature, must be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, the daily and weekly limits 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 of Convention No. 1); and
• in exceptional cases where the limits of 8 hours per day and 48 per week cannot be applied, agreements between workers’ and employers’ organizations may set a longer daily limit of work, provided that the average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, does not exceed 48 (Article 5 of Convention No. 1) and that hours of work in any day do not exceed 10 hours (Article 6 of Convention No. 30).

With regard to weekly rest, the Committee recalls that Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 provide that, in cases of total or partial exceptions to the principle of weekly rest of 24 hours, proper humanitarian and economic considerations must be taken into account and employers’ and workers’ organizations must be consulted in advance. They also establish that, as far as possible, compensatory periods of rest should be provided for the exceptions.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the CGT RA indicates that the Chamber of Deputies is currently analysing several bills that propose the creation of optional alternative workday arrangements, which would tailor the working day to the nature of each activity, allowing the elimination of the daily limit of eight hours.

The Committee requests the Government to report on any developments regarding the precautionary suspension of Decree No. 70/2023, which added section 197 bis to the LCT, in relation to hours of work and weekly rest. Moreover, while noting that, according to the CGT RA, several bills on working time are being analysed in Congress, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any amendment to labour legislation on hours of work and periods of rest takes into consideration the requirements established in these Articles of the Conventions.

Hours of work

Article 2 of Convention No. 1, and Article 3 of Convention No. 30. Daily and weekly limits on hours of work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the national legislation establishes an alternative limit on hours of work of 8 hours per day and 48 per week (section 1 of Act No. 11544 of 1929 on working days, section 1 of Decree S/N/1930 and Decree No. 16115/1933, which regulate Act No. 11544, and section 1 of Decree No. 562/1930, which regulates the work of personnel assigned to maritime, river and port services). The Committee also notes that the working hours of National Public Administration personnel must be between 120 and 180 hours per month, with a daily period of rest of 12 hours between working days (section 43 of Decree No. 214/2006 approving the general collective labour agreement for the National Public Administration). In this regard, the Committee observes that section 43 of Decree No. 214/2006 does not establish daily or weekly limits on hours of work. The Committee recalls that the Conventions provide for a double limit – daily and weekly – on hours of work and that this limit is cumulative, not alternative. In this context, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in law and in practice, that normal hours of work do not exceed 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week, both for workers in industry and for those in commerce and offices, including those in the National Public Administration.

Articles 2(b) and (c), 4 and 5 of Convention No. 1 and Articles 4 and 6 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours of work. With regard to its previous comments on section 198 of the LCT, the Committee notes that the section allows collective agreements to establish methods for calculating the maximum working day based on an average, based on the nature of the activity. In this regard, the Committee observes that the aforementioned section does not establish the specific circumstances in which the number of hours of work may be calculated on average, nor does it define the reference period for this calculation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the reference period over which the average number of hours of work are calculated under section 198 of the LCT and under what conditions calculations based on an average are permitted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the aforementioned section in practice.

Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1. Variable distribution of hours of work over periods exceeding one week. Employment in shifts. The Committee notes that section 3 of Act No. 11544 and section 10 of Decree S/N/1930 regulate the calculation of the average number of hours of work over a period of up to 3 weeks, with a limit of 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week on average. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 2(c) of Convention No. 1 requires in such cases that a double cumulative, not alternative, limit of 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week be respected. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, where persons are employed in shifts, the average number of hours over a period of up to 3 weeks does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week.

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the CGT RA indicates that: (i) there has been a gradual blurring of the principle of limited working hours as a result of flexible working arrangements, extended rotating shifts and unrecorded overtime, which has intensified in sectors such as logistics, urban transport, work in distribution centres, as well as in pseudo-monotax arrangements; (ii) in the context of teleworking and the platform economy, working hours are vague, long and unrecorded; and (iii) the recent initiative to amend the LCT by means of Decree No. 70/2023, which relaxes the provisions on working days, periods of rest and labour registration, represents a step backward in the effective implementation of Convention No. 1. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Weekly rest

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the CGT RA claims that, in certain sectors such as oil, transport and logistics, extended working hours and rotating shifts could effectively deprive workers of their weekly rest. In this regard, the CGT RA emphasizes the effects on the physical and mental health of workers who do not have access to weekly rest and indicates that it is necessary to strengthen labour inspection mechanisms in order to guarantee such rest as an essential component of decent work. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect, as well as information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office with respect to all the issues raised if it deems it necessary.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits on hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 3 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30).

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits of hours of work. The Committee notes the new comments made by the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA) in two separate communications, which were received on 29 and 30 August 2013 and transmitted to the Government on 23 and 26 September 2013. The CTA indicates that section 198 of Act 20.744 on labour contract (LCT), as amended by section 25 of Act 24.013, provides that limits to the normal daily working hours may be established, among others, through collective agreement and accordingly draws attention to the fact that, pursuant to section 198, various methods of calculation of working-time arrangements have been introduced for the sole purpose of getting round the daily or weekly limits on hours of work. As a result, the only limit that is complied with is the 12-hour rest between finishing work on one day and starting work on the next day. The CTA therefore considers that section 198 of the LCT should be amended in order to allow collective bargaining to establish limits on working hours only if such limits are more favourable than those prescribed by the law. Moreover, the CTA expresses the view that the Government should ratify the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106). The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in response to the latest observations of the CTA.

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 understands that legislative amendments to Act No. 20744 of 1976 on employment contracts, and particularly to sections 204 and 207 on exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, are currently under examination by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The proposed amendments seek to regulate more effectively exceptions to weekly rest and to reinforce the right to compensatory rest. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any legislative amendments which may concern the provisions of Act No. 20744 respecting weekly rest, or which could have an impact on the implementation of the Convention. The Committee also notes the comments of the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA), received on 30 August 2013, in which the CTA indicates that the Government should ratify the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits of hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to refer to its comments made under Articles 3 and 4 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30).

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

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits of hours of work. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to the comments made in 2011 by the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA) concerning alleged widespread working time irregularities in the commerce and road transport sectors. The Committee notes, in particular, the Government’s reference to Decree No. 16.115/33 implementing Act No. 11.544 which reflects the provisions of Article 2 of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), concerning the variable distribution of working hours within a week and the averaging of hours of work in the case of shift work. The Government further refers to section 197 of Act No. 20.744 on labour contract which requires a minimum rest period of 12 hours between two consecutive working days, thus implying that no worker may be employed for more than 12 hours per day. In this respect, the Committee wishes to point out that Conventions Nos 1 and 30 allow the limit of eight hours a day and 48 hours a week to be exceeded only in very limited and clearly defined circumstances. For instance, Convention No. 1 prescribes an overall daily work limit of nine hours in the case of variable distribution of working hours within a week while Convention No. 30 provides that the maximum hours of work in the week may be so arranged that hours of work in any day do not exceed ten hours. Therefore, the “compressed work-week” arrangements (i.e. four consecutive 12-hour workdays followed by three days off) referred to in the comments of the CTA would seem to be incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. As the Committee has concluded in paragraph 213 of its General Survey of 2005 on hours of work, “it appears that in many cases compressed work-weeks are likely to be in contravention of the requirements of Convention No. 1, Convention No. 30, or both, in particular due to the number of daily hours which are typically worked under these arrangements”. For example, compressed work-week arrangements, where work is performed by two teams in 12-hour shifts, would appear to be incompatible with the requirements of both Conventions Nos 1 and 30, because the daily work may exceed the nine-hour and ten-hour limits prescribed respectively. The Committee accordingly hopes that the Government will consider measures to ensure that working time arrangements fully comply with the limit set out in Article 4 of the Convention. In addition, the Committee would appreciate receiving additional information on the levels of over-employment (“sobreocupación horaria”) and any measures taken or envisaged for the protection of the workers concerned.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 2 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits of hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to refer to its comments made under Article 3 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 3 of the Convention. Daily and weekly limits of hours of work. The Committee notes the comments of the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA), which were received on 1 September 2011 and transmitted to the Government on 16 September 2011, concerning the application of this Convention and of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1). The CTA denounces the laxity and inefficiency of the system of labour inspection with respect to working time and indicates that in 2010 the proportion of workers who worked more than 8 hours a day exceeded 35 per cent. According to the CTA, the highest number of working time irregularities are recorded in the sectors of commerce (especially retail shops and supermarkets) and road transport but the system of control and supervision is deficient. Moreover, the CTA refers to section 1 of Act No. 11544 of 12 September 1929, which provides that the hours of work may not exceed eight in the day or 48 in the week, and considers that in its current wording (eight-hour day, or – instead of and – 48-hour week) it appears to authorize the so-called “compressed workweek” (i.e. four consecutive workdays of 12 hours followed by three days off). Furthermore, in the view of the CTA, shift work arrangements are known to be most harmful to the workers’ health and family life and are not consistent with either the letter or the spirit of Conventions Nos 1 and 30. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of CTA.

In addition, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the conclusions of the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Working Time Arrangements, held in October 2011, according to which the provisions of existing ILO standards relating to daily and weekly hours of work, weekly rest, paid annual leave, part-time and night work, remain relevant in the twenty-first century, and should be promoted in order to facilitate decent work. The Experts also emphasized the importance of working time, its regulation, and organization and management, to: (a) workers and their health and well-being, including opportunities for balancing working and non-work time; (b) the productivity and competitiveness of enterprises; and (c) effective responses to economic and labour market crises.

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

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. Hours of work in ports. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that port workers’ individual rights in respect of working time have been protected by the Office for the supervision of work in ports, at sea, on rivers and on lakes since it reopened in December 2005, in collaboration with the Occupational Risks Supervisory Authority (SRT). It also notes the information that properly registered collective agreements establish the system for calculating hours of work where they exceed eight hours a day. The Committee notes in this connection that the collective agreements on port work supplied by the Government – namely collective labour agreements No. 441/06 of 30 November 2005 and No. 457/06 of 8 August 2006 – provide for the possibility of extending the maximum daily hours of work by up to four hours and eight hours respectively. The Committee points out that the Convention allows the limit of eight hours a day and 48 hours a week to be exceeded only in very limited and clearly defined circumstances. In shift work in general, the Convention allows workers to exceed eight hours a day and 48 hours a week provided that the average hours of work calculated over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed eight per day and 48 per week (Article 2(c)); in the case of shift work in processes which are required to be carried on continuously (for example blast furnaces, refineries, chemical industry, cement industry, salt mines, etc.), the Convention allows these limits to be circumvented provided that the hours of work do not exceed 56 a week on average (Article 4). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that any authorization of overtime in the port sector complies fully with these requirements. It also asks the Government to indicate whether work in ports is treated as a process which is required to be carried on continuously within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention.

Part VI of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number of contraventions reported in respect of hours of work and the penalties imposed, extracts from reports on the work of the Office for the supervision of work in ports, at sea, on rivers and on lakes and of the SRT, copies of relevant collective agreement, etc.

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations regarding exceptions to the principle of weekly rest, to the effect that sections 3 and 5 of Act No. 18204 of 1969, read in conjunction with sections 203 and 204 of Act No. 20744 of 1976, authorize exceptions to the weekly rest of 33 hours (from 1 p.m. on Saturday to midnight on Sunday) only in the event of an accident, danger, force majeure and exceptional requirements of the national economy or the enterprise. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide details of the consultations held with employers’ and workers’ organizations on the abovementioned exceptions, the manner in which humanitarian, and not only economic, considerations were taken into account in this context, and of any compensatory rest due to persons called upon to work on a day of weekly rest. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate any new regulations issued under sections 3 or 5 of Act No. 18204 to establish exceptions to the principle of weekly rest and the arrangements for their application.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts of reports by the labour inspection services indicating the number and nature of contraventions reported and the penalties imposed, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, copies of collective agreements containing relevant clauses, etc.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because they continued to respond to current needs (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken or envisaged in this respect.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Working hours in ports. The Committee notes that section 17 of Decree No. 2284/91 of 31 October 1991 on the deregulation of the domestic trade in goods and services and foreign trade abolishes all restrictions on working hours and workdays concerning loading and unloading, and other tasks necessary for the uninterrupted operation of ports "without prejudice to the individual rights of the worker". The Committee requests the Government to indicate in what way, in the context of the application of this provision, the protection of the individual rights of port workers is ensured with regard to limits to the length of daily and weekly working hours.

Moreover, in its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the Superintendency of Work-related Risks (Superintendencia de Riesgos del Trabajo) was competent to deal with complaints relating to excessively long working hours. The Government is invited to provide information in this regard and, as appropriate, to supply copies of any texts governing the activities and competence of this body.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide general indications on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, in particular in the context of the ongoing serious economic crisis which has affected Argentina for the last few years. The Committee requests, for example, extracts from inspection services reports; statistical data on the number of workers covered by the legislation, if possible; the number and nature of contraventions reported; the exemptions authorized under the terms of section 4 of Act No. 11544 of 12 September 1929 on working hours, etc.

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

In its report, the Government refers to Act No. 18204 of 12 May 1969 to institute a uniform system of weekly rest to be observed throughout the Republic. The Committee asks the Government to indicate any regulations related to exceptions which under sections 3 and 5 of the Act may be made from the principle of weekly rest in the industrial sector.

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:

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the SOMU indicated previously that, by adopting Decree No. 845 under Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995, the Executive had vetoed section 3 of the Act providing for trade unions to be consulted in determining the non-availability of national labour. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is currently guaranteed in the establishments referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, and particularly in the ship-building sector. The Committee also refers to the comments it has made under Convention No. 98.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending June 1998 and the information provided in reply to its previous observation. With reference to the 1993 communication from the Congress of Argentine Workers (CAT) alleging that draft legislation provided for daily working hours which could reach a maximum of ten hours, the Government states that no draft legislation provides for changes in the current legal provisions concerning working hours contained in Act No. 11.544 and Decree No. 13.943/44.

Furthermore, the Government states that the National Directorate of Occupation Safety and Health, which forms part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, ceased its activities at the end of 1995 and that certain of its functions have been taken over by the Superintendency of Work-related Risks. This body has not registered the complaint which the Single Trade Union of Argentine Dock Workers (SUPA) submitted to the above National Directorate and which covered, among other matters, the fact that daily working hours in the port sector could sometimes exceed 12 continuous hours. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Superintendency of Work-related Risks is competent to deal with complaints of the nature of the one submitted in August 1995 by the SUPA to the General Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health and to supply any texts governing its activities and competence.

The Committee notes the information to the effect that the current working hours arrangements in the port sector are established by the Decree governing hours of work for loading operations in the Port of Buenos Aires (No. 6284 of 3 June 1960), which was extended to all national ports under the terms of Decree No. 3457 of 18 November 1966. It requests the Government to indicate the consequences on the above arrangements of the adoption of the Act respecting port activities (No. 24093 of 24 June 1992). Finally, it requests the Government to indicate whether effect is given to sections 17 and 18 of the Decree respecting the deregulation of the economy (No. 2364 of 31 October 1991) and, where appropriate, to indicate the impact of the implementation of the above provisions on working hours arrangements in the above sectors.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the SOMU indicated previously that, by adopting Decree No. 845 under Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995, the Executive had vetoed section 3 of the Act providing for trade unions to be consulted in determining the non-availability of national labour. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is currently guaranteed in the establishments referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, and particularly in the ship-building sector. The Committee also refers to the comments it has made under Convention No. 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) alleging that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1492/92 annulled almost all collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. The Committee notes that, in its reply to the comments of the SOMU, the Government refers to Act No. 24.493 of 31 May 1995 (promulgated on 22 June 1995), adopting various measures concerning "national labour". The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments, as well as the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU), received on 2 December 1994 and transmitted to the Government by a letter of 20 December 1994. The Committee observes that SOMU continues to allege that the adoption of Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 adversely affect workers in the maritime and related sectors. The Committee further notes that SOMU has recently informed the Office by correspondence dated 5 January 1995, that certain provisions of Decree No. 817/92 which effectively abolish the right to collectively bargain conditions of work, including the right to weekly rest, have been declared unconstitutional. In light of this information, the Committee refers to the previous observations made by SOMU in April 1993 and communicated to the Government for comment in May 1993, indicating that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. In reply to those observations, the Government states in its report for the period ending 30 June 1994, that the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, has in no way been affected.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would further elaborate, in its next report, how the annulment of collective agreements by virtue of Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 has not affected the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1. It also would appreciate comments, in particular, from the Government on SOMU's recent observations concerning the unconstitutionality of Decree No. 817/92.

The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.

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

1. In a direct request that it made in 1994, the Committee noted a communication from the Congress of Argentinian Workers (CTA) alleging that a draft text of the labour legislation envisaged that daily working hours could be extended to up to ten hours, while under Article 2 of the Convention, working hours shall not exceed eight in the day. The Committee requested the Government to make its own observations on this matter.

2. Furthermore, the Union of United Argentine Dockworkers (SUPA), in a communication dated 5 September 1995, refers to cases referred to the National Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health which, among other matters, raise the issue of working days that at times are longer than 12 continuous hours. In a letter dated 2 October 1995, the Office requested the Government to make its own comments which would be brought to the notice of the Committee.

3. The Committee trusts that the Government will refer, in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention, to the above issues and that it will provide the information required by the report form on the Convention, with an indication of the legislation respecting hours of work governing port activities and other sectors affected by sections 17 and 18 of Decree No. 2364/91 of 31 October 1991 respecting economic deregulation.

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

In its previous comments the Committee referred to the observations made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) alleging that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime-related sectors. SOMU had indicated that certain provisions of Decree No. 817/92 which effectively abolished the right to collectively bargain conditions of work, including the right to weekly rest, had been declared unconstitutional. The Committee notes that SOMU has submitted further observations in August and September 1995. It also notes that the Government, in a communication of July 1995, has indicated that comments by SOMU were being examined and that a response would be given in the near future.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the application of the Convention is assured in the establishments covered by Article 1 of the Convention and in particular in the shipbuilding industry. The Committee also refers to its comments under Convention No. 98.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period 1988-1992.

It also notes the communication from the Congress of Argentinian Workers (CTA) alleging that the draft text to reform the labour legislation envisages increasing daily working hours to ten. If that were the case, such a provision would be incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention, under which working hours shall not exceed eight in the day.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would make its own observations on this matter, as it was invited to do by the Office in a communication dated 29 June 1993.

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

1. The Committee notes the comments made by the Workers' Congress of Argentina (CTA) received by the Office in June 1993 and transmitted to the Government for its comments. The Committee further notes that no comments have been received from the Government in this regard. The CTA has indicated that draft labour legislation has been prepared by the Government to make weekly rest provisions more flexible, but that, in actual fact, the proposals lead to the loss of the right to weekly rest. The Government is requested to provide information, in its next report, on any measures taken which would affect the application of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes the comments made by the United Maritime Workers' Union (SOMU) received in April and communicated to the Government for comment in May 1993. The Committee further notes that no comments have been received from the Government in this regard. SOMU has indicated that Decrees Nos. 1772/91, 817/92 and 1493/92 have annulled almost all the collective agreements which had been in force in the maritime and related sectors. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, whether the annulment of collective agreements by virtue of the above-mentioned Decrees has affected in any way the application of the Convention to any of the undertakings listed in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention.