Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1) - Paraguay (Ratification: 1966)

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

Previous comment on Convention No. 1: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 14: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 30: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 52: Direct request

Previous comment on Convention No. 106: Direct request

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

A. Hours of work

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

B. Weekly r est

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

C. Paid l eave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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