Holidays with Pay Convention, 1936 (No. 52) - 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 1 of the Convention. Scope of application – Homeworkers. Following up on its previous comment, the Committee understands that there are currently no legal provisions which would entitle homeworkers – who are excluded from the scope of application of the Labour Code – to the right to annual holidays with pay. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take steps to regulate the right to annual holidays with pay of homeworkers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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