Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106) - French Polynesia

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

Article 8(3) of the Convention. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that the provisions of Decision No. 91-9 AT of 17 January 1991, which has now been repealed, on which the Committee made its previous comments have been taken up in the 2011 Labour Code. The Committee notes that, under sections Lp. 3222-18 and Lp. 3222-20 of the Labour Code, industries processing perishable goods, or that have to respond at certain times to an exceptional increase in workload, can derogate from the normal weekly rest schedule, and that the hours worked on the weekly rest day are considered as overtime. However, the Committee notes that no legal provision appears to grant compensatory rest in such cases. The Committee recalls in this regard that the Convention requires the granting of compensatory rest where exemptions are made to the normal weekly rest schedule. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compensatory rest is granted in all cases of temporary exemptions from weekly rest, as required by Article 8(3) of the Convention, irrespective of any additional remuneration which may be offered.

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation about the needs and reasons of general interest that justify the exemptions from the principle of Sunday rest authorized for laboratories of analysis and medical and health biology and for security and surveillance companies. The Committee also notes the information that five collective labour agreements – including those of the commerce, press, catering and automotive sectors – contain an agreement on arrangements for the organization of work including Sunday.

The Committee is bound to recall that the Convention allows for special schemes to be established only when the normal scheme of weekly rest proves impracticable owing to the nature of the work or the service, the size of the population to be served or the number of persons employed. It points out that these conditions are clearly not met in the case of certain very broad permanent exemptions set forth in Decision 2002-101 APF of 1 August 2002, for example the exemption of “enterprises in the commercial sector” in general. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which social as well as economic considerations were taken into account in establishing the permanent exemptions mentioned above. It also asks the Government to provide copies of the collective labour agreements mentioned in its report.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistical information sent by the Government showing that in 2006–07, the labour inspectorate issued 196 observations on weekly rest – out of a total of 4,331, i.e. 2.05 per cent of all observations – involving no infringements. The Government adds that in view of the fact that so few observations concern observance of the rules on weekly rest and that there are no reports of contraventions, in French Polynesia there is no serious difficulty in applying weekly rest. The Committee requests the Government to continue 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 of infringements and the penalties imposed, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, copies of relevant collective agreements, etc.

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

The Committee notes that Decision (délibération) No. 2002-101 AFP of 1 August 2002 extended the number of exceptions to the ordinary weekly rest scheme, as established by section 3 of Decision No. 91-09/AT of 17 January 1991, to laboratory services and the security sector.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to the second paragraph of its previous direct request. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matter raised, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that the special weekly rest schemes under Article 7, paragraph 1, can be applied only where the nature of the work, the nature of the service performed by the establishment, the size of the population to be served, or the number of persons employed is such that the provisions of Article 6 cannot be applied. In principle, allowing commercial enterprises to operate on Sundays (section 3, No. 26 of the amended Decision and the branch collective agreement of 22 July 1999) does not appear to be in response to the basic needs of the population, unless the social and economic situation of the territory requires it. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide more detailed information on this point in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that Decision (délibération) No. 98-98 APF of 9 July 1998 among other things extended the number of cases, established by Decision No. 91-009 AT of 17 January 1991 regarding weekly rest, in which exceptions are allowed to the Sunday rest provisions of Act No. 86-845 of 17 July 1986. The Committee also notes that the procedures for arranging weekly rest by rotation have been established in different sectors (security and surveillance, shops, hotels and catering) by collective agreements, in accordance with section 3 of the amended Decision.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 4; Article 11(a) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the special weekly rest schemes under Article 7, paragraph 1, can be applied only where the nature of the work, the nature of the service performed by the establishment, the size of the population to be served, or the number of persons employed is such that the provisions of Article 6 cannot be applied. In principle, allowing commercial enterprises to operate on Sundays (section 3, No. 26 of the amended Decision and the branch collective agreement of 22 July 1999) does not appear to be in response to the basic needs of the population, unless the social and economic situation of the territory requires it. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide more detailed information on this point in its next report.

The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the collective agreement for the security sector cannot be based on section 3 of the amended Decision, since the sector in question (section 13 of the Decision) is not one of the cases listed in this provision. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the collective agreements governing the procedures for organizing work in cases of permanent derogation in respect of Sunday rest in other establishments covered by section 3 of the Decision. If there are none, the Government is asked to indicate how else it ensures that representative organizations of the employers and workers concerned will be consulted, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

Article 11(a). Please provide lists of categories of persons or establishments covered by special weekly rest schemes.

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

See under Convention No. 14, as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of Act No. 86-845 of 17 July 1986, and in due course a copy of the territorial rules of application. Please indicate also whether the respective territorial rules previously applicable continue in force meanwhile.