Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1) - Colombia (Ratification: 1933)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Previous comment on Convention No. 1Previous comment on Convention No. 14Previous comment on Convention No. 30Previous comment on Convention No. 52Previous comment on Convention No. 101Previous comment on Convention No. 106

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) on the application of Conventions Nos 1, 14, 30 and 52, sent together with the Government’s reports. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 31 August 2022, and the observations of the National Employers Association of Colombia (ANDI), sent together with the Government’s reports, on the application of Conventions Nos 1 and 14. The Committee invites the Government, in the context of the social dialogue established in the country, to analyse with the social partners the reported situation of non-observation of the Conventions in the specific sectors referred to by the trade union confederations in their observations, and if such non-observance is established, to take the necessary measures in this regard.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in its reports to the adoption of Act No. 2101 of 2021 amending section 161 of the Substantive Labour Code (CST) (Labour Code) in order to reduce weekly working time from 48 to 42 hours in the private sector. The Government also indicates that the aforementioned Act will be implemented gradually between 2023 and 2026, without any cut in wages for workers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of this reduction is to give workers more space for family, social, recreational and cultural activities. The Committee further notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate in their observations that, in the context of the State National Agreement of 2021, it has been agreed to establish a commission with representatives from the Administrative Department of the Public Service, the Ministry of Labour and the signatory trade union organizations with a view to drawing up a proposal to reduce working hours for public sector workers, without undermining their rights relating to wages. The Committee also notes that the IOE and the ANDI refer in their observations to the adoption of Act No. 2191 of 2022 governing the right of workers to disconnect from work outside the working day, during their rest periods and when on holiday. Lastly, the Committee duly notes the Government’s proposal to conduct a tripartite analysis of the regulations in force, in the context of the Standing Advisory Committee on Wage and Labour Policies, in order to seek alternatives that address the observations of the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress achieved in relation to revision of the limits on hours of work and hours of rest in the public sector. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the results of any tripartite examination of the regulations on working time. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself, if it thinks it necessary, of technical assistance from the Office with regard to the points raised below.

Hours of work

Article 2 of Convention No. 1 and Article 3 of Convention No. 30. Limits on normal hours of work. The Committee notes that section 161(1) of the Labour Code, after its amendment by Act No. 2101, provides that maximum normal weekly working time is 42 hours, which, by joint agreement between the worker and the employer, can be spread over 5 or 6 days in the week, while still guaranteeing the weekly day of rest. The Committee observes that this provision does not establish a daily limit on hours of work. In this regard, the Committee notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate that they consider it dangerous and disadvantageous that the maximum daily limit of eight hours of work, which existed before the adoption of Act No. 2101, has disappeared. Recalling that the Conventions establish a double cumulative limit on normal working hours of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a specific daily limit on normal hours of work is established in law and practice, in accordance with the requirements of the Conventions.

Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1 and Article 4 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of normal hours of work within the week. The Committee notes the indication of the CUT, CTC and CGT that, in the context of flexible daily hours of work authorized by section 161(c) of the Labour Code (distribution of 42 weekly hours over a maximum of six days per week, with a minimum of four continuous hours and a maximum of nine hours per day, subject to agreement between the employer and the worker), some workers, especially in the flower industry, currently work up to ten hours per day and others, such as workers in the plastics industry, work days of 12 hours or more. The Committee observes that while the limits of 42 hours per week and nine hours per day established by section 161(c) of the Labour Code are in conformity with the above-mentioned Articles of the Conventions, the limits on daily hours of work applied in practice in some industries, as referred to in the observations of the CUT, CTC and CGT, are not in conformity. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in cases of variable distribution of working hours in the week, Convention No. 1 establishes a maximum limit of nine hours per day for industry workers, and Convention No. 30 sets a maximum limit of ten hours per day for workers in commerce and offices. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the labour inspectorate does not receive a significant volume of complaints relating to hours of work; (ii) there is a need to reinforce routine inspections to extend coverage and increase monitoring of working hours in certain sectors of the economy which, in the context of flexibilization of working hours, exceed the established limit on hours; and (iii) it is hoped that improvements will be made in the supervision of hours of work in the informal economy through the introduction of pedagogical initiatives and action by the labour inspectorate. While emphasizing the importance, when establishing flexible arrangements for hours of work, of ensuring the existence of reasonable limits on the maximum duration of daily and weekly hours of work so that these are not prejudicial to the health of workers or to the necessary work–life balance (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraph 178), the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary steps to monitor compliance with the legal provisions on hours of work, particularly in the informal economy and in sectors of the economy where working hours apply that exceed the limits established in the Conventions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on such measures and the results achieved.

Articles 6(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 1 and Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Convention No. 30. Temporary exceptions. Circumstances for and limits on additional hours of work. Remuneration. With regard to its previous comments on limits on additional hours of work, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the unnumbered section added to the Labour Code by section 22 of Act No. 50 of 1990 provides that additional hours, by day or by night, shall in no case exceed two hours per day and 12 hours per week; when working hours are extended, through agreements between employers and workers, to ten hours per day, additional hours shall not be worked on that day. In this regard, the Committee notes that Article 7(3) of Convention No. 30 requires not only a daily limit of additional hours of work undertaken by workers in commerce and offices, but also a yearly limit. In this connection, the Committee notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate that the absence of monthly and annual limits on additional hours of work in the national legislation is one of the reasons for inappropriate use of such hours. The same organizations refer to individual cases of workers, mainly in the dock work sector, working exceptionally long hours (in some cases up to 18 hours a day), thus accumulating a high monthly and yearly number of additional hours. They further indicate that such hours are often unpaid. While recalling the impact that long hours of work can have on workers’ health and work-private life balance, the Committee emphasizes the fundamental importance of prescribing clear statutory limits for the additional hours of work to be undertaken daily, weekly and yearly and 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 (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraph 151).

Regarding the circumstances in which recourse to additional hours of work is authorized, the Committee notes that section 162(1) of the Labour Code excludes certain categories of workers from the limits established in section 161 (those holding management posts, domestic workers, workers who perform discontinuous or intermittent work, and driver-mechanics). The Committee also notes that section 162(2) also establishes that the activities not included in the preceding subsection shall only exceed the limits set out in section 161 with the expressed authorization of the Ministry of Labour. In this connection, the Committee notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate, in their observations, that the legislation does not clearly establish the conditions in which additional hours of work may be authorized. In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of national legislation and practice restricting recourse to exemptions from these maximum limits to cases of clear, well-defined and limited circumstances such as accident, actual or threatened, force majeure or urgent work to be done to plant or machinery (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraph 119). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that: (i) recourse to additional hours of work is limited to clear, well-defined circumstances; (ii) reasonable limits to additional working hours are established and respected; and (iii) additional working hours are effectively remunerated in conformity with the Conventions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 162(2) of the Labour Code, giving details of the number of authorizations issued by the Ministry of Labour by virtue of this provision, the activities and sectors concerned, the approximate number of workers affected by its application, and the maximum number of authorized additional working hours.

Weekly rest

Article 4 of Convention No. 14 and Article 7(1) and (4) of Convention No. 106. Permanent exemptions from the principle of weekly rest. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the regulation of section 175(1) of the Labour Code, which authorizes special weekly rest schemes for work that cannot be interrupted due to its nature or for technical reasons, and for work to meet urgent needs, such as public services or the preparation and sale of food. In this connection, the Committee notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate that the principle of weekly rest does not apply to private security workers, who generally work 12-hour rotating shifts (12 hours of work followed by 12 hours of rest, without enjoying weekly rest of 24 consecutive hours); they also indicate that such special weekly rest regimes need urgent regulation, as provided for under section 175(2) of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government, taking special account of all relevant social and economic considerations, and in consultation with the representative organizations of employers and workers, to adopt the necessary measures to regulate section 175(1) of the Labour Code to ensure that such exceptions remain within the limits established by these Articles of the Conventions. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the categories of workers to which section 175(1) of the Labour Code applies in practice. The Committee further requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the CUT, CTC and CGT concerning the absence of weekly rest for workers in private security work.

Article 5 of Convention No. 14 and Article 7(2) of Convention No. 106. Compensatory rest. In relation to its previous comments on sections 180 and 184 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that, in order to establish whether workers have the right to compensatory rest and/or monetary remuneration, it is necessary to determine whether the work on the usual weekly rest day is regular or occasional. The Government also indicates that, under section 180 of the Labour Code, a worker who undertakes work on the weekly rest day on an occasional basis (up to two Sundays per calendar month, according to section 179(2)) may choose either a compensatory cash payment or compensatory rest. In this respect, the Committee reiterates the importance of granting compensatory rest in all cases to workers deprived of their weekly rest, irrespective of any monetary compensation. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compensatory rest is granted to all workers who work on their weekly rest day, including those who undertake work on an exceptional basis or work that cannot be suspended, irrespective of any monetary compensation, in accordance with these Articles of the Convention.

Paid annual leave

Articles 2(1) and 4 of Convention No. 52 and Articles 1 and 8 of Convention No. 101. Right to paid annual leave. Relinquishment. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that, under section 189 of the Labour Code, the employer and the worker may agree in writing, upon the worker’s request, that up to half of the 15 working days of paid annual leave be paid in cash, which implies that the worker must enjoy at least seven and a half days of leave for each year of service and that the remaining days of leave (seven and a half days or less) may be paid in cash. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of Convention No. 52 and Article 8 of Convention No. 101 provide that any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay, or to forgo such a holiday, shall be void, it being understood that this principle applies to the duration of annual holiday with pay as established by each ratifying Member State, whatever its length. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring section 189 of the Labour Code into line with these Articles of the Conventions.

The Committee also notes that the CUT, CTC and CGT indicate that: (i) the successive hiring of workers for a determined period by cooperatives, temporary work agencies and outsourcing agencies makes it impossible to effectively enjoy annual leave, since at the end of each one-year contract, annual leave is paid in cash to the workers, who are immediately hired again on a temporary basis; and (ii) Ministry of Labour Circular No. 21 of 2020 established the possibility of granting annual leave in advance during the health emergency caused by the pandemic; however, since no limits have been set in this respect, workers who took advance annual leave that was allocated for subsequent years will not be able to take this entitlement again for several years. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect and to take the necessary measures to guarantee in practice that all workers enjoy a period of annual leave which is paid after one year of continuous service, in accordance with the Conventions.

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

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Irregular distribution of weekly hours of work within a week. In its previous comment, the Committee drew attention to the inconsistency between section 161(d) of the Labour Code, that permits the conclusion of an agreement between the employer and worker under the terms of which working hours may be distributed unevenly within a week so as to vary between four and ten hours provided that they do not exceed 48 hours in average, and Article 2(b) of the Convention, which permits daily hours of work to be extended by no more than one hour and only on the basis of an agreement between employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the possible amendment of section 161(d) of the Labour Code will be examined by the tripartite Subcommittee on International Affairs, set up in the framework of the Permanent Consultative Committee on Wage and Labour Policies. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments in this regard.

Article 6(1)(b) and 2. Temporary exceptions – Limits on additional hours of work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that there is no provision in the Labour Code giving effect to Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention which requires authorized overtime to be limited to exceptional cases of pressure of work. The Committee also noted that, under section 167-B of the Labour Code, the number of overtime hours may not exceed two per day and 12 per week, but no provision is made for a monthly or annual limit. In the absence of the Government’s response on these points, the Committee again requests the Government to take all necessary steps to: (i) limit temporary exceptions from normal hours of work (apart from cases of accident, urgent repair work, and force majeure which are already provided for in the Labour Code) to cases of necessity linked to extraordinary pressure of work; and (ii) establish reasonable monthly and/or annual limits on the number of additional hours which may be worked in the context of temporary exceptions keeping in line with the spirit of the Convention which seeks to provide protection against undue fatigue and to ensure reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) concerning the application of the Convention, which were received on 30 August 2013 and transmitted to the Government on 16 September 2013. According to the two trade union organizations, section 161(d) of the Labour Code clearly violates the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), and the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), as it exceeds the limits established by these Conventions and has not been the subject of any tripartite consultations. The CUT and the CTC also denounce the abusive use of the exclusion possibility provided for in Article 2(a) of the Convention and Article 1(3)(c) of Convention No. 30 in respect of persons holding managerial positions or employed in a confidential capacity, which results in numerous workers being unfairly excluded from the coverage of the working time legislation. Finally, the CUT and the CTC express the view that the Government should undertake tripartite consultations with a view to ratifying the Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) and, in the meantime, should take all necessary measures in order to limit, as much as possible, the application of the principle of the 48-hour week. The Committee requests the Government to submit any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the CUT and the CTC.

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

The Committee notes the information received from the Government on 10 February 2009 in reply to the observations made by the General Confederation of Labour (CGT). It notes that the Government refers to the preamble of Act No. 789 of 2002, which was the subject of the above observations, and particularly to the objective of the Act, namely to enable job creation without imposing an excessively heavy burden on enterprises. The Committee wishes to raise the following points with regard to the application of the Convention.

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Irregular distribution of weekly hours of work. The Committee notes that section 161 of the Labour Code provides that normal working hours must not exceed eight hours per day or 48 hours per week, except in the case of the listed exceptions. It notes that section 161(d), which was introduced by section 51 of Act No. 789, permits the conclusion of an agreement between the employer and worker under the terms of which weekly working hours will be distributed unevenly in the context of “flexible working days”. In this case, the week must include at least one rest day, and daily hours of work may vary between four and ten hours. The worker is not entitled to a higher rate of pay for the additional hours as long as the weekly working time does not exceed an average of 48 hours worked during the day time (between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.). The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, under Article 2(b), of the Convention, a system involving the irregular distribution of weekly hours of work requires the approval of the competent national authority or the conclusion of an agreement between employers’ and workers’ organizations. A simple individual working agreement is not sufficient, in view of the risk of possible abuse, particularly where it enables an employer to vary his employees’ work schedules unilaterally. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in ruling No. C-038/04 of 27 January 2004, the Constitutional Court considered that this provision was not contrary to the requirements of Convention No. 1. However, the Court did not refer to Article 2(b) of this Convention but to Article 4 of the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), which provides for a ten-hour limit on daily working hours in cases involving the uneven distribution of weekly working hours. With regard to Convention No. 1, the Court merely quoted Article 2(c) of this instrument, which allows the limits of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week to be exceeded in the specific context of shift work. However, the scope of section 161(d) of the Labour Code is not clearly restricted to shift work. Outside this specific context, the conditions laid down by Article 2(b) of the Convention, which only permits daily hours of work to be extended by one hour in cases where weekly working time is unevenly distributed, must be observed. Under this hypothesis, maximum daily working time is nine hours, and not ten hours as permitted by section 161(d) of the Labour Code. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend this provision, in order to ensure that schemes involving the irregular distribution of weekly working hours can only be set up in a given establishment with the approval of the competent authorities or further to the conclusion of an agreement on this subject between the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned. This could be done, for instance, in the context of the work of the Committee for the Monitoring and Inspection of Job Creation Policies referred to in sections 45 and 46 of Act No. 789 of 2002. The Committee also requests the Government to reduce the maximum daily working time permitted under such schemes to nine hours. Finally, in view of the fact that the last sentence of section 161(d) of the Labour Code refers to an average of 48 hours of work per week, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether this provision also permits the irregular distribution of hours of work over a period longer than a week.

Article 6, paragraphs 1(b) and 2. Additional hours – temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that under section 162(2) of the Labour Code, normal hours of work can only be extended with the authorization of the Ministry of Labour and in conformity with ratified international labour Conventions – apart from in a limited number of exceptional cases, for example managerial staff. However, it notes that the Code does not contain any provision stating the cases in which overtime work is authorized, and considers that a mere reference to ILO Conventions is not sufficient in this respect. Apart from certain particular cases, such as shift work and non-stop factory work, or indeed urgent work or situations of force majeure, which are the subject of specific regulations in the Labour Code in line with the provisions of the Convention, overtime work in the context of temporary exceptions is only authorized to enable establishments to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work. Moreover, such exceptions necessitate the adoption of regulations from the national authority, by a given industry or profession, after consultation of the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned and stating the conditions under which they are authorized. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the authorization from the Ministry of Labour provided for in section 162(2) of the Labour Code is of an individual character or whether these are more general regulations establishing conditions in which overtime work is authorized in the sector of activity concerned. If the latter is the case, the Government is also requested to indicate whether the Ministry of Labour issues its decision after consultation of the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned. As regards the circumstances justifying overtime work, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that, apart from in the particular cases listed above (force majeure, shift work, etc.), this possibility is only given to enable employers to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.

Limits on the number of additional hours. The Committee notes that section 22 of Act No. 50 of 1990 introduces a new section into the Labour Code (unnumbered and inserted between sections 167 and 168 of the Code), under the terms of which the number of overtime hours may not exceed two per day or 12 per week, and overtime work is not authorized where daily working time is ten hours under an agreement concluded between the employer and worker. The Committee reminds the Government that, even though the Convention only imposes a limit on the number of authorized additional hours of work in each case by means of regulations adopted by the competent national authority after consultation of the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, without establishing a specific ceiling in this regard, the limit to be established at national level must remain reasonable. As the Committee emphasized in its General Survey of 2005 on hours of work (paragraph 144), “such limits must be ‘reasonable’ and they must be prescribed in line with the general goal [of the Convention], namely to establish the eight-hour day and 48-hour week as a legal standard of hours of work in order to provide protection against undue fatigue and to ensure reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life”. However, the possibility of working 12 additional hours per week, if not accompanied by a monthly or annual limit, would amount to an authorization of hundreds of hours of overtime work per year. In the abovementioned General Survey (footnote 89, paragraph 144), the Committee recalls that it was concluded from the preparatory work for the Convention 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. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to establish a reasonable monthly or annual limit on the number of additional hours which may be worked in the context of temporary exceptions.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s brief report, which merely states that there has been no change in the national legislation.

Article 2 of the Convention. Working hours. The Committee notes the observations from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), dated 18 August 2008 and sent to the Government on 19 September 2008, according to which Act No. 789 of 2002 is contrary to the provisions of the Convention since it prolongs daily working time by four hours, thereby obliging some workers – particularly in commerce – to work ten or even 12 hours per day and without a rest day on Sunday. In this regard, the Committee notes that section 161(d) of the Labour Code – as amended by section 51 of the abovementioned Act – makes provision on the basis of an individual agreement between employer and employee for flexible working hours, which can range from four hours to ten hours per day and be effected without being qualified as overtime between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., six days per week, provided that the average of 48 hours per week is not exceeded. The Committee is bound to remind the Government once again that the Convention only allows the maximum limit on daily working hours to be exceeded in specific conditions laid down by Article 2(b) (distribution of weekly working hours) and Article 2(c) (averaging of hours over a three-week period). Furthermore, the Convention provides for other exceptions to the general rule of eight hours per day and 48 hours per week but only under circumstances strictly defined in Article 2 (accidents, urgent work and force majeure), Article 4 (non-stop factory work), Article 5 (averaging of hours in exceptional cases) and Article 6 (permanent and temporary exceptions). Finally, the Committee emphasizes that exceptions to the eight-hour day necessitate prior consultation of the organizations of employers and workers concerned – or even regulations adopted by the public authority after consultation of the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned – and therefore an individual agreement between employer and employee is in any case not sufficient for authorizing an extension of working hours. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 85–168 of the General Survey of 2005 on working hours relating to Conventions Nos 1 and 30, which provides a detailed analysis of the requirements of the Convention regarding the distribution of working hours and authorized exceptions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to revise section 161(d) of the Labour Code in order to bring it into full conformity with the Convention and to keep the Office informed of all progress made on this point.

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

1. According to the information given by the Government, Law No. 789 of 2002 amends the Labour Code in the following points.

Daytime is defined as the time from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Shift work of six hours per day and 36 hours per week is permitted during the whole week (section 161 (c) of the new Labour Code). Flexible working time consisting of at least four hours and as a maximum ten hours per day, may be carried out without overtime pay during 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. on up to six days of the week, on condition that 48 hours per week as an average are not exceeded (section 161(d) of the new Labour Code). The Committee requests the Government to furnish a copy of the relevant provisions of Law No. 789 of 2002.

Articles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Flexibilization of working time is subject to certain restrictions of the Convention, with which the amended Labour Code does not fully comply. Thus, under Article 5 of the Convention, calculation as an average may be authorized over a period longer than a week in exceptional cases only where the limits set out in Article 2 of the Convention are recognized to be inapplicable. Furthermore, the authorization by public authority should be based on an agreement between the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

Article 2(b) of the Convention makes provision for the distribution of hours of work over a week on condition that the daily limit of eight hours is not exceeded by more than one hour. In the case of shifts, Article 2(c) of the Convention, in addition to the weekly limit of 48 hours as an average, imposes a daily average of eight hours over a period of three weeks or less.

In addition to the system of averaging, regular and temporary extensions of the normal limits of working hours may only be permitted under the specific circumstances enumerated under Article 6 of the Convention, including overtime pay.

The Committee requests the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with these requirements of the Convention and to keep it informed on all progress made.

2. The observation communicated by the National Trade Union of Workers and Public Servants employed in the health and social security system (ANTHOC) concerns working conditions of the staff of a university hospital, such as shifts of 6-12 continuous hours of work per day or a reduction of the salaries because the staff refused to work on Sundays and public holidays. However, these observations will not be dealt with under this Convention, because hospitals are not covered by its scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Colombian Association of Flight Auxiliaries (ACAV) alleging that, based on the Manual of Aeronautical Regulations, a working week in excess of eight hours in the day and 48 in the week has been established for flight auxiliaries and on-flight service staff.

These comments were transmitted to the Government on 4 September 1989. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would make the comments that it considers appropriate on the allegations made by the above Association.

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