Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30) - 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 7(2) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions – Limits on authorized overtime. The Committee notes that, under section 201 of the Labour Code, additional hours may not exceed three per day and the overall number of hours of work in the week may not exceed 57. It also notes that, under section 59(2) of Public Service Act No.1.626 of 27 December 2000, additional hours may not exceed three hours per day and eight hours per week. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that in the interest of preventing any possible abuse, the Convention requires the adoption of regulations – after consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned – which must set the limits to the total number of additional hours which may be allowed in the day but also in the year. As the Committee emphasized in its General Survey of 2005 on hours of work (paragraph 144), “even though the establishment of specific limits to the total number of additional hours is left to the competent authorities, this does not mean that such authorities have unlimited discretion in this regard. Taking into account the spirit of the Convention, it is appropriate to conclude that 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”. The Committee recalls that, at the time of the adoption of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), the limits considered to be permissible amounted to 150 hours a year in the case of temporary exceptions (abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances) and 60 hours a week in the case of permanent exceptions (work inherently intermittent or complementary). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how effect is given to this requirement of the Convention.

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

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. Hours of work. Public service. The Committee notes that section 59 of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that the normal working hours are 40 hours per week but that the extension of the normal working day aimed at increasing the duration of weekly rest does not constitute performance of additional hours. It notes that such extension is therefore not limited to three hours per day and eight hours per week as provided for by section 59(2) of this Act. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the duration of the normal working day and the extent to which it may be extended under section 59 mentioned above to enable workers to benefit from a longer weekly rest period.

Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, in its report under the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), the Government recalls that no regulations have been adopted to date on the basis of section 211 of the Labour Code and that, if need be, such regulations would be adopted after consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with the practice followed by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee wishes, however, to emphasize once again that section 212(1) of the former Labour Code of 1961 expressly provided that the adoption of special regulations for special work had to be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned and that this requirement has not been included in section 211 of the Labour Code of 1993. The Committee therefore repeats its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention concerning temporary exceptions to the normal rules on hours of work, particularly with regard to the obligation to hold prior consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government does not reply specifically to its previous comments concerning the maximum number of additional hours authorized. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether the limits established by section 201 of the Labour Code, namely up to three additional hours per day and a maximum of 57 hours per week in total, are general in scope and therefore also applicable in the context of the exceptions authorized under section 202 of the Labour Code, particularly paragraph (c).

Furthermore, the Committee understands that workers may agree to work additional hours in cases other than those set out in section 202 of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether that is indeed the case and, if so, to indicate whether checks are carried out by the national authorities with regard to the circumstances justifying the performance of additional hours. In this regard, it draws the Government’s attention to the fact that exceeding the ordinary limits concerning hours of work – eight hours per day and 48 hours per week – is authorized only in the cases specifically set out in the Convention, in particular: in case of a general interruption of work (Article 5); where exceptional circumstances justify the distribution of the hours of work over a period longer than the week (Article 6); in the context of permanent exceptions for intermittent, preparatory or complementary work, or in shops or other establishments where the nature of the work, the size of the population or the number of persons employed render inapplicable the working hours (Article 7(1)); or, in the context of temporary exceptions in case of accident, force majeure or urgent work, to prevent the loss of perishable goods or avoid endangering the technical results of the work, to allow for special work such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets, or, under certain conditions, to enable establishments to deal with cases of abnormal pressure of work (Article 7(2)).

In addition, the Committee notes that section 59(2) of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that additional hours may not exceed three hours per day and eight hours per week and must be authorized in writing. It requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances in which additional hours may be authorized under this provision, given that the restrictions imposed by the Convention in this regard, which are listed above, also apply to public sector employees.

Part IV of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes with interest the court decisions copies of which were attached to the Government’s report. It requests the Government to continue providing information on court decisions handed down which contain questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the complete text of Decision No. 27 of 31 March 1993, No. 35 of 26 May 1998, No. 20 of 22 April 1999, and No. 94 of 7 October 2001, extracts of which were reproduced in its report.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the outcome of an inspection relating, in particular, to hours of work. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistics on the number of workers in the commerce and offices sectors protected by the legislation relating to hours of work, as well as the number and nature of violations reported and the follow-up action.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest the conclusion, on 23 February 2009, of a tripartite agreement on a Decent Work Country Programme for Paraguay. It notes that this programme refers, in particular, to the improvement of the implementation of international labour standards in the light of the comments made by the supervisory bodies and to the need to train judges, inspectors and lawyers on this subject. The Committee also notes that, in this context, the national authorities have expressed their concern at the difficulties relating to the operation of the labour inspection system and have requested the support of the ILO in drawing up and implementing the necessary reforms to the national legislation. It hopes that the implementation of this programme, with technical assistance from the Office if necessary, will improve the application of the Convention in national law and practice.

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

Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Permanent exception. 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 essentially to continuous work and specials 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 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, under section 211 of the Labour Code, the administrative labour authorities may adopt special regulations regarding hours of work 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 7(2) and Article 8 of the Convention for the application of temporary exceptions. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the work of a special nature covered by section 211 of the Labour Code is work of the type listed in Article 7(2)(c) of the Convention, such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets or closing of accounts.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that regulations setting up temporary exceptions shall be made after consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, special regard being paid to collective agreements, if any, concluded between these organizations. On this score, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, up to the present, circumstances have not made it necessary to adopt regulations in application of section 211 of the Labour Code but that, in the event, such regulations would be adopted in consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes, however, 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 regulating 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 weekly total 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, and that collective agreements concluded between them are taken into account, as laid down in Article 8 of the Convention.

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 possible, statistical data on the number of workers protected by legislation, exceptions granted on the basis of section 202, paragraph (c), and of 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 wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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 wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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 latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

See the comments under Convention No. 1 concerning the promulgation of the new Labour Code, No. 213 of 21 June 1993, as follows:

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)

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, 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 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, as follows:

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.