Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - 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)

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 7 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee notes section 213 of the Labour Code, under which all workers are entitled to a day of weekly rest, normally on Sunday. It also notes that as an exception a period of 24 consecutive hours of rest may be envisaged during the following week instead of Sunday rest in the following cases: (a) operations which cannot be interrupted, due to the needs that they meet, for reasons of a technical nature or in the case of grave risks threatening the general interest or the enterprise concerned; (b) repairs and cleaning of equipment, installations or industrial or commercial premises, considered to be indispensable so that the operations planned during the week are not interrupted; (c) where appropriate, work of evident and urgent necessity in view of an imminent risk of damage, accident, accidental cases, force majeure or any other temporary event to which it is necessary to respond without delay. The Committee further notes section 216 of the Labour Code, under which work that has to be performed on a continuous basis will be covered by regulations so that the workers benefit from the compulsory number of weekly rest days envisaged in the Labour Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that it has not availed itself of the possibility offered by Article 4 of the Convention to authorize exceptions to the normal weekly rest scheme. However, as it emphasized in its General Survey of 1964 on weekly rest in industry, commerce and offices (paragraph 109), one of the main features of special weekly rest schemes, as governed by Article 4 of the Convention, are that rest is taken on a day other than that prescribed by the normal scheme. In this respect, the Committee notes court ruling No. 144 of 4 October 2000, of which the Government quotes extracts in its report and which makes explicit reference to the Convention. It notes that the court emphasized in this ruling that the weekly rest normally coincides with a Sunday, but that the essential rule to be followed in this regard is the granting of 24 consecutive hours on each period of seven days and that, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to fix it on a working day of the following week. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 6 of the Convention, which provides that each State party to the Convention must draw up and communicate to the Office a list of the exceptions to weekly rest made under Article 4. It observes that the scope of the exceptions envisaged in sections 213 and 216 of the Labour Code may be vast. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate more precisely, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the categories of establishments which may benefit from exemptions from the weekly rest rules under the terms of sections 213 or 216 of the Labour Code.

The Committee further notes that the 1961 Labour Code contained, in section 217, a provision almost identical to section 216 of the current Labour Code. However, it observes that the previous section 217 included a second subsection envisaging that the parties should determine by common agreement the days on which workers could benefit from rest during the week in place of the compulsory rest day. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers covered by an exemption from the weekly rest scheme under section 216 of the Labour Code benefit from 24 consecutive hours of rest on another day of the week.

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the inspection report, a copy of which was attached to the Government’s report and which refers to the failure to comply in the enterprise that was inspected with certain provisions of the Labour Code, including those respecting the posting of hours of work and the keeping of a record of overtime hours. It also notes with interest that the Government includes in its report an extract from a court ruling containing issues of principle relating to the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Convention, including information on the outcome of labour inspection activities, and an indication of the number of infringements of the weekly rest legislation reported and the measures taken to bring them to an end.