Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - Costa Rica (Ratification: 1984)

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

Previous comment on Convention No. 1Previous comment on Convention No. 14Previous comment on Convention No. 106

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 1 (hours of work in industry), 14 (weekly rest in industry) and 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) together.

The Committee notes the observations submitted jointly by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN), the Costa Rican Workers' Movement Central (CMTC), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Workers' Unitary Confederation (CUT) and the Costa Rican Trade Union and Social Unity Bloc (BUSSCO), on Convention No. 1, received on 21 August 2022. The Committee also notes the observations of the Costa Rican Federation of Chambers and Associations of Private Enterprise (UCCAEP) on Conventions Nos 1, 14 and 106 submitted together with the Government's report.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes that, in their observations, the CTRN, CMTC, CGT, CUT and BUSSCO indicate that the Legislative Assembly is currently debating the draft Bill No. 21182 on the amendment of sections 136, 142 and 144 and the addition of sections 145 bis and 145 ter of the Labour Code, to update the exceptional periods of work and safeguard the rights of workers. The workers' organizations claim that the draft Bill, among other things: (i) fixes mandatory 12-hour days, which would affect the balance between work, rest and family life; (ii) eliminates the guarantee of pay for overtime; and (iii) incorporates annualized working hours into work that is seasonal, temporary or a continuous process, which would make workers’ periods of work more intense.

The Committee notes that, in December 2021, the Office provided technical assistance regarding the Bill, at the request of the Permanent Committee on Fiscal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee trusts that the Act to be adopted on working time will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the process of adopting the draft Bill. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of ILO technical assistance if it so wishes.

Hours of work

Articles 3 and 6(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions. Circumstances and limits to additional hours. Pay. Bus drivers. Regarding the circumstances in which recourse to overtime is authorized (sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Code), the Committee observes that: (1) neither section 139 nor section 140 of the Labour Code fixes in a precise and exhaustive manner the circumstances in which recourse to overtime is authorized; and (2) section 139(2) provides for unpaid overtime under one circumstance (errors committed by the employee) which is not covered by the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention only allows exceptions to the limits on periods of work in case of accident, actual or threatened, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant, or in case of "force majeure” or to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.

Further to its previous comments on bus drivers, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that: (i) according to the information provided by the National Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 64 infringements of normal hours of work and 107 infringements related to overtime were identified in the road transport sector in general between 2015 and 2021; (ii) with regard to bus companies, during the same period, 309 cases of infringements of all kinds were detected; (iii) as a result of the actions carried out by the National Labour Inspectorate, 257 cases were resolved at the administrative level, 9 cases were resolved at the judicial level, 34 cases are being processed at the judicial level and 9 cases are being processed at the administrative level; in addition, in 191 cases the labour inspectorate's warnings were complied with, while in 42 cases they were not complied with. In this regard, the Committee also notes that in their joint observations, the CTRN, CMTC, CGT, CUT and BUSSCO indicate that: (i) while the regular period of work for bus drivers is eight hours a day, in most bus companies, drivers negotiate 12 hours a day or more with their employers; (ii) in some bus companies, drivers are required to perform tasks related to vehicle maintenance and the management of the money collected, outside their regular period of work, for which they are not paid; and (iii) during an inspection of a road transport company, in response to a number of complaints of labour exploitation, it was found that drivers’ period of work exceeded 12 hours a day, reaching up to 19 hours a day in some cases; it was also found that the company did not pay overtime. In this regard, the Committee notes the UCCAEP's indication that: (i) since the adoption of Act No. 7679 of 1997 repealing section 146 of the Labour Code, the activity of bus drivers has been adjusted to a period of work of eight hours a day; (ii) the cases of infringements detected by the labour inspectorate have been resolved at administrative or judicial level, or are still in process, and therefore there is no evidence of a widespread practice of infringement of periods of work and overtime pay; and (iii) the problem of a lack of bus drivers results in the use of overtime to ensure continuity in the public service.

In this regard, recalling the impact that long hours can have on workers' health and work-private life balance, the Committee refers to the 2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraphs 119 and 151.

Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures, including by revising these provisions of the Labour Code and monitoring compliance with the legislation in force, to ensure that both in law and in practice: (i) recourse to overtime is limited to clear and well-defined circumstances; (ii) reasonable legal limits on overtime are established and enforced; and (iii) such hours are effectively paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect, including statistics on labour inspection activities related to hours of work and rest in the road transport sector, including violations found and penalties assessed.

Weekly rest

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 and Articles 7 and 8 of Convention No. 106. Permanent or temporary exemptions to weekly rest –Compensatory rest. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its reports that no amendments have been made to section 152(3) of the Labour Code, which provides that work shall be permitted on the weekly rest day, by agreement between the parties, in the case of work which is not arduous, unhealthy or hazardous, and which is carried out in agricultural or livestock breeding grounds, industrial undertakings which require continuity of work owing to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for obvious public or social interest. The Committee also notes that section 152(5) of the Labour Code provides that in the case of activities of obvious public or social interest and where the worker does not agree to work on rest days, the employer may apply to the Ministry of Labour for authorization to grant rest periods on a cumulative monthly basis, and the Ministry may grant or refuse the authorization requested. The Committee observes that: (i) section 152(5) of the Labour Code does not guarantee the granting of compensatory rest in case of work on the weekly rest day, as the Ministry of Labour may refuse the requested authorization; and (ii) for other activities set out in section 152(3) of the Labour Code, no compensatory rest is provided for. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including by amending this section of the Labour Code, to ensure that, in the case of exemptions from the principle of weekly rest, all workers are entitled in respect of each period of seven days to compensatory rest of a total duration comprising not less than 24 hours, regardless of any monetary compensation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions – Compensatory rest. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Articles 7 and 8 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. Further to its previous comments concerning the content and implementation of section 152 of the Labour Code – which does not give full effect to the provisions of the Convention concerning exceptions to the rules on weekly rest – the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that it has requested technical assistance from the Office with a view to drafting a law aimed at bringing the national legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Office will be in a position to supply this assistance in the very near future and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in the process of drafting a law.

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made in relation to Articles 7 and 8 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Articles 7 and 8 of Convention No. 106.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Minimum weekly rest. In Judgement No. 10.842-2001 issued on 24 October 2001, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the validity, in relation to article 59 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Convention, of section 152(1) of the Labour Code, under which "every worker is entitled to one day of rest after a week or after six days of continuous work". The Court concluded that this provision is in conformity with the Constitution and the Convention only if it is interpreted as not offering the choice to the employer to grant a day of rest after six or seven days of work but as covering two different de facto situations. The granting of a day of rest after a week of work cannot concern workers who work every day of the week. It is concerned with protecting those whose work is not continuous, who only work certain days of the week or who work on a piece-rate basis. The Committee notes with interest this Judgement, which confirms that section 152 of the Labour Code must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure conformity with the provisions of the Convention, particularly Article 2, which prescribes the granting of a period of rest comprising at least 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days.

Articles 4 and 5. Exceptions to the rules on weekly rest. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether section 152 of the Labour Code authorizes the introduction of special schemes applicable on a permanent basis or permits adjustments to the normal weekly rest scheme for temporary reasons.

In reply to the Committee’s observation, the Government indicates that the competent authorities have not adopted measures for introducing special weekly rest schemes for economic or humanitarian reasons. Section 152(3) of the Labour Code permits an adjustment to the rules on weekly rest in industrial undertakings meeting certain conditions. It provides for the possibility, if an agreement exists between the parties concerned, to work on the weekly rest day in industrial undertakings which require continuity of work owing to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for an obvious public or social interest. In accordance with the spirit of the national legislation, the possibility of working on the weekly rest day cannot be permanent since an abusive extension of this exception might lead to forced labour or to other forms of work prohibited by law.

As the Committee understands it, section 152(3) of the Labour Code allows for only temporary exceptions to the rules on weekly rest in certain industrial undertakings. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of industrial activities which entail an obvious public or social interest. It also requests it to provide information on measures which ensure that these are temporary exceptions, given that the activity of "undertakings which require continuity of work owing to the nature of the needs which they satisfy" seems to imply permanent exceptions. In any case, even if these adjustments do not constitute special schemes, as the Government claims, they must respect the conditions laid down by the Convention.

Firstly, Article 4 of the Convention requires the consultation of representative organizations of employers and workers before such exceptions are established, the consent of the worker concerned not being sufficient in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held on this subject.

Secondly, under Article 5 of the Convention, a State party to the Convention shall make, as far as possible, provision for compensatory periods of rest where use is made of the exceptions permitted by Article 4. In its report, the Government maintains that, where an employer has recourse to the possibility provided by section 152(3) of the Labour Code, he is required to restore to the worker the enjoyment of the weekly rest day when the work (which justified the exception) is completed. As the Committee understands it, this implies the granting of compensatory rest to the workers concerned. However, in its report of 2000, the Government asserted that, in cases where work is done on a rest day, the employer has the option of granting compensatory rest. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether this is indeed an obligation imposed on employers and to indicate on what provisions it is based.

The Government also refers to section 152(4) of the Labour Code, which states that, in respect of work covered by the last case specified in subsection [3], if the worker does not consent to providing services during his rest days, the employer may request an authorization from the Ministry of Labour with a view to accumulating the rest days over a period of one month. It adds that no request of this sort has been made by the director of an industrial undertaking and concludes that section 152 does not permit either employers or workers, whether unilaterally or by mutual agreement, to suppress or diminish the weekly day of rest. The Committee emphasizes, however, that Article 4 of the Convention covers all types of exceptions to the rules on weekly rest, and not only suppression or diminutions of rest. Indeed, various aspects of weekly rest may be subject to modification, as emphasized by the 1984 General Survey on working time (paragraph 153); uniformity of all workers, choice of day, regularity and continuity.

The Committee requests the Government to specify whether section 152(4) of the Labour Code is restricted to activities which present an obvious public or social interest, or whether it also extends to industrial undertakings which require continuity of work owing to the nature of the needs which they satisfy. In addition, given that subsection 4 applies only if workers fail to give their consent to provide services during their rest days, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the provisions provide for the possibility of accumulating weekly rest days if workers give their consent.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including reports of the inspection services, statistical data and the number and nature of infringements recorded with respect to weekly rest.

Bill to amend the Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government has drawn up a Bill aiming to make the regulations on the hours of work more flexible. It requests the Government to indicate whether the provisions contemplated also apply to weekly rest schemes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s response of 2 October 2001 to the comments previously made by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN). The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention sets the standards for a normal weekly rest scheme (a period of rest comprising at least 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days). It also recalls that under Article 4, paragraph 1, States may in certain circumstances introduce weekly rest schemes which form exceptions to the normal arrangements ("special weekly rest schemes"). Such special schemes should not be introduced without consultation with the representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee further recalls that in addition to the introduction of special schemes operating on a permanent basis, Article 4(1) of the Convention provides for the possibility of making certain other adjustments to the normal weekly rest scheme for temporary reasons as outlined in paragraph 163 of the 1964 General Survey on weekly rest in industry, commerce and offices.

Under Article 5 of the Convention, each ratifying State shall make, as far as possible, provision for compensatory periods of rest for the suspensions or diminutions made in virtue of Article 4, except in cases where agreements or customs already provide for such periods. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that in principle it is the compensatory leave and not the cash compensation that should be provided. Furthermore, if the compensation in the form of cash became the rule under special schemes operating on a permanent basis, it would practically have the effect of depriving the workers of the rest to which they are entitled, and this on a continuous basis.

The Committee recalls that under section 152 of the Labour Code, work is permitted on the weekly rest day, with the consent of the parties, provided that the work is not heavy, unhealthy or dangerous and is carried out in agricultural or stock-raising establishments, or industrial undertakings which require continuity of work due to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for an obvious public or social interest. Section 152 further provides that a worker shall receive double pay for work performed on a rest day.

Referring also to its previous comments, the Committee asks the Government to clarify whether the provisions of section 152 of the Labour Code relate to the possibility of the introduction of special schemes operating on a permanent basis or for the possibility of making certain other adjustments to the normal weekly rest scheme for temporary reasons and, in case of permanent exceptions, to take all necessary measures to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention, so that workers in industry are entitled to a compensatory leave, regardless of any cash compensation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information supplied in reply to its previous comments. It has also noted the observations made by the Transport Workers’ Union of Costa Rica (SICOTRA), the Trade Union of Employees of the Ministry of Finance (SINDHAC) and the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN) of which copies have been transmitted to the Government.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments related to section 152 of the Labour Code under which work is permitted on the weekly rest day, with the consent of the parties, provided that the work is not heavy, unhealthy or dangerous and is carried out in agricultural or stock-raising establishments, or industrial undertakings which require continuity of work due to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for an obvious public or social interest. Section 152 further provides that a worker shall receive double pay for work performed on a rest day. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether any provisions exist to ensure that a worker employed in an industrial undertaking will be granted a compensatory rest period, regardless of any cash compensation. In its reply the Government indicates that any individual or collective agreement, or any custom must comply with the terms of article 59 of the Constitution of Costa Rica which provides that all workers have the right to a rest day after six consecutive days of work. Referring also to section 66 of the Labour Code which provides that the employer must take into account the relevant laws, decrees, conventions and agreements in preparing the internal labour regulation, and section 67 of the Code which provides that all regulations must receive prior approval by the Ministry of Labour, the Government indicates that the model internal labour regulations for undertakings - prepared by the Directorate of Legal Affairs - provides to all workers the right to a compulsory rest day after each week or six consecutive days’ work (section 24). On this subject, it supplies extracts of collective agreements providing this right to a weekly rest day. Finally, it indicates that in cases where work is performed on a rest day, pursuant to the abovementioned section 152, the employer has full latitude to grant a compensatory rest period.

SICOTRA, SINDHAC and CTRN indicate in their respective communications that section 152 of the Labour Code is not complied with in a number of undertakings that they cite. They add that it is customary for these undertakings not to comply with labour standards in general, despite the action they have been ordered to take by the competent authorities, which therefore seems inadequate.

In view of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee requests the latter to envisage amending section 152 of the Labour Code and to provide, regardless of any cash compensation, rest periods in compensation for any suspensions or diminutions made for industrial workers. This amendment will bring national legislation into full conformity with the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to submit in future reports of the inspection services and any available statistics that could provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, as requested in Part V of the report form.

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

Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 152 of the Labour Code, work is permitted on the weekly rest day, with the consent of the parties, provided that the work is not heavy, unhealthy or dangerous and is carried out in agricultural or stockraising establishments, or industrial undertakings which require continuity of work due to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for an evident public or social interest. Section 152 further provides that in such cases, a worker receives double pay for work performed on a rest day. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any provisions exist to ensure that, as far as possible, a worker employed in an industrial undertaking who works on his weekly rest day will be granted a compensatory rest period, regardless of any cash compensation.