Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) - Azerbaijan (Ratification: 1992)

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week – Averaging of hours of work – Overtime. The Committee notes that the Government’s report essentially reproduces information provided in previous reports and does not indicate any new legislative or other measures that would further implement the Convention, nor does it respond to the Committee’s earlier comments. The Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to: (i) section 96 of the Labour Code which provides for an overly long reference period of one year for the averaging of hours of work and also permits working days of up to 12 hours; (ii) section 100 of the Labour Code which establishes a daily limit on additional hours but does not set any monthly or annual limits; and (iii) section 30.1 of the Public Service Act of 2000 which provides for a limited number of overtime hours that may not be remunerated. In this connection, the Committee once again refers to Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which seek to ensure that the principle of the 40-hour week is not defeated by undue recourse to averaging. The Committee is therefore obliged to request once more the Government to provide detailed information on the effect given to the provisions of the Labour Code respecting the regulation of averaging of hours of work and the limitation of authorized overtime hours in the light of the recognized social standard of the 40-hour week.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. Averaging of hours of work. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that, while section 89 of the Labour Code establishes a normal working week of 40 hours, section 96 of this Code allows the hours of work to be calculated as an average over a period of up to one year, in which case the daily hours of work may not exceed 12 hours. It notes that, in its report, the Government refers to an act of 16 May 2008 amending the Labour Code, which does not, however, seem to amend the provisions of section 96. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the negative effects that an excessive working day can have on the health of workers and on the balance between their private life and work. Furthermore, it considers that calculating the hours of work as an average over a reference period of up to one year allows too many exceptions to the principle of the 40-hour week and makes it difficult to achieve the objective of the gradual reduction of working hours. Furthermore, the implementation of such working time arrangements should be possible only in well defined cases. In this regard, the Committee once again refers to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which mentions the possibility of calculating normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week “when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it”. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the working time arrangements established under section 96 of the Labour Code, including details concerning the number of workers and the type of enterprises concerned. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the daily hours of work and the reference period applied in the context of such arrangements. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of Act No. 608-IIIQD of 16 May 2008 amending the Labour Code.

Overtime. The Committee notes that sections 99(2) and 101 of the Labour Code list the circumstances in which the performance of overtime is permitted. It notes that, under section 100 of this Code, where the working conditions are difficult or dangerous, workers may not work more than two hours overtime per day, or more than four hours overtime over two days. The Committee notes that the Labour Code does not limit the number of hours of overtime for all workers and that, even for the workers referred to in section 100, it does not establish a monthly or annual limit on the number of hours of overtime permitted. It draws the Government’s attention to the negative impact that an excessive working day or week can have on the health of workers and on the balance between their private life and work, and, in particular, to the possible consequences of a high number of hours of overtime. In this regard, it refers to paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time, in which it emphasized that “undue facilitation of overtime, for example, by not limiting the circumstances in which it may be permitted or by allowing relatively high maximums, could in the most egregious cases tend to defeat the Recommendation’s objective of a social standard of a 40-hour week and make irrelevant the provisions as to normal working hours”. In the light of the preceding observations, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the implementation of the provisions of the Labour Code relating to the regulation of overtime and, in particular, on the measures taken or envisaged to establish reasonable daily, monthly and/or annual limits on the number of hours of overtime permitted for all workers.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 30.1 of Act No. 926-IQ of 21 July 2000 on the public service establishes a working week of 40 hours, but provides that the working week may be extended by five hours per month without additional remuneration in exceptional cases and that additional overtime beyond those five hours shall be remunerated. In this regard, it refers to Paragraph 19 of Recommendation No. 116, according to which overtime work should be remunerated at a higher rate than normal hours of work and this rate should in no case be less than 1.25 times the regular rate. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it is considering taking measures to ensure the remuneration of all overtime at a rate that is at least 25 per cent higher than the regular rate of the workers to whom the Act on the public service is applicable.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide up to date information in its next report on the application of the Convention in practice, including, for example, extracts from reports of the labour inspection services including information on the number and nature of violations reported with regard to hours worked beyond 40 hours per week; statistics concerning the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has been applied and the number of hours of overtime worked by these workers beyond the 40-hour week; the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has not yet been applied and the normal hours of work of these workers, as well as the number of hours of overtime worked; copies of studies or official reports on issues relating to working time, especially concerning the reduction of hours of work linked to new technologies or as an employment policy tool, in particular in the context of the current global economic crisis; and finally, information on the working time arrangements provided for under recent collective agreements.

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

The Committee remains concerned about section 96 of the Labour Code, which provides for the possibility to calculate the normal hours of work over a period of up to one year, without specifying the categories of employment concerned. It draws the attention of the Government, again, to the fact that Recommendation No. 116 on the reduction of working hours, 1962, provides for the calculation of normal average hours of work, however, only in cases where "special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it" (Paragraph 12). It should be restricted to exceptional cases where the nature of the work, technical reasons or seasonal variations and periodic pressure of work make it necessary. In the light of these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will take account of the provisions of the Recommendation and ensure that section 96 of the Labour Code is applied accordingly. It requests the Government to provide information about the practical application of this provision in its next report.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to supply in the next report extracts from the reports of the inspection services and particulars of the number and nature of contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week, and any available statistical information.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide, together with the next report, a copy of Decree No. 544 of 27 January 1997, which is not available in the Office and cited in the Government’s previous report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply the ILO with a copy of Decree No. 544 of 27 January 1997 cited in the report. The Committee has also noted the provisions of the Labour Code as modified in 1999. It notes that section 96 of this Code makes possible the calculation of normal hours of work over a period of up to one year, without specifying the categories of employment concerned. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that Recommendation No. 116 on the reduction of working hours, 1962, provides for the calculation of normal average hours of work; however, only in cases where "special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it" (Paragraph 12). It must in fact be restricted to exceptional cases where the nature of the work, technical reasons or seasonal variations and periodic pressure of work make it necessary. In the light of these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will take account of the provisions of the Recommendation and amend section 96 of the Labour Code in consequence. It requests it to keep the ILO informed on all developments in this regard.