Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - Thailand (Ratification: 1968)

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 2(2) and (3) of the Convention. Uniformity of weekly rest. In its last comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the Notification of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Committee regarding the Minimum Standards of Conditions of Employment in State Enterprises (B.E. 2549 (2006) of 31 May 2006). The Committee examined the said Notification which was provided by the Government in its last report. It notes that section 15 of the Notification provides that, where the nature of work requires it to be performed continuously and a weekly holiday might not be provided, an employer and the employees in whole or in part might agree in advance to accumulate and postpone weekly holidays to be taken at any time within a period of four consecutive weeks. This provision, however, does not specify a day of the week on which a weekly rest is normally to be taken. According to Article 2(2) of the Convention, the period of rest should be granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking. Moreover, according to Article 2(3) of the Convention, the period of rest should coincide, wherever possible, with the day of the week established as a day of rest by the traditions or customs of the country or district. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice, with respect to workers employed at state enterprises, that the weekly rest, wherever possible, is granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff and is fixed so as to coincide with the day(s) already established by the traditions or customs of the country or district.

The Committee also notes the Government’s explanations in its report that in general, regulations and rules of the key economic and social organizations in Thailand – financial institute, educational institute and government sector – provide a weekly holiday on Sunday. The Government, however, does not refer to the industry sector. The Committee would appreciate receiving a copy of the regulations and rules of industrial sectors covered by the Convention.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes that section 15 of the Notification provides that where the nature of work requires it to be performed continuously and a weekly holiday might not be provided, an employer and the employees in whole or in part might agree in advance to accumulate and postpone weekly holidays to be taken at any time within a period of four consecutive weeks. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government’s reply with respect to workers employed in remote areas, who are allowed to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays also for periods of up to four weeks. As it appears that workers at state enterprises may not be in the same situation, the Committee recalls the guidance in Paragraph 3 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), which it referred to in its last comment to the effect that workers should enjoy a minimum period of rest at regular weekly, or in any event, reasonably short intervals, and that such intervals should not be more than three weeks. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to reconsider the appropriateness of authorizing the accumulation of weekly rest days for periods of up to 28 working days and continue to provide information in this regard.

Article 5. Compensatory periods of rest. The Committee notes that section 19 of the Notification provides that an employer may require an employee to work on a holiday as necessary with the employee’s prior written consent on each occasion. It also notes that section 38 of the Notification provides that where an employer requires an employee to work on a holiday, the employer should pay holiday overtime pay to the employee. It recalls that according to Article 5 of the Convention, provision has to be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspensions or diminutions of the weekly rest of workers, except in cases where agreements or customs already provide for such periods. The Committee therefore requests the Government to explain measures taken or contemplated to ensure that compensatory rest, as far as possible, is provided whenever workers employed at state enterprises are required to work on the day of their weekly rest regardless of compensatory pay.

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

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:

Repetition

Article 1(d) and Article 2(1) of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations that even though the Labour Protection Act B.E.2541 (LPA) does not apply to state enterprises, all employees of state enterprises are protected with respect to weekly rest in the same manner as private sector employees. In this regard, the Government refers to the adoption of the Notification of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Committee regarding the Minimum Standards of Conditions of Employment in State Enterprises (B.E. 2549 (2006) of 31 May 2006), clause 15 of which prescribes that an employer must provide a weekly holiday of not less than one day per week to employees of state enterprises and that the interval between weekly holidays must not exceed six days. The Committee would appreciate receiving a copy of the above-referenced Notification. The Committee also notes that as regards persons engaged in land transport and sea cargo handling, Ministerial Regulations No. 11 B.E.2541 (1998) and No. 12 B.E.2541 (1998) do not provide for a specific weekly rest scheme applicable to them, and therefore these categories of workers remain covered by section 28 of the Labour Protection Act.

Article 2(2) and (3). Uniformity of weekly rest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that generally most employers provide weekly holiday to all their personnel simultaneously and that normally the weekly rest day is Sunday even though there is no provision to this effect in the Labour Protection Act. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that the Convention is articulated around three principles, that is continuity (a period of rest comprising at least 24 consecutive hours), regularity (weekly rest to be enjoyed in every period of seven days), and uniformity (weekly rest to be granted as far as possible simultaneously to the whole of the staff on the day established by tradition or custom). Noting that section 28 of the Labour Protection Act does not fully reflect the above principles, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it is ensured in law and practice that the weekly rest, wherever possible, is granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff and is fixed so as to coincide with the day(s) already established by the traditions or customs of the country or district.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations concerning the practical reasons for which workers employed in remote areas are allowed to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays for periods of up to four weeks. It recalls that according to the spirit of the Convention workers should enjoy a minimum period of rest and leisure at regular weekly, or in any event, reasonably short intervals. In this connection, it refers to Paragraph 3 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), which although not strictly relevant to industrial undertakings, gives useful guidance by indicating that persons to whom special weekly rest schemes apply should not work for more than three weeks without receiving the rest periods to which they are entitled. The Committee therefore requests the Government to reconsider on the next suitable occasion the appropriateness of authorizing the accumulation of weekly rest days for periods of up to 28 working days and eventually modify the relevant provisions of its labour laws and regulations.

Article 5. Compensatory periods of rest. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that work on a weekly rest day may only be performed with the employee’s prior consent and also on the condition that financial compensation is granted. The Committee once more recalls that in accordance with this Article of the Convention, provision has to be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspensions or diminutions of the weekly rest of workers, irrespective of any cash compensation that may be offered. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate any steps it intends to take in order to ensure that, as far as possible, compensatory rest is provided whenever workers are required to work on the day of their weekly rest.

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

Article 1(d) and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations that even though the Labour Protection Act B.E.2541 (LPA) does not apply to state enterprises, all employees of state enterprises are protected with respect to weekly rest in the same manner as private sector employees. In this regard, the Government refers to the adoption of the Notification of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Committee regarding the Minimum Standards of Conditions of Employment in State Enterprises (B.E. 2549 (2006) of 31 May 2006), clause 15 of which prescribes that an employer must provide a weekly holiday of not less than one day per week to employees of state enterprises and that the interval between weekly holidays must not exceed six days. The Committee would appreciate receiving a copy of the above-referenced Notification. The Committee also notes that as regards persons engaged in land transport and sea cargo handling, Ministerial Regulations No. 11 B.E.2541 (1998) and No. 12 B.E.2541 (1998) do not provide for a specific weekly rest scheme applicable to them, and therefore these categories of workers remain covered by section 28 of the Labour Protection Act.

Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3. Uniformity of weekly rest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that generally most employers provide weekly holiday to all their personnel simultaneously and that normally the weekly rest day is Sunday even though there is no provision to this effect in the Labour Protection Act. The Committee recalls, in this connection, that the Convention is articulated around three principles, that is continuity (a period of rest comprising at least 24 consecutive hours), regularity (weekly rest to be enjoyed in every period of seven days), and uniformity (weekly rest to be granted as far as possible simultaneously to the whole of the staff on the day established by tradition or custom). Noting that section 28 of the Labour Protection Act does not fully reflect the above principles, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it is ensured in law and practice that the weekly rest, wherever possible, is granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff and is fixed so as to coincide with the day(s) already established by the traditions or customs of the country or district.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations concerning the practical reasons for which workers employed in remote areas are allowed to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays for periods of up to four weeks. It recalls that according to the spirit of the Convention workers should enjoy a minimum period of rest and leisure at regular weekly, or in any event, reasonably short intervals. In this connection, it refers to Paragraph 3 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), which although not strictly relevant to industrial undertakings, gives useful guidance by indicating that persons to whom special weekly rest schemes apply should not work for more than three weeks without receiving the rest periods to which they are entitled. The Committee therefore requests the Government to reconsider on the next suitable occasion the appropriateness of authorizing the accumulation of weekly rest days for periods of up to 28 working days and eventually modify the relevant provisions of its labour laws and regulations.

Article 5. Compensatory periods of rest. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that work on a weekly rest day may only be performed with the employee’s prior consent and also on the condition that financial compensation is granted. The Committee once more recalls that in accordance with this Article of the Convention, provision has to be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspensions or diminutions of the weekly rest of workers, irrespective of any cash compensation that may be offered. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate any steps it intends to take in order to ensure that, as far as possible, compensatory rest is provided whenever workers are required to work on the day of their weekly rest.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the statistical data on labour inspection results, according to which out of 50,993 establishments inspected, 391 violations of the workers’ weekly rest entitlement were recorded. It would appreciate if the Government would continue providing up to date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, copies of collective agreements containing clauses on weekly rest, extracts from labour inspection reports showing the number of visits, infringements of the legislation on weekly rest and sanctions imposed, etc.

Finally, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention once again to the decision of the ILO Governing Body according to which the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because they continue to respond to current needs (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 – especially since the relevant legislation is of general application and covers equally industry and commerce – and to keep the Office informed of any decision taken or envisaged in this respect.

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

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:

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes that, under section 4 of the Labour Protection Act, state enterprises regulated under the Act governing labour relations in state enterprises fall outside its scope of application. It also notes that section 22 of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) provides for Ministerial Regulations which may regulate transport work, cargo handling and other works in terms different from those set out in the Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the legislative provisions ensuring the weekly rest for workers who may be exempted from the Labour Protection Act but are employed by undertakings coming within the scope of the Convention. The Committee would also appreciate receiving copies of any ministerial regulations that might contain provisions on weekly rest differing from those set out in the Labour Protection Act.

Article 2, paragraph2 2 and 3. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the weekly rest is, wherever possible, granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking or whether it is fixed to coincide with the days already established by the traditions or customs of the country and to specify any relevant provisions.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes the special weekly rest scheme laid down in section 28 of the Labour Protection Act according to which employees working in transport, forestry, hardship places and other works, as may be defined by ministerial regulations, may agree with their employers in advance to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays for a period of up to four weeks. A similar arrangement is found in Ministerial Regulation No. 7 B.E. 2541 (1998) concerning labour protection in the petroleum industry whereby a maximum period of 28 consecutive working days may be fixed following which the employer is obliged to provide the corresponding weekly holidays as appropriate. The Committee wishes to observe in this connection that even though such arrangements may not be formally incompatible with any provision of the Convention, the deferment or accumulation of weekly rest days for an unreasonably long period of time would risk to nullify the whole purpose of the worker’s right to weekly rest and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was conceived.

Temporary exceptions to the weekly rest. The Committee notes that under section 25 of the Labour Protection Act, an employer may exceptionally require an employee to work on a day of weekly rest when the nature or conditions of work require continuous performance and stoppage may cause damage, or in the case of emergency. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that providing workers with a weekly day of rest is an elementary guarantee to safeguard their health and welfare and therefore any exceptions must be limited to what is strictly necessary. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether these exceptions were adopted having special regard to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and upon prior consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, as required under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory period of rest. The Committee notes that the Labour Protection Act makes no provision for compensatory period of rest but only for monetary compensation when an employer requires an employee to work on a weekly rest day. More concretely, under section 64 of the Act, an employer must pay to the employee holiday pay and holiday overtime pay at specified rates, i.e. not less than one or two times the hourly rate for any regular hours of work performed on a rest day (section 62(1) and (2)) and not less than three times the hourly rate for overtime on a rest day (section 63). The Committee wishes to emphasize in this respect that provision must be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspension or diminution of the period of weekly rest regardless of any cash compensation.

Article 6. List of exceptions. With reference to section 25 of the Labour Protection Act which provides for exceptions to weekly rest for those working in specified sectors, including transport, and other businesses as may be prescribed by ministerial regulations, the Committee requests the Government to provide the full list of exceptions currently in effect and to transmit the text of all relevant ministerial regulations which have so far been issued on these matters.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government concerning the number of inspected establishments and the number of infringements reported in relation to weekly holidays. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide general information on the application of the Convention in practice, including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, inspection results showing the number of violations observed and sanctions imposed, full particulars on authorized total or partial exceptions, etc.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because they continued to respond to current needs (see GB.238/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken or envisaged in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its last two reports, in particular the enactment of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes that, under section 4 of the Labour Protection Act, state enterprises regulated under the Act governing labour relations in state enterprises fall outside its scope of application. It also notes that section 22 of the Labour Protection Act provides for Ministerial Regulations which may regulate transport work, cargo handling and other works in terms different from those set out in the Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the legislative provisions ensuring the weekly rest for workers who may be exempted from the Labour Protection Act but are employed by undertakings coming within the scope of the Convention. The Committee would also appreciate receiving copies of any ministerial regulations that might contain provisions on weekly rest differing from those set out in the Labour Protection Act.

Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the weekly rest is, wherever possible, granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking or whether it is fixed to coincide with the days already established by the traditions or customs of the country and to specify any relevant provisions.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes the special weekly rest scheme laid down in section 28 of the Labour Protection Act according to which employees working in transport, forestry, hardship places and other works, as may be defined by ministerial regulations, may agree with their employers in advance to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays for a period of up to four weeks. A similar arrangement is found in Ministerial Regulation No. 7 B.E. 2541 (1998) concerning labour protection in the petroleum industry whereby a maximum period of 28 consecutive working days may be fixed following which the employer is obliged to provide the corresponding weekly holidays as appropriate. The Committee wishes to observe in this connection that even though such arrangements may not be formally incompatible with any provision of the Convention, the deferment or accumulation of weekly rest days for an unreasonably long period of time would risk to nullify the whole purpose of the worker’s right to weekly rest and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was conceived.

Temporary exceptions to the weekly rest. The Committee notes that under section 25 of the Labour Protection Act, an employer may exceptionally require an employee to work on a day of weekly rest when the nature or conditions of work require continuous performance and stoppage may cause damage, or in the case of emergency. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that providing workers with a weekly day of rest is an elementary guarantee to safeguard their health and welfare and therefore any exceptions must be limited to what is strictly necessary. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether these exceptions were adopted having special regard to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and upon prior consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, as required under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory period of rest. The Committee notes that the Labour Protection Act makes no provision for compensatory period of rest but only for monetary compensation when an employer requires an employee to work on a weekly rest day. More concretely, under section 64 of the Act, an employer must pay to the employee holiday pay and holiday overtime pay at specified rates, i.e. not less than one or two times the hourly rate for any regular hours of work performed on a rest day (section 62(1) and (2)) and not less than three times the hourly rate for overtime on a rest day (section 63). The Committee wishes to emphasize in this respect that provision must be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspension or diminution of the period of weekly rest regardless of any cash compensation.

Article 6. List of exceptions. With reference to section 25 of the Labour Protection Act which provides for exceptions to weekly rest for those working in specified sectors, including transport, and other businesses as may be prescribed by ministerial regulations, the Committee requests the Government to provide the full list of exceptions currently in effect and to transmit the text of all relevant ministerial regulations which have so far been issued on these matters.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government concerning the number of inspected establishments and the number of infringements reported in relation to weekly holidays. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide general information on the application of the Convention in practice, including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, inspection results showing the number of violations observed and sanctions imposed, full particulars on authorized total or partial exceptions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's statements in its last reports that the Labour Protection Law (Ministry of Interior Announcement B.E. 2515 of 16 April 1972) applying various provisions of the Convention has been approved by the Cabinet, forwarded to the Parliament, and is currently under the consideration of the Juridical Council. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in the near future the progress achieved in this respect and to supply a copy of the relevant text when it is adopted.