Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Convention (n° 47) des quarante heures, 1935 - Tadjikistan (Ratification: 1993)

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 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. Averaging of hours of work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 71 of the Labour Code allows the averaging of hours of work over a period of up to one year in cases where normal hours of work cannot be followed due to the conditions in which the work is performed. It notes that, in this case, the weekly average of working hours over the reference period selected may not exceed 40 hours, and that daily hours of work may not exceed 12 hours. Finally, it notes that this arrangement of working time has to be established by collective agreement or, where there is no such agreement, introduced by the employer after consultation with the representatives of the workers. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the negative effects that excessive daily or weekly hours of work may have on the health of workers and the balance between private and working life. Furthermore, it considers that the averaging of hours of work over a reference period which may be as long as one year allows for too many exceptions to the principle of the 40-hour week and makes it difficult to achieve the objective of the progressive reduction of hours of work. Furthermore, the establishment of such a system for the arrangement of working time should only be possible in well-determined cases. The Committee refers once again to Paragraph 12 of Recommendation No. 116, which provides that the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week may be permitted “when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it”. It considers that the provisions of section 71 of the Labour Code are too vague in this respect. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information on the systems for the arrangement of working time introduced under section 71 of the Labour Code, including particulars of the number of workers and types of enterprises concerned. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to reduce the daily hours of work authorized and the reference period in the context of such schemes.

Double employment. The Committee notes that Act No. 26 of 17 May 2004 amended the Labour Code and, among other measures, introduced a section 281 governing situations in which employees are engaged simultaneously in two jobs. It notes that this provision envisages the adoption of specific legislation on this subject for teaching, medical and pharmaceutical personnel, as well as for workers in the cultural sector. Finally, it observes that the Labour Code, as amended, does not establish an overall limit for the hours of work of workers engaged in two jobs. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of any legislative text adopted under section 281 of the Labour Code and to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to limit the total working time of the workers concerned.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to raise a matter that is not explicitly covered by the Convention, but which in its view is of great importance for the regulation of working time. It notes that, in the context of the five-day working week, section 67 of the Labour Code provides that daily hours of work shall be established by the employer following consultations with the representatives of workers. However, it observes that the Labour Code only sets an absolute limit to daily hours of work for certain categories of workers (young workers, students and persons with disabilities). The Committee wishes to emphasize that the determination of maximum daily hours of work is just as important as the determination of a weekly limit in this respect. It draws the Government’s attention to the provisions of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), and the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), which have not been ratified by Tajikistan, but nevertheless take on the value of a recommendation and which limit normal daily hours of work to eight in the day. If it considers it appropriate, the Government could envisage the possibility of setting such a limit to daily hours of work in the context of the five-day week, as it has done for the six-day week, in consultation with the representative organizations of employers and workers.