Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - Serbia (Ratification: 2000)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

In order to provide an overview of all the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 14 (weekly rest in industry) and 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost” on the implementation of Convention No 106, communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) on the implementation of Conventions Nos 14 and 106 communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 2(1), (2) and (3) of Convention No. 14 and Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of the Convention No. 106. Right to weekly rest. Uniformity of weekly rest. Respect of traditions and customs. The Committee notes that in reply to the previous comments of “Nezavisnost”, the Government indicates in its report that following amendments to the Labour Law in 2014, section 67 stipulates that the employee has the right to a weekly rest period of at least 24 continuous hours, which, as a rule, should be taken on Sundays. The Committee notes that in its observations, “Nezavisnost” reiterates its previous indication according to which, despite section 67 of the Labour Law provides for a weekly rest of no less than 24 consecutive hours, in practice, overtime is required so frequently that it prevents workers from exercising their right to weekly rest. According to “Nezavisnost”, such work is often misleadingly referred to by employers as “redistribution of working hours” and is often recorded as “volunteering”. For its part, the CATUS indicates that, while section 67(2) sets Sunday rest as a rule, this is commonly disregarded in the trade sector. It also indicates that despite having submitted several initiatives on the legal prohibition of work on Sundays and national holidays in the trade sector to various governmental bodies since 2016, no concrete action has been taken to address them. Furthermore, recent amendments to the Labour Law in 2014, 2017 and 2018 were made without consulting trade unions, thus failing to align with their goals. The Committee recalls that the principle of uniformity enshrined in Article 2(2) of Convention No. 14 and Article 6(2) of Convention No. 106 refers to the collective character of weekly rest with a view to ensuring, wherever possible, that it is taken at the same time by all workers on the day established by tradition or custom. The social purpose of this principle is to enable workers to take part in community life and in the special forms of recreation available on certain days (2018 General Survey on working-time instruments, paragraph 202). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the observations of “Nezavisnost” and CATUS and to take the necessary measures to ensure the application in practice of the principles enshrined in Article 2 of Convention No. 14 and Article 6 of Convention No. 106.

Article 10 of Convention No. 106. Adequate inspection – Penalties. In reply to its previous comments on the lack of provisions in the Labour Law on sanctions in the event of non-compliance with sections 55 and 56 on hours of work, the Committee notes that the Government refers to: (i) section 269 of the Labour Law, which empowers labour inspectors to issue decisions mandating employers to remedy violations within a specified time frame and established the obligation of employers to inform the labour inspection of compliance within 15 days after the deadline expires; (ii) section 273 which prescribes a penal provision for not acting on the mentioned decisions of the labour inspectors. The Committee also notes that in its observations, the CATUS indicates that the sections referred to by the Government are not an adequate and effective sanction for non-compliance with sections 55 and 56 of the Labour Law. In this sense, the Committee observes that section 269 referred to by the Government does not specifically refer to sanctions. The Committee also notes that the CATUS indicates that: (i) the Government should consider appropriate measures for ensuring proper implementation of legal provisions regarding weekly rest including through adequate inspection mechanisms and effective sanctions for violations of Labour Law provisions on overtime work; (ii) employers generally do not comply with the requirement to formally notify employees of extended working-time schedules and neglect their record-keeping obligations; (iii) there is need for enhanced regulation of working time records under Labour Law given the inadequate application of existing regulations. Furthermore, in its observations, “Nezavisnost” indicates that it maintains its previous comments according to which the labour inspectorate is not effectively detecting infringements of the working-time legislation and imposing sanctions, as the inspectors do not exercise their powers to initiate inspections but only respond to complaints. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.It once again requests the Government to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the proper administration of legal provisions concerning weekly rest, especially by means of adequate inspection and effective sanctions. The Committee refers to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

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 2 and 7 of the Convention. Right to weekly rest – Keeping workers informed of weekly rest schedules. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Articles 6 and 10 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106).

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions to weekly rest. The Committee requests the Government to refer to the comments made under Article 8 of Convention No. 106.

Article 7. Rosters and notices. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 16(1)(3) and section 55(2) of the Labour Code impose the obligation on the employer to inform the workers of any previously determined arrangements for the organization of work, including the weekly rest day. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative, regulatory or other provisions which impose the obligation on the employer to make known the days and hours of weekly rest by means of notices where the rest is given collectively, or to draw up a roster where the rest period is not granted collectively, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that the Government has not replied to the observations dated 6 January 2004 from the organization known until October 2006 as the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). The Committee requests the Government to send any comment which it wishes to make in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the application of the Convention in the Republic of Serbia, in particular the new Labour Code of the Republic of Serbia, adopted on 15 March 2005. It notes that the report does not contain information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro. It therefore requests the Government to also provide full information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro for examination by the Committee at its next session.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that under the terms of section 67(4) of the new Labour Code of the Republic of Serbia, should an employee be called upon to work on a weekly rest day, the employer must give him or her a rest day of at least 24 consecutive hours during the following week. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it ensures that the proper humanitarian and economic considerations are taken into account in the case of such exceptions, as required by this Article of the Convention.

Article 7. The Committee points out to the Government that, according to the provisions of this Article, each employer is obliged, where weekly rest is given to the whole of the staff collectively, to make known such days and hours of collective rest by means of notices posted conspicuously in the establishment and, where the rest period is not granted to the whole of the staff collectively, by means of a roster including the weekly days of rest. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which this provision of the Convention is given effect.

The Committee reminds the Government that it must provide its comments on the subject of the observations made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 6 January 2004.

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

The Committee notes that the first report on the application of the Convention only provides information on the Republic of Serbia and does not contain information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro. It therefore requests the Government to also provide full information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). The Government has not, as yet, commented on these observations.

The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the application of the Convention in Serbia on the following points.

Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Provision of weekly rest. Section 51 of the Labour Code states that workers are entitled to a weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours. The WCL observes that the Labour Code does not stipulate the weekly rest days or the normal weekly rest scheme. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the weekly rest is, wherever possible, granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking and whether it is fixed to coincide, wherever possible, with the days already established by the traditions or customs of the country or district.

Article 4, paragraph 1. Total or partial exceptions. Section 44 of the Labour Code allows averaging of working time and section 51 allows work on the weekly rest day, if it is indispensable that the employee works on the day of the weekly rest. The Committee recalls that total or partial exceptions from the weekly rest provisions may only be authorized after special regard is had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with the responsible associations of employers and workers. The provision of a weekly rest should be considered an elementary guarantee to safeguard the health and welfare of workers and protect them against the risk of abuse. Therefore, exceptions should be kept to what is strictly necessary. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the special regard is had and whether responsible associations were consulted for all exceptions authorized to the weekly rest.

Article 7. Posting of notices. Section 39 of the Labour Code requires the employer to determine the schedule of the working hours and section 19(1)(9) requires the employment contract to specify the daily and weekly working hours. The Committee reminds the Government that under Article 7 each employer, director or manager should be obliged to make known the days of the weekly rest by means of notices posted conspicuously in the establishment if the rest is granted collectively, or if the rest is not granted collectively, to make known by means of a roster the days of the weekly rest. Both notices and rosters should be drawn up in a manner approved by the Government. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any provisions exist in order to ensure that such notices are placed in establishments and if no provisions exist, to amend its legislation to ensure that the obligations are placed on employers to ensure that such notices are posted.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]