Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1956)

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

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 14 (weekly rest (industry)), 47 (40-hour week), 106 (weekly rest (commerce and offices)) and 132 (annual holidays with pay) together.

Weekly rest

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 and Article 8 of Convention No. 106. Special weekly rest schemes – Temporary exemptions – Compensatory rest. Further to its previous comments on sections 113 and 153 of the Labour Code allowing work to be performed on a weekly rest day in a wide range of circumstances without compensatory rest, the Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any relevant information on this issue. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that work on a weekly rest day is authorized only in limited and well-defined circumstances and that employees who may be required to perform work during their weekly rest day, either regularly or temporarily, enjoy a compensatory rest of a total duration of at least 24 hours, irrespective of any monetary compensation, as required by these Articles of the Conventions.

Hours of work

Article 1 of Convention No. 47. Forty-hour week. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that: (i) under section 99 of the Labour Code, overtime is allowed not only in the listed temporary and exceptional circumstances, but also in other non-specified situations with the employee’s written consent; and (ii) section 104 of the Labour Code allows for the averaging of working hours with a reference period of up to one year. The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that overtime is not a systematic practice, but it may occur occasionally in certain cases. The Committee observes that the above-mentioned provisions, which authorize additional hours in unprecise circumstances, as well as the calculation of hours of work as an average over a reference period of up to one year without stipulating absolute weekly limits in a concrete week, could possibly lead to unreasonably long working hours, in direct contradiction to the principle of progressive reduction of hours of work. In this respect, the Committee recalls that too many exceptions to normal hours of work can result in highly variable working hours over long periods, long working days and the absence of compensation (2018 General Survey on working-time instruments, paragraph 68). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the principle of a 40-hour week provided for by the Convention is fully applied both in law and in practice.

Annual leave with pay

Article 4 of Convention No. 132. Proportionate leave. The Committee notes that in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that sections 291 and 295 of the Labour Code allow proportionate leave at a rate of two working days per month of work for employees with contracts of up to two months and for those engaged in seasonal work. The Committee however observes that the labour legislation does not provide for the possibility of granting annual paid leave in proportion to the time worked by other employees whose length of service in the first year of employment is less than six months. The Committee recalls that according to Article 4 of the Convention, workers whose length of service in any year is less than that required for the full holidays with pay entitlement shall be entitled in respect of that year to a holiday with pay proportionate to their length of service during that year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. In reply to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s explanations that under certain conditions provided for under section 97 of the Labour Code, an employer may engage a worker for an overtime period beyond the statutory working time applicable to that worker under the Labour Code or under other Federal laws or collective agreements, arrangements, local regulations or an employment contract. In this respect, the Government indicates the conditions under which overtime may be required with the written consent of the worker and the circumstances where an employer may ask a worker to perform overtime without his/her consent. The Committee observes that the Government’s report essentially reproduces information provided in its previous report and does not indicate any new legislative or other measures that would further implement the Convention, in particular as regards overly long reference period of one year for the averaging of hours of work. In this connection, 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, 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 therefore requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the daily hours of work and the reference period applied in the context of such arrangements.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. In response to its previous comment concerning section 98 of the Labour Code which allowed an employer to employ a person under two different contracts to work beyond 40 hours in a week, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision has been repealed following the latest amendment of the Labour Code in 2006 (Federal Law No. 90-FZ of 30 June 2006).

In addition, the Committee notes that section 104 of the Labour Code permits the averaging of working hours over a reference period not exceeding one year. It also notes the Government’s explanations that averaging may be introduced by decision of the employer taking into account the opinion of the elected trade union organization, or without it, depending on the procedure established under the internal regulations of the enterprise. The Committee observes that such provisions call into question the object and purpose of the Convention inasmuch as recourse to long reference periods for the averaging of hours at the employer’s discretion may seriously reduce the application of the principle of the 40-hour week in practice. The Committee refers, in this connection, to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), designed to facilitate the implementation of the Convention, which provides that the calculation of normal hours of work as a an average over a period longer than one week should be permitted when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to further clarify the circumstances under which the averaging of working hours is permitted.

Moreover, the Committee notes that section 99 of the Labour Code permits an employer to request overtime work with the written consent of the worker and upon consideration of the opinion of the elected trade union of the enterprise in some unspecified cases other than emergencies and unforeseen circumstances. The Government explains in its report that the requirement for prior consultations is met if the employer informs in advance the workers’ representatives of the necessity and the volume of the overtime work in question. The Committee wishes to refer, in this respect, to Paragraph 14 of Recommendation No. 116, which envisages exceptions of three kinds (permanent, temporary, periodical) to the normal hours of work and provides that the competent authorities in each country should determine the circumstances and limits of such exceptions. The Committee further refers to paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time in which it noted 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. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the ILO Decent Work Country Report for the Russian Federation, published in 2008, 52 per cent of the employees in private enterprises performed overtime work in 2004, while in 2000 about 14 per cent of all workers worked more than the standard 40 hours per week. In the light of the above statistics and the relevant provisions of Recommendation No. 116, the Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed information on the conditions under which overtime is authorized. 

 Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide together with its next report up to date information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, extracts from labour inspection reports showing the number and nature of contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; statistics concerning the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of a 40-hour week has been applied and the number of hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has not as yet been applied and the normal hours of work applicable to these workers; official studies or reports on working time issues and especially the question of the reduction of hours of work in relation to factors such as the effect of new technologies and employment policy objectives; trends on working time arrangements as reflected in recent collective agreements, etc.

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

The Committee notes the adoption of the new Labour Code of 2002, which continues to give effect to the principle of the 40-hour week in its section 91. Under section 98, however, the new Labour Code allows work to be carried out beyond the set norm of 40 hours per week. Upon a request from an employee, an employer is permitted to allow an employee working on another labour agreement within the same organization on a different position, specialty or profession, to work beyond the normal length of working time (internal combination of jobs). Allowing employers to employ one person under two different contracts to work beyond 40 hours undermines the principle contained in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to review this provision to bring it in line with all other measures to facilitate the application of a 40-hour week.

It requests the Government to provide general information in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice and to communicate the information called for under Part V of the report form.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the present report have been communicated as required in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization.

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

The Committee notes the Government's last report, in which it states that national laws and regulations continue to give full effect to the Convention. It requests the Government to provide general information in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice and to communicate, in so far as possible, the information called for under Part V of the report form.