National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
C.30, C.52 and C.101
Article 4 of the Convention. Prohibition of any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay. The Committee recalls that for over 20 years it has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 98 of the Labour Code, which is not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, under which any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay shall be void. As the Committee emphasized in paragraph 193 of its General Survey of 1964 on annual holidays with pay, for social and health reasons it should not be open to the worker to abandon any part of his holiday in return for cash compensation. However, under section 98 of the Labour Code, the State Labour and Social Security Committee may authorize the administration, on an exceptional basis and in certain sectors or activities, to grant one or more workers, with their consent, cash remuneration in lieu of their holiday leave and without any other period of rest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour has not recorded any authorization granted in this respect and that, although section 98 of the Labour Code is not applied in practice, it will remain formally in force until the adoption of the new Labour Code. The Committee hopes that the Government will take into account the comments that it has been making for many years on this matter in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention. It once again requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in the situation and to provide a copy of relevant texts once they have been adopted.
The Committee also takes this opportunity to recall that, at the proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body considered that Conventions Nos 52 and 101 were outdated and invited the States parties to these Conventions to contemplate ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be fully up to date but remains relevant in certain respects (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). The acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 in respect of persons employed in all economic sectors, including agriculture by a State party to Conventions Nos 52 and 101 involves ipso jure the immediate denunciation of the latter Conventions. This approach would appear particularly appropriate as the legislation in Cuba, which provides for annual holiday with pay of at least one month for each period of 11 months of effective service, is clearly more favourable than the requirements of Convention No.52 and seems to be in substantial conformity with most of the provisions of Convention No. 132. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision that it may take in relation to the ratification of Convention No. 132.
The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its direct request.
Article 4 of the Convention. Nullity of agreements to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay. In its previous comments, the Committee concluded that section 98 of the Labour Code was not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, under which any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay shall be considered null and void. Under section 98 of the Labour Code, the State Labour and Social Security Committee may authorize the administration, on an exceptional basis and in certain sectors or activities, to grant one or more workers, with their consent, cash remuneration in lieu of their holiday leave and without any other period of rest. The Government indicates in its report that section 98 of the Labour Code remains formally in force pending the outcome of the procedure to amend the Code but that it is no longer applied in practice. The Committee hopes that the Government will include a provision, in the context of the reform of the Labour Code, for any agreement to relinquish an annual holiday with pay to be declared null and void. It requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this regard.
Part V of the report form. Referring to its previous observation of 1995, the Committee notes from the report of the National Labour Inspection of 1998, supplied with the Government’s report, that 8,966 inspections have been carried out concerning also paid holidays. Nevertheless, the report contained no particular information and statistics on the enforcement of holiday provisions. The Committee therefore wishes to repeat its previous comments on this point, which read as follows:
The Committee also observes that section 95 of the Labour Code provides that the administration of the employing body shall ensure, if it postpones a worker’s holiday, that the worker takes not less than seven days’ paid leave during the working year. It requests the Government to supply copies of state labour inspection reports containing information and statistics on the enforcement of holiday provisions.
In earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 98 of the Labour Code of 1984 expressly permits the State Labour and Social Security Committee to authorize the replacement of holidays by supplementary remuneration with the worker’s agreement for reasons of production of goods or supply of services in a number of branches, activities or workplaces. The Committee pointed out that such replacement of holiday leave by cash remuneration contravenes Article 4 of the Convention, which prohibits any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday. The Committee notes from the Government’s reply that section 95 of the Labour Code, which provides that an employer shall ensure not less than seven days’ paid leave during the working year, if it postpones a worker’s holiday, is also applicable in case of exceptional measures in accordance with section 98. It further notes that for several years the authority vested in the State Labour and Social Security Committee under section 98 has not been exercised in practice. It notes that research is under way in order to amend the Labour Code of 1984 in the area of working time and rest, taking into account the observations of the Committee, to bring it into conformity with the real situation of the country. It hopes that the Government continues to undertake all efforts to amend the Labour Code in the near future and asks the Government to convey the new text to the Office when adopted.
In earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 98 of the Labour Code of 1984 expressly permits the State Labour and Social Security Committee to authorize, for reasons of production of goods or supply of services, with the workers' agreement, in a number of branches, activities or workplaces, the replacement of holidays by supplementary remuneration. The Committee pointed out that such replacement of holiday leave by cash remuneration contravenes Article 4 of the Convention which prohibits any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday. The Committee notes the Government's reply that regulations on working time and holidays continue to be drafted. It requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, any progress made in this respect and to supply copies of any relevant legislative texts if enacted.
The Committee also observes that section 95 of the Labour Code provides that an employer shall ensure, if it postpones a worker's holiday, that the worker takes not less than seven days' paid leave during the working year. It requests the Government to supply copies of state labour inspection reports containing information and statistics on the enforcement of holiday provisions.
In previous observations, the Committee has commented that section 98 of the Labour Code of 1979 permits the State Labour and Social Security Committee to authorise, with the agreement of the workers, the replacement of holidays by cash in a number of branches or activities or for reasons of production or services. This is in conflict with Article 4 of the Convention, under which any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday should be void.
The Committee notes from the Government's report that regulations on working time and holidays are being drafted, that they will take into account the Committee's comments, and that the Government will advise the Committee as soon as they have been approved.
The Committee hopes that the Government will soon take the measures necessary and that it will supply full particulars.
In its previous observation, the Committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that section 98 of the Labour Code of 1979 under which the State Labour and Social Security Committee may authorise with the agreement of the workers, in a number of branches or activities or for reasons of production or services, the replacement of holidays by supplementary remuneration, is in conflict with Article 4 of the Convention under which any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday shall be void.
In reply, the Government states that under section 52(n) of Legislative Decree No. 67 of 19 April 1983, the State Labour and Social Security Committee, when making the authorisations envisaged unde section 98 of the Labour Code, is obliged to ensure that effect is given to the obligations derived from Conventions and that - specifically to give effect to this Convention - a provision has been introduced in the Labour Code (section 95) to the effect that workers shall be entitled to at least seven days of holiday with pay during the working year.
The Committee takes due note of the explanations given by the Government. It notes, nevertheless, that section 98 of the Labour Code clearly establishes the possibility (in the exceptional cases laid down by the above section) of the replacement of the workers' holidays by cash remuneration "without taking time off" and that the worker will receive a corresponding supplementary remuneration for the days worked "during the period for which he should have been on leave". In order to clarify any ambiguity and eliminate the possibility that the law be applied contrary to the provisions of the Convention, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take the appropriate steps to specify that section 98 cannot be applied to the minimum holidays provided for in section 95 of the Labour Code.