Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

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

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

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. Hours of work. Public service. The Committee notes that section 59 of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that the normal working hours are 40 hours per week but that the extension of the normal working day aimed at increasing the duration of weekly rest does not constitute performance of additional hours. It notes that such extension is therefore not limited to three hours per day and eight hours per week as provided for by section 59(2) of this Act. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the duration of the normal working day and the extent to which it may be extended under section 59 mentioned above to enable workers to benefit from a longer weekly rest period.

Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, in its report under the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), the Government recalls that no regulations have been adopted to date on the basis of section 211 of the Labour Code and that, if need be, such regulations would be adopted after consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with the practice followed by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee wishes, however, to emphasize once again that section 212(1) of the former Labour Code of 1961 expressly provided that the adoption of special regulations for special work had to be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned and that this requirement has not been included in section 211 of the Labour Code of 1993. The Committee therefore repeats its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention concerning temporary exceptions to the normal rules on hours of work, particularly with regard to the obligation to hold prior consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government does not reply specifically to its previous comments concerning the maximum number of additional hours authorized. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether the limits established by section 201 of the Labour Code, namely up to three additional hours per day and a maximum of 57 hours per week in total, are general in scope and therefore also applicable in the context of the exceptions authorized under section 202 of the Labour Code, particularly paragraph (c).

Furthermore, the Committee understands that workers may agree to work additional hours in cases other than those set out in section 202 of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether that is indeed the case and, if so, to indicate whether checks are carried out by the national authorities with regard to the circumstances justifying the performance of additional hours. In this regard, it draws the Government’s attention to the fact that exceeding the ordinary limits concerning hours of work – eight hours per day and 48 hours per week – is authorized only in the cases specifically set out in the Convention, in particular: in case of a general interruption of work (Article 5); where exceptional circumstances justify the distribution of the hours of work over a period longer than the week (Article 6); in the context of permanent exceptions for intermittent, preparatory or complementary work, or in shops or other establishments where the nature of the work, the size of the population or the number of persons employed render inapplicable the working hours (Article 7(1)); or, in the context of temporary exceptions in case of accident, force majeure or urgent work, to prevent the loss of perishable goods or avoid endangering the technical results of the work, to allow for special work such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets, or, under certain conditions, to enable establishments to deal with cases of abnormal pressure of work (Article 7(2)).

In addition, the Committee notes that section 59(2) of Act No. 1.626 of 27 December 2000 on the public service provides that additional hours may not exceed three hours per day and eight hours per week and must be authorized in writing. It requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances in which additional hours may be authorized under this provision, given that the restrictions imposed by the Convention in this regard, which are listed above, also apply to public sector employees.

Part IV of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes with interest the court decisions copies of which were attached to the Government’s report. It requests the Government to continue providing information on court decisions handed down which contain questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the complete text of Decision No. 27 of 31 March 1993, No. 35 of 26 May 1998, No. 20 of 22 April 1999, and No. 94 of 7 October 2001, extracts of which were reproduced in its report.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the outcome of an inspection relating, in particular, to hours of work. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistics on the number of workers in the commerce and offices sectors protected by the legislation relating to hours of work, as well as the number and nature of violations reported and the follow-up action.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest the conclusion, on 23 February 2009, of a tripartite agreement on a Decent Work Country Programme for Paraguay. It notes that this programme refers, in particular, to the improvement of the implementation of international labour standards in the light of the comments made by the supervisory bodies and to the need to train judges, inspectors and lawyers on this subject. The Committee also notes that, in this context, the national authorities have expressed their concern at the difficulties relating to the operation of the labour inspection system and have requested the support of the ILO in drawing up and implementing the necessary reforms to the national legislation. It hopes that the implementation of this programme, with technical assistance from the Office if necessary, will improve the application of the Convention in national law and practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Permanent exception. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report, section 211 of the Labour Code, addressed by the Committee in its previous comments, does not apply to preparatory or complementary or intermittent work but essentially to continuous work and specials tasks which are not of a usual nature. Hence, the provisions of section 211 of the Labour Code are examined below in regard to the relevant Articles of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8. Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, under section 211 of the Labour Code, the administrative labour authorities may adopt special regulations regarding hours of work for work of a special nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s report, this is not usual work and the regulations in question therefore make temporary exceptions, not permanent exceptions. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) and Article 8 of the Convention for the application of temporary exceptions. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the work of a special nature covered by section 211 of the Labour Code is work of the type listed in Article 7(2)(c) of the Convention, such as stocktaking and the preparation of balance sheets or closing of accounts.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that regulations setting up temporary exceptions shall be made after consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, special regard being paid to collective agreements, if any, concluded between these organizations. On this score, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, up to the present, circumstances have not made it necessary to adopt regulations in application of section 211 of the Labour Code but that, in the event, such regulations would be adopted in consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes, however, that, in contrast to section 212, paragraph 1, of the 1961 Labour Code, which it reproduces almost verbatim, section 211 of the 1993 Labour Code, currently in force, does not provide that the adoption of special regulations for special work must be done after consultation with the occupational organizations concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention regulating temporary exceptions to the rules on hours of work and, in particular, those regarding compulsory prior consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, by virtue of section 201 of the Labour Code, when, owing to particular circumstances, hours of work have to be increased, the additional hours shall be counted as overtime in regard to payment and shall not in any case exceed three extra hours per day, or a weekly total of 57 hours, subject to exceptions specifically laid down in the Labour Code. It also notes that, in accordance with section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code, the additional hours are specifically authorized temporarily to perform urgent work or to respond to exceptional pressure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the limit of 57 hours per week applies when additional hours are worked in application of section 202, paragraph (c), of the Labour Code. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure there is consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations prior to the application of such temporary exceptions, and that collective agreements concluded between them are taken into account, as laid down in Article 8 of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for instance, extracts from the reports of the inspection services and, if possible, statistical data on the number of workers protected by legislation, exceptions granted on the basis of section 202, paragraph (c), and of section 211 of the Labour Code, the number and nature of contraventions, etc.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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:

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report and the useful appendices it contains. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it considers that the work of a special nature or requiring continuous performance, mentioned in section 211 of the Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993), should include not only the cases of supplementary work provided in sections 202 and 203 of the Code, but also cases for which exceptions to the normal working duration is allowed for preparatory or supplementary work for persons whose work is intermittent or for certain establishments where the nature of the work or the size of the population render inapplicable the normal working hours. For the abovementioned cases which are set out in Article 7 of the Convention, Article 8 provides that the public authorities shall issue regulations after consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, special regard being paid to any existing collective agreements. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that consultation of occupational organizations, as above, should be provided for in section 211 of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged in this regard and to describe the manner in which effect is given to section 211 in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

See the comments under Convention No. 1 concerning the promulgation of the new Labour Code, No. 213 of 21 June 1993, as follows:

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the new Labour Code (Act No. 213 of 29 October 1993) repeals section 205 of the former Labour Code which permitted the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours a day in the case of technical or specialized work.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on certain points.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government according to which it intends to take account, in the preliminary draft of the new Labour Code, of the Committee's previous comments related to repealing section 205 of the current Labour Code. This section, in certain cases, permits the extension of the normal working day to 12 hours.

The Committee points out that it has been commenting on this matter since 1969 and trusts that the Government will take these measures as soon as possible and that it will report any development to the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

See the comments made under Convention No. 1 concerning section 205 of the Labour Code, as follows:

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government in its report that section 205 of the Labour Code, which permits the extension of the normal length of the working day to 12 hours in certain cases, has still not been repealed.

The Committee recalls that it has been making comments on this question since 1969, and notes that no progress has been made in spite of direct contacts in 1977 and 1981. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the measures necessary to assure that the national legislation is in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Convention.