Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

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

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

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.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide up to date information in its next report on the application of the Convention in practice including, for instance, extracts from reports of the labour inspection services containing information on the number and nature of the contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; statistics on the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has been applied and the number of overtime hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week by these workers; 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 of these workers, as well as the number of overtime hours worked; copies of studies or official reports on matters relating to working time, particularly with regard to the reduction of working time in connection with new technologies or as an employment policy measure, especially in the context of the economic crisis that is currently affecting the global economy; and finally, information on the systems for the arrangement of working time envisaged in recent collective agreements.

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

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 that section 71 of the Labour Code provides for recourse, following consultation with workers’ representative organizations, to the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period of up to one year, without specifying the categories of employment concerned. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that Recommendation No. 116 on the reduction of working hours, 1962, provides for the calculation of normal average hours of work; however, only in cases where "special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it" (Paragraph 12). It must in fact be restricted to exceptional cases where the nature of the work, technical reasons or seasonal variations and periodic pressure of work make it necessary. In the light of these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will take account of the provisions of the Recommendation and amend section 71 of the Labour Code in consequence. It requests it to keep the ILO informed on all developments in this regard.

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 first report on the application of the Convention. It notes that section 71 of the Labour Code provides for recourse, following consultation with workers’ representative organizations, to the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period of up to one year, without specifying the categories of employment concerned. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that Recommendation No. 116 on the reduction of working hours, 1962, provides for the calculation of normal average hours of work; however, only in cases where "special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it" (Paragraph 12). It must in fact be restricted to exceptional cases where the nature of the work, technical reasons or seasonal variations and periodic pressure of work make it necessary. In the light of these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will take account of the provisions of the Recommendation and amend section 71 of the Labour Code in consequence. It requests it to keep the ILO informed on all developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government's first report on the application of the Convention. It notes that section 71 of the Labour Code provides for recourse, following consultation with workers' representative organizations, to the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period of up to one year, without specifying the categories of employment concerned. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that Recommendation No. 116 on the reduction of working hours, 1962, provides for the calculation of normal average hours of work; however, only in cases where "special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it" (Paragraph 12). It must in fact be restricted to exceptional cases where the nature of the work, technical reasons or seasonal variations and periodic pressure of work make it necessary. In the light of these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will take account of the provisions of the Recommendation and amend section 71 of the Labour Code in consequence. It requests it to keep the ILO informed on all developments in this regard.