ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

Convention (n° 14) sur le repos hebdomadaire (industrie), 1921 - Thaïlande (Ratification: 1968)

Autre commentaire sur C014

Demande directe
  1. 2014
  2. 2013
  3. 2009
  4. 2008
  5. 2005
  6. 1995
Réponses reçues aux questions soulevées dans une demande directe qui ne donnent pas lieu à d’autres commentaires
  1. 2019

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its last two reports, in particular the enactment of the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes that, under section 4 of the Labour Protection Act, state enterprises regulated under the Act governing labour relations in state enterprises fall outside its scope of application. It also notes that section 22 of the Labour Protection Act provides for Ministerial Regulations which may regulate transport work, cargo handling and other works in terms different from those set out in the Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the legislative provisions ensuring the weekly rest for workers who may be exempted from the Labour Protection Act but are employed by undertakings coming within the scope of the Convention. The Committee would also appreciate receiving copies of any ministerial regulations that might contain provisions on weekly rest differing from those set out in the Labour Protection Act.

Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the weekly rest is, wherever possible, granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking or whether it is fixed to coincide with the days already established by the traditions or customs of the country and to specify any relevant provisions.

Article 4. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes the special weekly rest scheme laid down in section 28 of the Labour Protection Act according to which employees working in transport, forestry, hardship places and other works, as may be defined by ministerial regulations, may agree with their employers in advance to accumulate or postpone weekly holidays for a period of up to four weeks. A similar arrangement is found in Ministerial Regulation No. 7 B.E. 2541 (1998) concerning labour protection in the petroleum industry whereby a maximum period of 28 consecutive working days may be fixed following which the employer is obliged to provide the corresponding weekly holidays as appropriate. The Committee wishes to observe in this connection that even though such arrangements may not be formally incompatible with any provision of the Convention, the deferment or accumulation of weekly rest days for an unreasonably long period of time would risk to nullify the whole purpose of the worker’s right to weekly rest and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was conceived.

Temporary exceptions to the weekly rest. The Committee notes that under section 25 of the Labour Protection Act, an employer may exceptionally require an employee to work on a day of weekly rest when the nature or conditions of work require continuous performance and stoppage may cause damage, or in the case of emergency. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that providing workers with a weekly day of rest is an elementary guarantee to safeguard their health and welfare and therefore any exceptions must be limited to what is strictly necessary. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate whether these exceptions were adopted having special regard to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and upon prior consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, as required under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory period of rest. The Committee notes that the Labour Protection Act makes no provision for compensatory period of rest but only for monetary compensation when an employer requires an employee to work on a weekly rest day. More concretely, under section 64 of the Act, an employer must pay to the employee holiday pay and holiday overtime pay at specified rates, i.e. not less than one or two times the hourly rate for any regular hours of work performed on a rest day (section 62(1) and (2)) and not less than three times the hourly rate for overtime on a rest day (section 63). The Committee wishes to emphasize in this respect that provision must be made, as far as possible, for compensatory periods of rest for any suspension or diminution of the period of weekly rest regardless of any cash compensation.

Article 6. List of exceptions. With reference to section 25 of the Labour Protection Act which provides for exceptions to weekly rest for those working in specified sectors, including transport, and other businesses as may be prescribed by ministerial regulations, the Committee requests the Government to provide the full list of exceptions currently in effect and to transmit the text of all relevant ministerial regulations which have so far been issued on these matters.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government concerning the number of inspected establishments and the number of infringements reported in relation to weekly holidays. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide general information on the application of the Convention in practice, including, for instance, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, inspection results showing the number of violations observed and sanctions imposed, full particulars on authorized total or partial exceptions, etc.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer