CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1 of the Convention. Postponement of paid annual holiday by the employer. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that section 338 of the Labour Code on agricultural workers provides that the length of the working day, compulsory rest, holidays and other entitlements are governed by the relevant general provisions and that, consequently, section 74 of the Labour Code applies to agricultural workers. The Committee notes, in this connection, that the Government’s report contains no information on the circumstances in which the employer may decide to postpone holidays for one year. It therefore asks the Government to specify the circumstances in which employers may decide to postpone the paid annual leave of agricultural workers for one year.

Article 3. Minimum period of service. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no fresh information on the legislative provisions applying to the minimum period of service required for entitlement to paid annual leave. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate the legislative provisions specifying that the minimum period of service required for entitlement to annual paid holidays is one year, as the Government stated in its last report.

Article 5(d). Exclusion of public holidays from the paid annual holiday. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no fresh information on the legislative provisions governing the exclusion of public holidays from the annual holiday with pay. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the information sent by the Government concerning the work of the labour inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, statistical data on the number of workers covered by the legislation, extracts of reports by the inspection services indicating the number and nature of contraventions reported and the penalties imposed, etc.

The Committee takes this opportunity to renew its invitation to the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132). It requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision it may take as to the possible ratification of Convention No. 132 and any consequential amendments that would be needed in order to bring the legislation into line with the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

Further to its numerous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no fresh information as to any amendment of its legislation, despite the assurance given in its last report that it would make every effort to amend the legislation as rapidly as possible to take account of national practice and the Committee’s comments.

Articles 1 and 8 of the Convention. Postponement by the worker of paid annual holiday. The Committee notes that section 75 of the Labour Code still allows workers to relinquish their paid annual holidays for three consecutive years so that they can take it cumulatively in the fourth year. It draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 177 of its General Survey of 1964 on annual holidays with pay in which it pointed out that the fact that the Convention provides for the obligation to grant workers “annual” holidays (Article 1) and prohibits renunciation of this right (Article 8), is taken to mean that the postponement of holidays – which may nullify the whole purpose of the Convention – is not permitted. Should certain exceptions be considered as acceptable because they respond to the interests of both workers and employers, “it is essential to maintain the principle that, in the course of the year, the worker must be granted at least part of his leave in order to enjoy a minimum amount of rest and leisure.” The Committee accordingly urges the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure that should the postponement of annual holiday continue to be permitted, this will not affect a certain minimum part of the holiday, which must be granted every year.

The Committee raises other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1 of the Convention. Postponement of annual paid holiday by the employer. The Committee notes that, under section 74 of the Labour Code, an employer may postpone for one year the annual paid holiday of employees who carry out technical work or hold positions of trust and who are difficult to replace for a short period of time. It requests that the Government indicate whether this provision may be applied to agricultural workers and, if so, to specify the circumstances in which such a decision may be taken by the employer.

Article 3. Minimum period of service. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government in its report, the minimum period of service required in order to enjoy annual holidays with pay is one year of uninterrupted service. The Committee requests that the Government indicate which statutory provision establishes the abovementioned minimum period of service.

Article 5(c). Proportionate holidays. The Committee requests that the Government indicate whether, when the period of continuous service of a worker is shorter than the minimum period required to qualify for an annual holiday with pay - one year according to the information supplied by the Government - that worker may, nevertheless, enjoy proportionate holidays or payment in lieu thereof.

Article 5(d). Public holidays. The Committee notes that section 69 of the Labour Code provides for an annual paid holiday of 15 days, including public holidays. Article 5(d) of the Convention, however, provides that, where appropriate, public and customary holidays are to be excluded from the annual holiday with pay. The Committee requests that the Government indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure this exclusion.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests that the Government give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice by providing, for example, extracts of inspection service reports and, if possible, statistics on the number of workers covered by the legislation in force and the number and nature of violations reported.

The Committee also takes this opportunity to recall that, further to the proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the Governing Body of the ILO considered Convention No. 101 to be out of date and invited the States parties to that Convention to contemplate ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be entirely up to date, but remains relevant in certain aspects (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations set forth in Convention No. 132 in respect of persons employed in agriculture, by a State party to Convention No. 101 ipso jure involves the immediate denunciation of that Convention. The Committee requests that the Government keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Further to the comments it has been making for almost 25 years, the Committee notes that the Government, in its report, indicates that it will make every effort to amend its legislation as expeditiously as possible, taking into account national practice and the Committee’s comments. The Committee trusts that the Labour Code will be amended in the very near future so as to be brought into line with the Convention’s provisions in the way described below.

Articles 1 and 8 of the Convention. Postponement of annual paid holiday by the worker. The Committee notes that Article 75 of the Labour Code still allows the worker to forego his annual paid holiday for three consecutive years so that he can take it cumulatively in the fourth year. As the Committee pointed out in its General Survey of 1964 on annual holidays with pay (paragraph 177), the fact that the Convention provides for the obligation to grant workers "annual" holidays (Article 1) and prohibits the renunciation of this right (Article 8) is taken to mean that the postponement of holidays - which may nullify the whole purpose of the Convention - is not permitted. Should certain exceptions be considered as acceptable because they respond to the interests of both workers and employers, "it is essential to maintain the principle that, in the course of the year, the worker must be granted at least part of his leave in order to enjoy a minimum amount of rest and leisure". The Committee therefore requests that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure, in the event that the postponement of annual holiday continues to be permitted, that this will not affect a certain minimum part of the holiday, which must be granted each year.

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

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the new Labour Code of 12 June 1997 (sections 64 to 78) has brought no change to the substance of the provisions on holidays. The changes only concern the numbering of these provisions. Although section 35, No. 4 of the Constitution and section 72 of the new Labour Code prohibit the relinquishing of holidays, as pointed out by the Government, sections 74 and 75 of the Labour Code continue to be inconsistent with the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any new elements with regard to bringing national legislation and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee must therefore repeat its previous observations, which read as follows:

For several years, the Committee has expressed regret that sections 73 [now 74] and 74 [now 75] of the Labour Code contravene Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention. Specifically, section 73 [now 74] authorizes employers to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 [now 75] permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year. The Committee once again recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, workers employed in agricultural undertakings and related occupations must be granted an annual holiday with pay (Article 1) whose minimum duration must be determined in a manner approved by the competent authority (Article 3), and that any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay, or to forego such a holiday, must be void (Article 8). The Committee refers to its General Survey of the Convention in 1964 and recalls that a certain minimum part of the annual holiday must be granted each year, even where postponement of annual leave is permitted (paragraphs 177 to 181). Any other approach would be contrary not only to the fundamental provisions of the Convention but to the spirit in which it was conceived.

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation in line with the Convention as soon as possible.

CMNT_TITLE

For several years, the Committee has expressed regret that sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code contravene Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention. Specifically, section 73 authorizes employers to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year. The Committee once again recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, workers employed in agricultural undertakings and related occupations must be granted an annual holiday with pay (Article 1) whose minimum duration must be determined in a manner approved by the competent authority (Article 3), and that any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday with pay, or to forego such a holiday, must be void (Article 8). The Committee refers to its General Survey of the Convention in 1964 and recalls that a certain minimum part of the annual holiday must be granted each year, even where postponement of annual leave is permitted (paragraphs 177 to 181). Any other approach would be contrary not only to the fundamental provisions of the Convention but to the spirit in which it was conceived.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's last report does not contain any new element with regard to bringing national legislation and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures to that end as soon as possible.

CMNT_TITLE

For several years, the Committee has commented that sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code contravene Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention. Specifically, section 73 authorizes employers to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year.

In its latest report, the Government does not refer to the application of the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. Consequently, the Committee must once again reiterate that under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, agricultural workers must be granted an annual holiday of a specified minimum duration and that, according to Article 8, any agreement to relinquish the right to annual holiday or forego such a holiday would be void. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will amend sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code on the points mentioned above in order to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information in the Government's report concerning the practical application of the Convention. It notes the Government's reference to a Statistical Bulletin for 1991 published by the Ministry of Labour which was not received by the Office. The Government is requested to supply a copy of the Statistical Bulletin with its next report as well as any other statistical information which might be relevant to the practical application of the Convention.

For several years, the Committee has commented that sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code are not consistent with Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention: section 73 authorizes the employer to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year.

The Committee noted the statement in the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1990 that the loss of workers' rights to postpone annual leave would not ensure greater protection for them. In its latest report, the Government makes no reference to the application of the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention. In this light, the Committee can only repeat the requirements of the Convention that agricultural workers must be granted a holiday with pay each year of a minimum duration determined in a manner approved by the competent authority; and that any agreement to relinquish the right to such holiday or to forgo it must be void. It recalls that where postponement of annual leave is permitted this should not impinge on the specified minimum part of the holiday which must be granted each year (see paragraphs 177 to 181 of the Committee's General Survey of the Convention in 1964); any other approach would be contrary to the terms of the Convention and to the spirit of the notion of annual holidays.

The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate what measures it proposes to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point; and in what way employers and workers concerned are consulted or participate in this respect (Article 2(3)).

CMNT_TITLE

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:

For several years the Committee has commented that sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code are not consistent with Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention: section 73 authorizes the employer to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year.

The Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that the loss of workers' rights to postpone annual leave would not ensure greater protection for them. In this light, the Committee can only repeat the requirements of the Convention that agricultural workers must be granted a holiday with pay each year of a minimum duration determined in a manner approved by the competent authority; and that any agreement to relinquish the right to such holiday or to forgo it must be void. It recalls that where postponement of annual leave is permitted this should not impinge on the specified minimum part of the holiday which must be granted each year (see paragraphs 177 to 181 of the Committee's general survey of the Convention in 1964); any other approach would be contrary to the terms of the Convention and to the spirit of the notion of annual holidays.

The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate what measures it proposes to ensure the application of the Convention; and in what way employers and workers concerned are consulted or participate in this respect (Article 2(3)). Please also give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied (point V of the report form).

CMNT_TITLE

For several years the Committee has commented that sections 73 and 74 of the Labour Code are not consistent with Articles 1, 3 and 8 of the Convention: section 73 authorises the employer to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74 permits workers to postpone leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year.

The Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that the loss of workers' rights to postpone annual leave would not ensure greater protection for them. In this light, the Committee can only repeat the requirements of the Convention that agricultural workers must be granted a holiday with pay each year of a minimum duration determined in a manner approved by the competent authority; and that any agreement to relinquish the right to such holiday or to forgo it must be void. It recalls that where postponement of annual leave is permitted this should not impinge on the specified minimum part of the holiday which must be granted each year (see paragraphs 177 to 181 of the Committee's general survey of the Convention in 1964); any other approach would be contrary to the terms of the Convention and to the spirit of the notion of annual holidays.

The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate what measures it proposes to ensure the application of the Convention; and in what way employers and workers concerned are consulted or participate in this respect (Article 2(3)). Please also give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee had drawn the Government's attention to the fact that the Convention does not provide for the possibility of deferring or accumulating leave and that in consequence section 73 of the Labour Code, which authorises the employer to refuse leave during one year in certain cases, and section 74, which permits the worker not to take his leave for three consecutive years so as to accumulate it in the fourth year, are not in conformity with the Convention.

In reply to these comments, the Government states that the Convention is silent on the question of whether the accumulation of leave is permitted or prohibited, and that the national legislation which provides for leave corresponding to each year of service assures the application of the principle of the Convention.

On this point, the Committee wishes to recall that according to Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, agricultural workers must be granted an annual holiday of a specified minimum duration and that, according to Article 8, any agreement to relinquish the right to an annual holiday or to forego such a holiday must be void. The Committee expresses the hope therefore that the Government will amend the national legislation on the points mentioned above so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.