CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to weekly rest. The Committee has been commenting on the lack of legislative provisions guaranteeing the workers’ right to an uninterrupted weekly rest period comprising at least 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days based on the principles of regularity, continuity and uniformity. In its reply, the Government indicates that measures to give specific legislative expression to the requirements of this Article of the Convention are not thought to be necessary. The Government explains that while the national legislation does not explicitly regulate weekly rest periods, the Convention is still given effect through a combination of existing legislation, mainly the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 which obliges employers to take all practical steps to ensure employees are free from harm, including work-related stress or physical or mental fatigue, while at work; the Employment Relations Act 2000 which requires a written agreement for all employees; and the Minimum Wage Act 1983 which provides that if the maximum number of hours in the week is not more than 40, the employer and the employee must endeavour to fix the daily working hours so that they are not worked on more than five days of the week. In this connection, the Committee notes the observations made by Business New Zealand (BNZ) in support of the Government’s position, indicating that New Zealand’s legislative framework is clearly protective of employees’ health and safety while recognizing at the same time the changes in the nature of work and work practices since the adoption of the Convention, which makes compliance with its rigid requirements not always possible.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is still of the view that in the absence of concrete rules and of standards clearly spelled out in national laws and regulations or in collective agreements, the protection of the workers’ right to weekly rest in the manner foreseen by the Convention cannot be attained. The Convention was indeed adopted in 1921, but this fact alone does not render it irrelevant in today’s context. The body of international labour standards has not remained irresponsive to the challenges of globalization and the momentous changes occurring in the world of work. It is worth recalling, in this respect, that a comprehensive review of international labour Conventions and of Recommendations was undertaken between 1995 and 2002 by the ILO Governing Body through its tripartite Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards. Upon completion, 71 Conventions – including both Conventions Nos 14 and 106 on weekly rest – were designated as being up to date and recommended for active promotion. The Committee therefore considers that the object and purpose of the Convention, as well as its normative content, have not lost any of their relevance and remain as an essential feature of labour legislation as ever before. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to consider all appropriate action in order to bring national law and practice in closer conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Convention.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) in which the NZCTU raises concerns about the impact of fatigue due to excessively long hours of work in the sectors of road transport and mining. According to the NZCTU, driver fatigue is primarily a safety concern but it is linked to an apparent lack of adequate rest. As regards the situation in certain mines, the NZCTU denounces practices of seven days working in a row together with shifts that last for 11 or 12 hours each. Finally, the NZCTU draws attention to draft new legislation which seeks to remove the workers’ right to a meal and rest break by either transferring it to another time or replacing it by a monetary compensation. Even though this last point is not directly related to the application of the Convention but illustrates the utmost importance of regular rest periods for the worker’s health and well-being, the Committee requests the Government to provide any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the NZCTU.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 2 of the Convention. Workers’ right to weekly rest. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government’s explanations that, under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, as amended, employers have a duty to prevent harm occurring to employees while at work, including the effects arising from excessive work hours or insufficient rest periods, even where hours of work and weekly rest periods are not explicitly regulated. The Government states that, in the absence of prescriptive legislation, New Zealand’s approach to occupational safety and health is a comprehensive, principles-based and performance-based framework which recognizes the diversity and complexity of modern workplaces and work. The Government adds that the Health and Safety in Employment Act is a comprehensive and integrated code which sets out general duties that can be supplemented by regulations, approved codes of practice and guidelines. This framework guarantees that there are strong inducements in place to ensure that workers receive a weekly rest period while employers are required to take all practicable steps to guarantee the safety of employees while at work.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments made by Business New Zealand (BNZ) according to which daily rest periods are specified in collective or individual employment agreements while the requirement for at least 24 hours of weekly rest is implicit in the obligation to specify hours of work. According to the BNZ, these protective standards are likely to prove far more effective than the provision of a statutory 24-hour weekly rest period, which might be more honoured in the breach than the observance.

While taking due note of these explanations, the Committee feels obliged to observe that the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act in relation to weekly rest are general and overly permissive and therefore fail to give effect to specific requirements of the Convention. The Committee wishes to recall that the scope and purpose of Article 2 of the Convention are clear; workers must be granted an uninterrupted weekly rest period comprising not less than 24 hours in the course of each period of seven days, and this rest period should, to the extent possible, be the same for all and should coincide with the day already designated by tradition or custom as day of weekly rest. The Convention is thus articulated around three basic principles: regularity (rest to be taken at seven-day intervals); continuity (rest of at least 24 consecutive hours); and uniformity (weekly break to be taken simultaneously by all workers). These are minimum standards, which governments are bound to apply and enforce, either through national laws or regulations, or by ensuring that collective agreements contain at least as favourable provisions. The Convention permits, of course, total or partial exceptions (including suspensions or diminutions) from the general weekly rest standard set out in Article 2, especially when the inherent need to keep certain establishments in operation (e.g. continuous processes, transport, hospitals, hotels, newspapers, etc.) or exceptional conditions (e.g. accidents, force majeure or urgent work to premises or equipment) so require. It seeks to guarantee, however, that total or partial exceptions to the normal weekly rest are authorized on as limited grounds as possible, and in any case only after due consideration having been given to all social and economic implications and needs.

The Committee considers that the workers’ right to a minimum period of weekly rest and leisure as prescribed by the Convention is of such cardinal importance for their health and well-being that needs to be regulated in a well‑circumscribed and thus binding form and cannot be left to the mere persuasion power of codes of practice and guidelines. As for BNZ’s comment referring to the Committee’s apparent inability to recognize that this is a Convention dating from 1921 and that overall industrial relations protections have moved markedly since then, the Committee recalls that the principles and objectives pursued by Convention No. 14 have been reaffirmed and strengthened by another ILO Convention (No. 106) concerning weekly rest in commerce and offices, which was adopted in 1957 and which has received to date 63 ratifications. In the light of the preceding observations, the Committee hopes that the Government will take all necessary steps in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the basic requirements of the Convention by giving specific legislative expression to the workers’ entitlement to 24 consecutive hours of rest every week.

Moreover, the Committee notes the comments made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) concerning the problem of driver fatigue in the road transport sector principally due to existing legislation that allows up to 70 hours of work per week. The NZCTU acknowledges that government agencies work to address the issue, for instance, by developing a strategy to combat the issue of driver fatigue, announced in December 2007, but indicates that cumulative tiredness and stress from excessively long hours may not be resolved by short breaks. The Committee would appreciate receiving any comments the Government may wish to make in response to the observations of the NZCTU.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because these instruments continue to respond to current needs (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken or envisaged in this respect.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the comments made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), as well as the comments made by Business New Zealand on the Government’s report concerning the lack of legislative provisions requiring a minimum 24-hour weekly rest period.

The Government explains that, under the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act of 2002, every employer has the obligation to prevent harm arising from excessive working hours or insufficient rest periods, thereby implicitly regulating weekly rest periods. The Committee hopes that the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act of 2002 will contribute to reinforce weekly rest periods. A consecutive weekly rest period is necessary to avoid workers’ fatigue, but also to grant workers time in which they can develop their personality and take time and care for their families and social activities. This Act, however, does not give a worker the right to claim an uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours. Furthermore, the Employment Relations Act of 2000, with its good faith provisions, fosters individual and collective bargaining, but does not guarantee a weekly rest period. The Committee concurs with the NZCTU’s comments that the "workers’ ability to negotiate hours and rest periods with employers is not, in itself, a strong enough provision to ensure that workers are able to enjoy a good work-life balance with adequate rest breaks".

With reference to its previous direct requests, the Committee wishes to stress once again that the workers to whom this Convention applies are entitled, subject to the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of the Convention, to an uninterrupted weekly rest period of not less than 24 consecutive hours. Weekly rest of workers was already included in the general principles set out in article 427 of the Treaty of Versailles, and, as the Committee pointed out in its General Survey of 1984 on working time, because its origins go so far back, weekly rest is generally speaking one of the aspects of the organization of work which is most scrupulously observed; in many countries, it is looked upon as a fundamental right that is embodied in the Constitution. The Committee trusts that the Government will take in the very near future all steps necessary to ensure that workers in New Zealand are also guaranteed a weekly rest period and requests the Government to keep it informed on all progress achieved.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information supplied in answer to its previous direct request. It also notes the comments made by the New Zealand Employers Federation (NZEF) and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) enclosed with the report.

The Government states that the Employment Relations Act, repealing the Employment Contracts Act, came into effect on 1 August 2000. The new Act improves support for freedom of association and imposes good faith in all collective bargaining, which will have an impact on hours of work and rest periods amongst other things. In this connection the Government states that, according to the figures provided by the Department of Labour, 44 per cent of the collective labour agreements in force involving enterprises with more than 20 workers specify a distribution of working hours over five days, 7 per cent over six days and 20 per cent over seven days. The latter case of seven days applies only to certain activities, which are cited. Lastly, the Government states that few employees work seven days without a weekly rest period.

The NZCTU deplores the possibility of distributing hours of work across seven days, considering it to be an example of the general deterioration in conditions of work in the provisions of work contracts. The NZEF takes the view that implementation of the Employment Relations Act will make the situation of workers in small enterprises, who are excluded de facto from the scope of the Act, even more precarious. The NZEF also regrets that the Government has not always made specific provision for weekly rest, particularly for compensatory rest periods in the event of derogation, despite the Committee’s comments. In its reply the Government acknowledges that no provision is made for compensatory rest. It adds that most collective contracts allow remuneration in lieu of rest.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee wishes to recall once again that the persons to whom this Convention applies are entitled, subject to the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of the Convention, to an uninterrupted weekly rest period of not less than 24 consecutive hours. It therefore once again draws the Government’s attention to the need to make specific provision for compensatory periods of rest for any suspensions or diminutions made, pursuant to Article 5. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Convention, as required by Part V of the report form.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) concerning the lack of legislative provisions requiring a minimum 24-hour weekly rest, as well as the Government's reply to these comments. The Committee also notes the comments made by the New Zealand Employer's Federation regarding the flexibility in rest period arrangements. In this connection, the Government refers to section 11B of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 (added to the Act by section 10 of the 1991 Minimum Wage Amendment Act). Section 11B provides that where the maximum working hours, exclusive of overtime, fixed by an employment contract are not more than 40 the parties should endeavour to fix daily hours so that they are worked not more than five days of the week. The Government further indicates that employment contracts agreed to by employees and employers provide for compensatory rest periods.

The Committee recalls that persons covered by the Convention are entitled to an uninterrupted weekly rest period of not less than 24 consecutive hours, subject to exceptions allowed under Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply a list of exceptions made under Article 4 and to indicate any consultations with the responsible associations of employers and workers which have occurred with regard to these exceptions. Furthermore, it requests the Government to indicate any provisions made in practice for compensatory rest periods in cases where such exceptions have been made, in conformity with Article 4.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the comments of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) that the effect of section 172 of the Labour Relations Act of 1987 was that workers' protection was opened to negotiation, when the principle of weekly rest could be traded off for basic standard-of-living provisions. In its latest comments, the NZCTU has reaffirmed its views: it states that under the Employment Contracts Act, 1991, workers and employers may negotiate whatever working hours they wish; and that in a weak economy, where the workers' bargaining position is weak and access to unemployment benefit is limited, workers have to accept the hours offered or remain unemployed, so that the requirements for weekly rest are no more than a hope expressed by the Government and the Convention is not being honoured.

The Government states that the standard working week continues to be 40 hours and five days, generally running from Monday to Friday, and that this exceeds the standards set in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Different arrangements have been negotiated by some employers and employees, however, and this is considered compatible with Article 4. The Government has no evidence of any employment contracts inconsistent with the Convention.

The Committee notes that the 1987 Labour Relations Act (section 172 of which referred specifically to not working on Saturdays or Sundays) has now been repealed and that section 10 of the 1991 Minimum Wage Amendment Act states that, where the maximum working hours (exclusive of overtime) fixed by an employment contract are not more than 40, the parties should endeavour to fix daily hours so that they are worked on not more than five days of the week. It recalls that under Article 2 there should be a minimum 24-hour weekly rest granted wherever possible to the whole staff of an undertaking at the same time and on the traditional or customary days. It would be grateful if the Government would include in future reports the information requested in the report form concerning total and partial exceptions made under Articles 3 and 4 and arrangements made for compensatory rest (see under Articles 5 and 6 and point V of the report form).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observation of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), that under section 172 of the Labour Relations Act of 1987 the parties to an award or agreement may agree to set a maximum number of hours of work per week in excess of 40, including work on Saturday or Sunday. The NZCTU does not believe that the Convention's obligations are met when workers' protection is open to negotiation and when they are being asked by employers to trade off the principle of weekly rest for basic standard of living provisions.

The Committee would be glad if the Government would communicate its own views on this matter, and in particular indicate the practical effect of section 172(2)(a) and (3), having regard to the requirements of the Convention.

The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.