All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) - Uzbekistan (Ratification: 1992)

Display in: French - Spanish

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received in 2019.

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. Averaging of hours of work. Overtime. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that: (i) normal hours of work are set at 40 hours per week in section 115 of the Labour Code; (ii) section 123 of the Labour Code allowed the averaging of hours of work over a reference period of up to one year; and (iii) section 124 regulated the question of overtime. Noting that sections 123 and 124 may lead to excessively long working hours, it requested the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions.

On the issue of averaging, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, in particular that: (i) section 123 was established because it is not always possible to ensure a 40-hour working week every week for each worker in industries that operate on a 24-hour schedule and in shift work; and (ii) the duration of shifts is set out in an internal staff regulation approved by the employer in agreement with a workers’ representative body or by collective agreement. Recalling that calculating hours of work as an average over a reference period of up to one year allows for too many exceptions to normal hours of work and can result in highly variable working hours over long periods, long working days and the absence of compensation (2018 General Survey on working time instruments, paragraph 68), the Committee request the Government to review section 123 in this regard. It also asks the Government to provide information on the usual length of the reference period determined in collective agreements and internal staff regulations as well as concrete examples of the variations observed in the number of hours worked on a weekly basis over the corresponding reference period in cases where averaging is applied.

On the issue of overtime, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, in particular that: (i) under section 124, overtime is not allowed in certain circumstances (notably when the duration of the working shift is twelve hours, as well as in very hazardous working conditions) and for certain categories of workers (such as persons under 18 years of age); and (ii) section 125 sets clear limits to overtime, both on a daily (4 hours in two consecutive days) and yearly basis (120 hours per year). The Committee also notes that IUF denounces that employees would regularly work beyond the statutory limit of 40 hours per week. IUF refers to a number of specific allegations including cases of forced overtime and reports of very long daily and weekly working hours performed on a regular basis. For IUF, without an appropriate effective mechanism of state monitoring and control, legal provisions limiting working time are purely declaratory. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, while the principle of a 40-hour week applies to all employed in the formal economy, it may be supposed that it does not apply, or applies to a limited extent, in the informal sector. The Government also indicates that in order to ensure the implementation of the legislation on the principle of the 40 hour working week, the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations approves each year the Annual Working Time Balance, disaggregated by month, quarter and semester of the calendar year. Finally, the Government refers to the following enforcement mechanisms: (i) the State Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (according to section 9 of the Labour Code, which also provides that trade unions play a role in ensuring compliance with labour legislation); and (ii) the Office of the Prosecutor General. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on the system of annual working time balance to be approved by the Ministry as well as on the measures taken to ensure that the Labour Code is respected in practice, including information on the activities of the labour inspectorate to monitor the respect of working time provisions and the sanctions imposed in case of non-compliance. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the principle of a forty-hour week applies in all sectors of the economy, including the informal sector.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. Averaging of hours of work. Overtime. The Committee notes with concern that, despite its comments for over 20 years, the Government’s report contains no new information concerning sections 123 and 124 of the Labour Code, which respectively address averaging of hours of work and overtime. As noted previously, these provisions do not appear to be in line with the spirit of the Convention, as further explained in the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), in so far as they may lead to excessively long working hours. Thus, under section 123, working days of up to 12 hours are permitted for a period of up to one year with no apparent limiting circumstances, in contrast to Paragraph 12 of Recommendation No. 116 which stipulates that the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week should only be permitted when justified by special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs. In addition, section 124 authorizes overtime without any limitation, in contrast to Paragraph 14 of the Recommendation which provides that the competent national authorities should determine the circumstances and limits in which exceptions to the normal hours of work may be permitted permanently, temporarily or periodically. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to supply information on the application of sections 123 and 124 of the Labour Code in its next report and explain how such working time arrangements, or a broad authorization of overtime, may be deemed to be consistent with a policy of reducing working hours while maintaining the standard of living of workers, as required under this Convention. Concerning its next report, the Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes in order to address the Committee’s previous comments which, to date, have not been addressed.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week – Averaging of hours of work – Overtime. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised some doubts as to whether certain provisions of the labour legislation were truly compatible with the principle of the 40-hour week established under section 115 of the Labour Code. More concretely, the Committee considered that section 123 of the Labour Code, which allows for the averaging of hours of work over a reference period of one year and also permits working days of up to 12 hours, might lead to excessively long hours and impact negatively on the workers’ health and work–family balance. In addition, the Committee noted that section 124 of the Labour Code, even though it sets daily and annual limits on overtime hours, does not define the circumstances under which overtime may be authorized and thus can possibly lead to situations that run counter to the social standard of a 40-hour week.

The Government’s latest report does not address these specific concerns but merely lists provisions of the Labour Code establishing shorter working time for certain categories of workers based on their age, state of health, the nature of their duties and other circumstances. The Committee wishes to draw once more the Government’s attention to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which suggests that averaging should be permitted only when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it and also Paragraph 14 of the same Recommendation which conveys the idea that overtime should be authorized only in limited and well-circumscribed cases. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide additional information on the extent to which recourse is made to the system of averaging of hours of work (number of workers and types of establishments concerned) and explain how such working time arrangements, or a broad authorization of overtime, may be deemed to be consistent with a policy of reducing working hours while maintaining the standard of living, as required under this Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 1 of the Convention. The principle of the 40-hour week. The Committee notes that the Government’s report essentially reproduces information provided in previous reports and does not indicate any new legislative or other measures that would further implement the Convention, nor does it respond to the Committee’s earlier comments. The Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 123 of the Labour Code which provides for an overly long reference period of one year for the averaging of hours of work, and to section 124 which does not set any conditions or limits to overtime work. In this connection, the Committee once again refers to Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116) which seek to ensure that the principle of the 40-hour week is not defeated by undue recourse to averaging. The Committee is therefore obliged to request once more the Government to provide detailed information on the effect given to the provisions of the Labour Code respecting the regulation of averaging of hours of work and overtime in the light of the recognized social standard of the 40-hour week.

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 direct request, the Committee noted that, while section 115 of the Labour Code establishes 40 hours as the normal working week, section 123 of the Labour Code allows for the averaging of hours of work over a period of no more than one year, in which case daily hours of work may not exceed 12 hours. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the negative consequences that excessive daily hours of work may have on the health of workers and on the balance between working and private life. It therefore considers that the averaging of hours of work over a reference period which may be as long as one year allows too many exceptions to the principle of the 40-hour week and makes it difficult to achieve the objective of the progressive reduction of working time. Furthermore, the establishment of such a system for the arrangement of working time should only be possible in well-determined cases. In this respect, if the Committee refers once again to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which refers to the possibility of the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer that one week “when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it”. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the systems for the arrangement of hours of work established under section 123 of the Labour Code, including particulars on the number of workers and the types of enterprises concerned. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to reduce daily hours of work and the reference period in the context of such systems.

Overtime hours. The Committee notes that, under section 124 of the Labour Code, overtime hours may be performed by workers with their consent. However, it notes that this provision does not determine the cases in which the performance of overtime hours may be allowed (such as to enable the enterprise to cope with abnormal pressure of work). In this respect, the Committee refers to Paragraph 14 of Recommendation No. 116, under the terms of which the competent national authorities should determine the circumstances and limits in which exceptions to the normal hours of work may be permitted permanently, temporarily or periodically. It also refers to paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time, in which it emphasized that “undue facilitation of overtime, for example, by not limiting the circumstances in which it may be permitted or by allowing relatively high maximums, could in the most egregious cases tend to defeat the Recommendation’s objective of a social standard of a 40-hour week and make irrelevant the provisions as to normal working hours”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide further information on the effect given to the provisions of the Labour Code respecting the regulation of overtime hours, and particularly on the measures adopted or envisaged to limit the cases in which they are allowed.

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, including particulars of the number and nature of the contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; statistics of 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 questions 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 current global economic crisis; and, finally, information on systems for the arrangement of working time envisaged in recent collective agreements.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report, and the comments of the Council of the Trade Union Federation of Uzbekistan. It requests the Government to provide further details on the following points.

Article 1 of the Convention. Averaging of working hours. The Committee notes that section 123 of the Labour Code allows for the averaging of working hours over a period of not more than one year, and that in this case daily working hours may not exceed 12 hours. In this respect, the Committee refers to Paragraph 12 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), adopted with a view to facilitating the application of the Convention. Under the terms of this Paragraph, "the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week should be permitted when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it". The Government is requested to indicate whether other provisions limit the averaging of working hours under such conditions, especially taking into account the length of the authorized reference period (up to one year).

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to provide indications on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, and particularly the categories and number of workers who do not yet enjoy a working week of 40 hours. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in an observation attached to the Government’s report, the Council of the Trade Union Federation of Uzbekistan states that the principle of the 40-hour week is still not applied in small and medium-sized enterprises, or in the informal economy, where trade unions are not present. The Committee requests the Government to provide comments on the observation made by this trade union organization and to indicate the measures taken to ensure the effective application of the Convention in all sectors of activity.

More generally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether amendments have been made to the Labour Code since 25 December 1998 and, if so, to provide a copy thereof.