ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - Ireland (Ratification: 1930)

Display in: French - Spanish

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

Article 5 of the Convention. Compensatory rest period. The Committee recalls its previous comments that the rest period may not be replaced by monetary compensation and should be granted, as far as possible, regardless of any such cash compensation, it being understood that a minimum of rest and leisure every week is essential to protect the workers’ health and well-being. In its report, the Government indicates that if an employee is paid an extra allowance for working on a Sunday instead of being granted extra time off, he or she will still be entitled to the weekly rest entitlements under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. If extra time off is granted for working on a Sunday, this will be in addition to the normal weekly rest. The Committee understands that, under section 13(5), Sunday is the traditional day of rest and unless otherwise provided in the employee’s contract of employment, the employee’s weekly rest shall be a Sunday or include a Sunday. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee considers that, as it currently reads, the Organisation of Working Time Act does not guarantee that an employee who may be required to work on a Sunday, and whose normal weekly rest day is Sunday, will be granted in all cases compensatory rest – independently of any monetary compensation. The Committee accordingly invites the Government to consider the possibility of aligning the national legislation with the provisions of the Convention in this respect.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the provisions of section 13(3) of the Organization of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the discretion of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. It emphasized that in the case of suspensions or diminutions of the rest period authorized under Article 4 of the Convention, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of certain industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. In its reply, the Government indicates that the suspension of weekly rest provided for under section 13(3) of the Organization of Working Time Act has not been brought to the attention of the Department of Jobs, Enterprises and Innovation as a provision which is being abused by employers. The Government also indicates that it will examine this provision in the context of any further review of the legislation and in the light of any issues which may arise in the meantime in relation to this provision. In this connection, the Committee wishes to emphasize that weekly rest is essential for the health and well-being of workers and therefore recourse to total or partial exceptions must be limited to what is strictly necessary. The Committee trusts that should any problems arise in the future regarding the application of this Article of the Convention, the Government will take all necessary measures to regulate the conditions under which and the limits within which exceptions to weekly rest may be authorized with a view to protecting workers from any risk of abuse.
Article 5. Compensatory rest. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 14(1) of the Organization of Working Time Act of 1997 provides not only for the payment of a reasonable allowance to employees performing work on the weekly rest day, or alternatively, the increase of the employee’s rate of pay by a reasonable amount, but also for the possibility of granting reasonable paid time off from work or for a combination of any of the above. The Government also indicates that the Organization of Working Time Act does not give precedence to extra time off as method of compensation for Sunday work, but as a matter of fact, employees who work on Sundays usually have an extra day off during the week. In this connection, the Committee wishes to recall that according to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the rest period may not be replaced by the payment of compensation and should be granted, as far as possible, regardless of any such cash compensation, it being understood that a minimum of rest and leisure every week is essential to protect the workers’ health and well-being. It is indicative that under Article 8(3) of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), which pertains to the weekly rest of those employed in trading establishments and administrative services, and which the Government is strongly encouraged to ratify, employees who are required to work on the day of weekly rest, must be granted compensatory rest of a total duration at least equivalent to the normal 24-hour rest period. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider appropriate action in order to align the national legislation with what seems to be usual practice under the Organization of Working Time Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received for the fourth consecutive year. 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:
Repetition
Article 4 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. Section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 provides that an employer may, in lieu of granting an employee in each period of seven days a rest period of at least 24 hours, grant to him or her, in the following days, two rest periods each of which must be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4, the public authority may authorize total suspension from the provisions of Article 2(1) which enshrines a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days, special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist. The provisions of section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the determination of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. According to the intention of Article 4, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of some industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures the full application of Article 4 of the Convention.
Article 5. Compensatory rest. According to section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997, an employee who is required to work on Sunday shall be compensated by remuneration or paid time off or by a combination of remuneration and paid time off. The Committee recalls that Article 5 requires, as far as possible, compensatory rest, irrespective of monetary compensation. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate whether Article 5 is applied in practice.
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 they 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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 4 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. Section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 provides that an employer may, in lieu of granting an employee in each period of seven days a rest period of at least 24 hours, grant to him or her, in the following days, two rest periods each of which must be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4, the public authority may authorize total suspension from the provisions of Article 2(1) which enshrines a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days, special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist. The provisions of section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the determination of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. According to the intention of Article 4, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of some industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures the full application of Article 4 of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory rest. According to section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997, an employee who is required to work on Sunday shall be compensated by remuneration or paid time off or by a combination of remuneration and paid time off. The Committee recalls that Article 5 requires, as far as possible, compensatory rest, irrespective of monetary compensation. It therefore asks the Government to indicate whether Article 5 is applied in practice.

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 they 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.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 4 of the Convention. Total or partial exceptions. Section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 provides that an employer may, in lieu of granting an employee in each period of seven days a rest period of at least 24 hours, grant to him or her, in the next following days, two rest periods each of which must be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4, the public authority may authorize total suspension from the provisions of Article 2(1) which enshrines a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days, special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist. The provisions of section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the determination of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. According to the intention of Article 4, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of some industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures the full application of Article 4 of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory rest. According to section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997, an employee who is required to work on Sunday shall be compensated by remuneration or paid time off or by a combination of remuneration and paid time off. The Committee recalls that Article 5 requires, as far as possible, compensatory rest, irrespective of monetary compensation. It therefore asks the Government to indicate whether Article 5 is applied in practice.

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 they 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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

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:

Article 4 of the Convention. Section 13(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 provides that an employer may, in lieu of granting an employee in each period of seven days a rest period of at least 24 hours, grant to him or her, in the next following days, two rest periods each of which must be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4, the public authority may authorize total suspension from the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 1, which enshrines a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days, special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist. The provisions of section 13(8) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the determination of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. According to the intention of Article 4, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of some industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures the full application of Article 4 of the Convention.

Article 5. According to section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997, an employee who is required to work on Sunday shall be compensated by remuneration or paid time off or by a combination of remuneration and paid time off. The Committee recalls that Article 5 demands, as far as possible, compensatory rest, irrespective of monetary compensation. It therefore asks the Government to indicate whether Article 5 is applied in practice.

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 they continued to respond to current needs (see GB.238/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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Article 4 of the Convention. Section 13, paragraph 3, of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 provides that an employer may, in lieu of granting an employee in each period of seven days a rest period of at least 24 hours, grant to him or her, in the next following days, two rest periods each of which shall be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours.

According to Article 4, the public authority may authorize total suspension from the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 1, which enshrines a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours in every period of seven days, special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist.

The provisions of section 13, paragraph 3, of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 may lead to abuse since they leave it entirely to the determination of the employer to suspend a weekly rest period, without being subject to any safeguards. According to the intention of Article 4, a proportionality test is needed between the interest of the workers to have a weekly rest period in the course of each period of seven days and the objective need of some industrial undertakings to suspend the weekly rest period for economic reasons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures the full application of Article 4.

Article 5. According to section 14, paragraph 1, of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997, an employee who is required to work on Sunday shall be compensated by remuneration or paid time off or by a combination of remuneration and paid time off. The Committee recalls that Article 5 demands, as far as possible, compensatory rest, irrespective of monetary compensation. It therefore asks the Government to indicate whether Article 5 is applied in practice.

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