Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2010, Publicación: 100ª reunión CIT (2011)

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.