Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2013, Publicación: 103ª reunión CIT (2014)

Convenio sobre las horas de trabajo (industria), 1919 (núm. 1) - Colombia (Ratificación : 1933)

Otros comentarios sobre C001

Observación

Solicitud directa

2013
2003
1990

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 2(b) of the Convention. Irregular distribution of weekly hours of work within a week. In its previous comment, the Committee drew attention to the inconsistency between section 161(d) of the Labour Code, that permits the conclusion of an agreement between the employer and worker under the terms of which working hours may be distributed unevenly within a week so as to vary between four and ten hours provided that they do not exceed 48 hours in average, and Article 2(b) of the Convention, which permits daily hours of work to be extended by no more than one hour and only on the basis of an agreement between employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the possible amendment of section 161(d) of the Labour Code will be examined by the tripartite Subcommittee on International Affairs, set up in the framework of the Permanent Consultative Committee on Wage and Labour Policies. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments in this regard.

Article 6(1)(b) and 2. Temporary exceptions – Limits on additional hours of work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that there is no provision in the Labour Code giving effect to Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention which requires authorized overtime to be limited to exceptional cases of pressure of work. The Committee also noted that, under section 167-B of the Labour Code, the number of overtime hours may not exceed two per day and 12 per week, but no provision is made for a monthly or annual limit. In the absence of the Government’s response on these points, the Committee again requests the Government to take all necessary steps to: (i) limit temporary exceptions from normal hours of work (apart from cases of accident, urgent repair work, and force majeure which are already provided for in the Labour Code) to cases of necessity linked to extraordinary pressure of work; and (ii) establish reasonable monthly and/or annual limits on the number of additional hours which may be worked in the context of temporary exceptions keeping in line with the spirit of the Convention which seeks to provide protection against undue fatigue and to ensure reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) concerning the application of the Convention, which were received on 30 August 2013 and transmitted to the Government on 16 September 2013. According to the two trade union organizations, section 161(d) of the Labour Code clearly violates the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), and the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), as it exceeds the limits established by these Conventions and has not been the subject of any tripartite consultations. The CUT and the CTC also denounce the abusive use of the exclusion possibility provided for in Article 2(a) of the Convention and Article 1(3)(c) of Convention No. 30 in respect of persons holding managerial positions or employed in a confidential capacity, which results in numerous workers being unfairly excluded from the coverage of the working time legislation. Finally, the CUT and the CTC express the view that the Government should undertake tripartite consultations with a view to ratifying the Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) and, in the meantime, should take all necessary measures in order to limit, as much as possible, the application of the principle of the 48-hour week. The Committee requests the Government to submit any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the CUT and the CTC.