ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2022, publiée 111ème session CIT (2023)

Nicaragua

Convention (n° 1) sur la durée du travail (industrie), 1919 (Ratification: 1934)
Convention (n° 30) sur la durée du travail (commerce et bureaux), 1930 (Ratification: 1934)

Autre commentaire sur C001

Observation
  1. 2022
  2. 1999
  3. 1993
  4. 1990
Demande directe
  1. 2022
  2. 2013
  3. 2008

Other comments on C030

Observation
  1. 2022
  2. 2012
  3. 2011
  4. 1999
  5. 1993
  6. 1990
Demande directe
  1. 2022
  2. 2014
  3. 2008

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

In order to provide an overview of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 1 (hours of work in industry) and 30 (hours of work in commerce and offices) in the same comment.
Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1 and Article 4 of Convention No. 30. Variable distribution of hours of work throughout the week. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indications in its reports that: (i) in the 2018–21 period, more than 50,000 labour inspections were carried out and 1,092 internal regulations were authorized, in order to ensure compliance with the relevant labour legislation in force; (ii) section 63(3) of the Labour Code provides that, by mutual agreement, the eight hours of actual daily work may be distributed in discontinuous periods, with the aim of providing workers with a day or part of a day as rest in addition to the seventh-day rest prescribed in section 64 of the Code; and (iii) if the parties agree to distribute weekly hours of work into longer working days, the working day agreed upon shall guarantee workers the right to enjoy their daily and weekly rest, in accordance with the provisions of the national legislation. The Committee notes that, in the event of variable distribution of hours of work throughout the week, section 63(2) of the Labour Code prescribes a daily limit on hours of work higher than that established in Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1. The Committee also recalls the Government’s indication that Judgment No. 1748 of 24 October 2012 of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court – which established that employers and workers can agree on a “four-by-four” work-week (that is, fours days of work followed by four days of rest), provided that the working week does not exceed 48 hours – has been considered as generally applicable (erga omnes), and so the Ministry of Labour must comply with it and respect the cases in which workers and employers agree to work according to this arrangement. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in authorizing the compressed work-week, the above-mentioned judgment does not establish daily limits on working hours, as required by both Conventions (one hour in excess of the normal eight hours, under Convention No. 1, and two hours in excess of the normal eight hours, under Convention No. 30). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that the agreements concluded between employers and workers on the variable distribution of hours of work throughout the week are in strict conformity with the daily limits established in Article 2(b) of Convention No. 1 and Article 4 of Convention No. 30. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the above-mentioned agreements, where they exist, including the number of agreements and the maximum daily and weekly hours of work fixed by them.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer