Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1) - Costa Rica (Ratification: 1982)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Previous comment on Convention No. 1Previous comment on Convention No. 14Previous comment on Convention No. 106

In order to provide a comprehensive view 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), 14 (weekly rest in industry) and 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) together.

The Committee notes the observations submitted jointly by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN), the Costa Rican Workers' Movement Central (CMTC), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Workers' Unitary Confederation (CUT) and the Costa Rican Trade Union and Social Unity Bloc (BUSSCO), on Convention No. 1, received on 21 August 2022. The Committee also notes the observations of the Costa Rican Federation of Chambers and Associations of Private Enterprise (UCCAEP) on Conventions Nos 1, 14 and 106 submitted together with the Government's report.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes that, in their observations, the CTRN, CMTC, CGT, CUT and BUSSCO indicate that the Legislative Assembly is currently debating the draft Bill No. 21182 on the amendment of sections 136, 142 and 144 and the addition of sections 145 bis and 145 ter of the Labour Code, to update the exceptional periods of work and safeguard the rights of workers. The workers' organizations claim that the draft Bill, among other things: (i) fixes mandatory 12-hour days, which would affect the balance between work, rest and family life; (ii) eliminates the guarantee of pay for overtime; and (iii) incorporates annualized working hours into work that is seasonal, temporary or a continuous process, which would make workers’ periods of work more intense.

The Committee notes that, in December 2021, the Office provided technical assistance regarding the Bill, at the request of the Permanent Committee on Fiscal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee trusts that the Act to be adopted on working time will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the process of adopting the draft Bill. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of ILO technical assistance if it so wishes.

Hours of work

Articles 3 and 6(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention. Temporary exceptions. Circumstances and limits to additional hours. Pay. Bus drivers. Regarding the circumstances in which recourse to overtime is authorized (sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Code), the Committee observes that: (1) neither section 139 nor section 140 of the Labour Code fixes in a precise and exhaustive manner the circumstances in which recourse to overtime is authorized; and (2) section 139(2) provides for unpaid overtime under one circumstance (errors committed by the employee) which is not covered by the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention only allows exceptions to the limits on periods of work in case of accident, actual or threatened, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant, or in case of "force majeure” or to deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.

Further to its previous comments on bus drivers, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that: (i) according to the information provided by the National Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 64 infringements of normal hours of work and 107 infringements related to overtime were identified in the road transport sector in general between 2015 and 2021; (ii) with regard to bus companies, during the same period, 309 cases of infringements of all kinds were detected; (iii) as a result of the actions carried out by the National Labour Inspectorate, 257 cases were resolved at the administrative level, 9 cases were resolved at the judicial level, 34 cases are being processed at the judicial level and 9 cases are being processed at the administrative level; in addition, in 191 cases the labour inspectorate's warnings were complied with, while in 42 cases they were not complied with. In this regard, the Committee also notes that in their joint observations, the CTRN, CMTC, CGT, CUT and BUSSCO indicate that: (i) while the regular period of work for bus drivers is eight hours a day, in most bus companies, drivers negotiate 12 hours a day or more with their employers; (ii) in some bus companies, drivers are required to perform tasks related to vehicle maintenance and the management of the money collected, outside their regular period of work, for which they are not paid; and (iii) during an inspection of a road transport company, in response to a number of complaints of labour exploitation, it was found that drivers’ period of work exceeded 12 hours a day, reaching up to 19 hours a day in some cases; it was also found that the company did not pay overtime. In this regard, the Committee notes the UCCAEP's indication that: (i) since the adoption of Act No. 7679 of 1997 repealing section 146 of the Labour Code, the activity of bus drivers has been adjusted to a period of work of eight hours a day; (ii) the cases of infringements detected by the labour inspectorate have been resolved at administrative or judicial level, or are still in process, and therefore there is no evidence of a widespread practice of infringement of periods of work and overtime pay; and (iii) the problem of a lack of bus drivers results in the use of overtime to ensure continuity in the public service.

In this regard, recalling the impact that long hours can have on workers' health and work-private life balance, the Committee refers to the 2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, paragraphs 119 and 151.

Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures, including by revising these provisions of the Labour Code and monitoring compliance with the legislation in force, to ensure that both in law and in practice: (i) recourse to overtime is limited to clear and well-defined circumstances; (ii) reasonable legal limits on overtime are established and enforced; and (iii) such hours are effectively paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect, including statistics on labour inspection activities related to hours of work and rest in the road transport sector, including violations found and penalties assessed.

Weekly rest

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention No. 14 and Articles 7 and 8 of Convention No. 106. Permanent or temporary exemptions to weekly rest –Compensatory rest. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its reports that no amendments have been made to section 152(3) of the Labour Code, which provides that work shall be permitted on the weekly rest day, by agreement between the parties, in the case of work which is not arduous, unhealthy or hazardous, and which is carried out in agricultural or livestock breeding grounds, industrial undertakings which require continuity of work owing to the nature of the needs which they satisfy or for obvious public or social interest. The Committee also notes that section 152(5) of the Labour Code provides that in the case of activities of obvious public or social interest and where the worker does not agree to work on rest days, the employer may apply to the Ministry of Labour for authorization to grant rest periods on a cumulative monthly basis, and the Ministry may grant or refuse the authorization requested. The Committee observes that: (i) section 152(5) of the Labour Code does not guarantee the granting of compensatory rest in case of work on the weekly rest day, as the Ministry of Labour may refuse the requested authorization; and (ii) for other activities set out in section 152(3) of the Labour Code, no compensatory rest is provided for. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including by amending this section of the Labour Code, to ensure that, in the case of exemptions from the principle of weekly rest, all workers are entitled in respect of each period of seven days to compensatory rest of a total duration comprising not less than 24 hours, regardless of any monetary compensation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

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

Articles 2 and 6(1)(b) of the Convention. Hours of work and overtime of bus drivers. The Committee has been receiving comments over the past three years, last on 30 August 2012, made by the Rerum Novarum Workers’ Confederation (CTRN) regarding the working hours of bus drivers, in particular alleged unpaid overtime. In its latest reply, the Government refers to a report of the National Chamber of Transport dated 15 February 2013, and reiterates that since the adoption of Act No. 7679 of 1997 that repealed section 146 of the Labour Code, employers in the road transport sector have reduced the working day to eight hours per day and only occasionally request bus drivers to work additional hours, in order to deal with unforeseen problems of staff shortage. As regards periods of rest, transport companies have increased the duration of the lunch break for employees following the repeal of section 146 of the Labour Code. The Government further indicates that sanitation facilities for employees in the transport sector have been installed in most terminals. More generally, based on information supplied by the National Chamber of Transport, the Government maintains that the allegations of the CTRN are incomplete, imprecise and without any factual or legal basis. Moreover, as they are not substantiated by any official documents, it is very difficult to verify whether those allegations are true. The Government recalls that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MTSS) has participated in several meetings between the representatives of the company “Transportes Unidos la 400” and the representatives of the National Association of Public and Private Employees (ANEP) aimed at finding negotiated solutions to problems such as sanitation facilities and the payment of additional hours. The Government also recalls that at the meeting of 8 November 2011, ANEP had acknowledged improvements with regard to sanitation facilities and the payment of additional hours. Finally, the Government indicates that, in 2012, the labour inspection services undertook 199 visits in road transport enterprises. The Committee trusts that if problems of unpaid overtime, or other infringements of the working time legislation, are reported again in the road transport sector, the Government will take prompt action to thoroughly investigate the matter and ensure that the Convention is effectively enforced.

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

Articles 2 and 6(1)(b) of the Convention. Hours of work and overtime of bus drivers. The Committee notes the information sent by the Government and by the National Chamber of Transport in reply to the previous comment it made with respect to observations submitted by the Rerum Novarum Workers’ Confederation (CTRN) on the working hours of bus drivers. It notes that the Government refers to its 2011 report on this matter and reaffirms that the CTRN’s allegations are incorrect, recalling that any infringement of the legislation in force would be examined by the labour inspection services, regardless of any legal action taken. It indicates that in 2011 the National Directorate of Labour Inspection undertook 138 inspections in transport enterprises. No infringements were reported in 18 enterprises, and 87 per cent of the other 120 enterprises applied the measures requested by the labour inspector. The Committee also notes that, according to comments made by the National Chamber of Transport, in addition to the information contained in its communication of 24 November 2010, the practice whereby the driver had to clean the bus without being paid for these hours of work has fallen into disuse because the modernization of transport has resulted in specialized staff having to do this job.

The Committee notes, however, that the CTRN renewed its allegations in a communication dated 30 August 2012, which included individual statements from bus drivers to the effect that they worked more than 12 hours on Sundays without being paid overtime. The CTRN also enclosed press cuttings referring to a strike organized by bus drivers employed by the company “Transportes Unidos la 400” in November 2011 to press their claims for sanitation facilities in bus depots, the payment of overtime, a lunch break and a stop to unofficial payments. According to this information, the strike was called off after an agreement had been reached to initiate negotiations on these matters with the participation of a representative from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MTSS). The Committee notes that, in a communication received on 22 November 2012, the Government indicated that it is conducting consultations with a view to submitting, the soonest possible, its reply to the comments of the CTRN. Hoping to receive this response very shortly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information, in particular, on the outcome of the negotiations conducted after the strike and on its impact on the working conditions of bus drivers employed by other companies. Furthermore, given that the CTRN’s allegations seem serious and are backed up by testimonies of the workers concerned, the Committee asks the Government to take all the necessary measures in the immediate future to ascertain whether the provisions of the Convention are effectively enforced in practice in the case of bus drivers, and to provide detailed information on the outcome of these inquiries in its next report.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum hours of work. The Committee notes the comments sent on 22 August 2010 by the Rerum Novarum Workers’ Confederation (CTRN) concerning the application of the Convention and the Government’s reply dated 30 March 2011.

In its comments, the CTRN refers to several bills aimed at making labour legislation more flexible, including with regard to hours of work. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that only one of these bills is currently before Parliament, namely Bill No. 17351 concerning employment protection in times of crisis. It also notes that, according to the Government, this Bill has not yet been placed on the agenda of Parliament for discussion and that the Ministry of Labour made a number of negative comments, one of the grounds being that the proposed measures were not based on any technical study. The Committee notes that Bill No. 17351 aims to enable the employer, in the event of an economic crisis and subject to certain conditions, to take temporary measures designed to preserve employment. These measures include the possibility of obliging the workers concerned to take their annual holiday in advance, replacing the system of working hours in force with another system authorized by the labour legislation, and reducing hours of work by one third. The Committee notes that the last measure, known as a system of short-time work in some countries, may constitute a relevant response to the current global economic crisis and at any rate does not raise issues with regard to maximum limits on working hours. The obligation on workers to take their holidays in advance does not pose any problem either as regards the application of the Convention. On the other hand, more detailed information is required on the scope of the provisions allowing employers to replace the existing system of working hours with a different one. The Committee notes the legal and economic report drawn up by the technical departments of the Legislative Assembly on 24 September 2009, which contains an important critique of the Bill. It also understands that this legislative text has not been discussed in Parliament for two years. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the current status of Bill No. 17351 and to provide further information on the type of system of working hours which an employer would be authorized to put in place under section 8 of the Bill.

Articles 2 and 6(1)(b). Hours of work and overtime for bus drivers. The Committee notes that the CTRN refers in its comments to the situation of bus drivers employed by transport companies affiliated to the National Chamber of Transport, alleging that these workers are subjected to exhausting working days of 16 to 18 hours, often without payment for the overtime worked. The CTRN also makes allegations concerning other practices to which bus drivers are exposed, such as the lack of a rest period for meals, the obligation to clean the vehicle at the end of the working day without payment for the additional time worked, etc. It also refers to a study conducted by the tripartite National Council for Occupational Health concerning the exhausting working days experienced by these drivers, the excessive stress that they suffer and the increased risk of accidents. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that, further to the aforementioned study published in 1997, Executive Decree No. 27298-MTSS of 2 September 1998 was adopted concerning the conditions of work and occupational health of bus drivers. In reply to the CTRN allegations, the Government indicates that workers in the transport sector are not deprived of protection given that, further to the repeal in 1997 of section 146 of the Labour Code, which allowed special rules to be fixed concerning hours of work in the transport sector, the enterprises concerned have reduced working time to 8 hours per day. The Government also refers to the information sent by the National Chamber of Transport in reply to the CTRN allegations. This organization argues that overtime is required occasionally, in order to respond to shortages of workers and that, further to the repeal of section 146 of the Labour Code, transport enterprises have increased the length of rest periods to allow their employees time for meals. The Government also emphasizes that any infringement of the applicable labour and occupational health standards with regard to bus drivers would be examined by the National Directorate of Labour Inspection and Social Security, regardless of any legal action taken. It indicates that in 2010 the labour inspection services undertook 99 inspections in transport enterprises. No infringements were reported in 26 enterprises, and another 37 applied the measures recommended by the labour inspectors. The Committee notes with interest the efforts of the labour inspectorate to enforce the regulations applicable to bus drivers as regards hours of work. However, the Committee requests the Government to carry out the necessary inquiries into the allegations made by the CTRN regarding the daily hours of work of bus drivers, overtime pay and the question of remuneration for time spent cleaning the vehicle, and to send any other observations that it may wish to make in reply to the comments of the CTRN.

Finally, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the conclusions of the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Working Time Arrangements, held in October 2011, according to which the provisions of existing ILO standards relating to daily and weekly hours of work, weekly rest, paid annual leave, part time and night work, remain relevant in the twenty-first century, and should be promoted in order to facilitate decent work. The Experts also emphasized the importance of working time, its regulation, and organization and management, to: (a) workers and their health and well-being, including opportunities for balancing working and non-work time; (b) the productivity and competitiveness of enterprises; and (c) effective responses to economic and labour market crises.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Daily and weekly hours of work. The Committee notes that the information sent by the Government to the effect that Bill No. 16030 has been set aside by the Human Rights Commission of the Legislative Assembly and will not be examined by Parliament. It understands, however, that the Ministry of Labour had adopted in 1998 Directive DM-0095-98 authorizing the introduction of a compressed week system (jornada acumulada or 4x3) similar to the one provided for in the abovementioned Bill and which consisted in alternating four workdays of 12 hours each and three rest days. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information in this regard and to indicate in particular whether this ministerial Directive is in effect.

In addition, the Committee refers to the comments it has been formulating for a number of years concerning section 136 of the Labour Code which permits to extend to ten hours the daily limit of hours of work for those works which are not unhealthy or hazardous by nature, or to nine hours when working hours are not equally distributed during the week. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Moreover, the Committee notes that a bill on employment protection in times of crisis has been brought before the Legislative Assembly. It notes in particular that section 8 of this bill provides for the possibility, among a range of exceptional measures which would be authorized in times of crisis, for the employer to replace a normal system of working hours with another system permitted by the labour legislation, provided that day or mixed work is not replaced by night work. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the progress made with regard to the adoption of this bill and on its potential impact on the limits applicable to hours of work.

Article 6. Overtime. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning section 139 of the Labour Code which provides that time during which the worker rectifies his/her own errors may not be considered as overtime hours even though no such exception is provided under Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any work performed outside of the normal hours of work are considered overtime with all the consequences this implies. In addition, the Committee recalls its previous comments concerning section 140 of the Labour Code which provides that the daily limit of hours of work, including overtime, cannot exceed 12 hours, that is to say, four hours beyond the normal daily limit. It refers, in this connection, to its 2005 General Survey on hours of work (paragraph 144) in which it noted that “even though the establishment of specific limits to the total number of additional hours is left to the competent authorities by both Conventions, this does not mean that such authorities have unlimited discretion in this regard. Taking into account the spirit of the Conventions and in the light of the preparatory work, it is appropriate to conclude that such limits must be reasonable and they must be prescribed in line with the general goal of the instrument, namely to establish the eight-hour day and the 48-hour week as a legal standard of hours of work in order to provide protection against undue fatigue and to ensure reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life”. In this respect, the possibility to require workers to perform four additional hours per day, without any other limit, weekly, monthly or annual, manifestly does not appear to be in line with a reasonable limit of additional hours. The Committee requests the Government to determine the limits of permissible additional hours in a manner that ensures that such limits are reasonable within the meaning of this Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2012.]

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

Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. Daily hours of work and overtime. Further to its previous comments relating to sections 136, 139 and 140 of the Labour Code, and Bill No. 16.030, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Bill is still under discussion by the Human Rights Commission of the Legislative Assembly. It notes that the discussions addressed the issues of the effects of the globalization of the economy and the current situation in which there is a trend towards ever greater flexibility of working time. The Committee also notes that the discussions focused on the provisions of article 58 of the Constitution which, while limiting hours of work to eight in the day and 48 in the week, allows in exceptional cases the adoption of different working time arrangements by law. The Committee also notes the indication that, in view of the needs arising out of the globalized economy, it is necessary to promote social dialogue with a view to adapting working time to the needs of enterprises and workers, while respecting international standards and ILO principles.

Furthermore, with regard to the comments made by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN) that Bill No. 16.030 proposes amendments to the Labour Code which are in total contradiction to the provisions of the Convention and would be prejudicial to the professional, social and economic interests of workers, the Committee notes the Government’s reply that the Bill is intended to introduce new forms of the organization of working time in clearly defined exceptional cases and in accordance with provisions of the Constitution, with a view to adapting industrial relations to the new dynamics of the labour market, which impose almost continuous working. The Government adds that the trade union provides no evidence or legal provisions in support of its allegations and that, as the Bill is still under discussion, the Labour Code has not yet been reformed and it is not possible at this stage to foresee the impact of Bill No. 16.030 in practice. In this respect, the Committee wishes to recall, as it noted previously, that although the Bill is intended to improve conditions of work and protect the rights of workers, the amendments proposed are nevertheless contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

In this respect, the Committee notes the formal request for technical assistance made by the Government to the Subregional Office in San José on 28 May 2009 with a view to bringing the provisions of Bill No 16.030 into conformity with those of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will take into account the numerous comments that it has made previously, particularly with regard to maximum daily hours of work and overtime hours. It also trusts that the Office will offer its services through the preparation of detailed technical comments on any draft legislation that the Government may wish to refer to it for examination. Finally, it hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report progress in the adoption of new legislation respecting the arrangement of working time that is fully in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

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

Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. Daily hours of work and overtime. Over the years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the divergences between the provisions of the Labour Code, particularly sections 136, 139 and 140, and those of the Convention. In its last report, the Government indicates that Bill No. 15.161, certain provisions of which were in conflict with the Convention, was withdrawn from the agenda of the Legislative Assembly and sent back to the Social Affairs Commission. The outcome of the discussions in the Commission is Bill No. 16.030, which is currently being examined by the Human Rights Commission of the Legislative Assembly and on which comments have been made by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN). While recognizing the developments in the world of work, CTRN states that the new Bill, far from being an improvement on the previous Bill, proposes amendments to the Labour Code, which are in total contradiction with the provisions of the Convention and which would be to the prejudice of workers in the occupational, social and economic fields. Indeed, for 40 years, many enterprises have opted for the continuous production system, with work being carried out by three teams of workers a day, without it being necessary, as indicated in the Bill, to introduce exceptions to daily hours of work and allow them to be lengthened from eight to ten or even 12 hours. Furthermore, CTRN emphasizes that, although consultations were held with trade union organizations, the opinions expressed were not taken into account.

In addition, the Committee notes that the Government has requested the Office’s advice on the new Bill. In this respect, the Committee notes that, although the Bill is intended to improve conditions of work and to protect the rights of workers, the amendments made are nevertheless contrary to the provisions of the Convention, as the Committee indicated in its previous comment concerning the annualization of working time and the extension of daily hours of work up to 12 hours. Indeed, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points: first, section 136 of the Bill that is under examination is identical to section 136 of the previous Bill and provides, in subsection 2, for the possibility in work that is not unhealthy or hazardous to accumulate weekly hours of work over a period of five days, introducing a “cumulative” day which may be as long as ten hours. Secondly, section 145 provides that, by way of exception, in the case of seasonal, temporary and continuous work and for activities subject to significant variations in market conditions, production and the supply of raw materials, the normal working day may be extended up to 12 hours or annualized at up to 2,400 hours. In this respect, the Committee notes that, although section 145(2) provides that the limit of 48 hours of work a week must not be exceeded, other provisions in this section allow the working day of eight hours to be exceeded, namely: subsection 4, which provides that annualized ordinary daily hours of work may be extended up to ten hours a day; and subsection 9, which provides that women who are pregnant or who are nursing may not be required to work over ten hours a day.

The Committee is therefore bound to recall once again that the Convention only allows the maximum daily limit of working hours to be exceeded in the very specific conditions set out in Article 2(c) (distribution of working hours over the week) and (d) (averaging over a period of three weeks in case of shift work). The Convention also envisages other exceptions to the general rule of eight hours in any one day and 48 hours in any one week, but only under the strict conditions set out in Articles 2 (accident, urgent work or force majeure), 4 (continuous processes), 5 (averaging of hours in exceptional cases) and 6 (permanent and temporary exceptions). The Committee also refers to paragraphs 85–168 of the General Survey that it published in 2005 on Conventions Nos 1 and 30 concerning hours of work, which provide a detailed analysis of the requirements of the Convention in relation to the distribution of hours of work and the authorized exceptions. The Committee hopes that the Government will take into account the numerous comments that it has made, particularly with regard to the maximum daily hours of work and overtime, so that the provisions of the Labour Code or of any new legislative text are in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide any information that it deems useful in reply to the observations of the CTRN.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN), as well as the Government’s response to the observations.

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum daily limit on hours of work. Section 143 of the Labour Code excludes certain categories of workers from the provisions regulating hours of work, and in particular, "persons performing work which, by its very nature, is not subject to the regulations on hours of work". The Committee requests the Government to clarify which categories of workers are excluded.

Article 6. Additional hours of work. Under section 139 of the Labour Code, the hours during which a worker corrects errors which are exclusively attributable to him are not considered additional hours of work. This exception however is not provided for in the Convention, which gives an exhaustive enumeration of the circumstances under which permanent and temporary exceptions are allowed. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend section 139 of the Labour Code in order to ensure conformity with the Convention.

Bill to amend the Labour Code. The CTRN claims in its observation that the Government had transmitted to the Legislative Assembly a Bill which would deregulate the hours of work and, therefore, is contrary to the provisions of the Convention, instead of bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention, as requested by the Committee. The workers’ representatives in the High-Level Labour Council are opposed to this bill. Theproposed section 136 would permit "cumulative hours of work", allowing the worker to work a reduced number of days per week (five instead of six), and the daily hours of work to be increased to up to ten hours. According to the CTRN, this measure would mean that overtime hours would only be calculated after ten hours and not after eight hours of work per day. Section 140bis would permit "extended normal daily hours of work" up to 12 hours. The CTRN alleges that the introduction of such a measure would lead to the dismissal of thousands of workers if they did not accept a normal work day of 12 hours. Furthermore, section 140ter would allow enterprises, the possibility to calculate hours of work on an annual basis, for work not considered unhealthy or dangerous. The hours of work would be 2,400 per year, that is an average of 48 hours per week over a period of 50 weeks. Daily working time would be between six and ten hours. The CTRN emphasizes that the employer would be free, unilaterally, to determine the work schedule and the only constraint would be the need to communicate the schedule to the workers 15 days in advance. This would lead to a loss of freedom and opportunities for those who would like to take on a second job and would no longer have the possibility to take up studies.

In its response, the Government emphasizes that the bill aims to establish new flexible forms of organizing hours of work in certain well-defined exceptional cases and in full respect of the Constitution, in order to respond to the needs of enterprises which must operate 24 hours a day. The competitiveness of the country would be increased, which would lead to the creation of new employment opportunities. The Labour Code incorporates section 58 of the Constitution, which sets the daily hours of work performed at eight hours and the normal hours of work shall not exceed 48 hours per week. The Constitution however permits exceptions to these rules in certain well-defined exceptional cases. Thus, an act may modify the organization of working time, as is the case with the bill in question. However, in view of the opposition demonstrated against this bill by many parts of society, one ought to wait before action is taken. The bill is no longer on the agenda of the plenary of the Legislative Assembly but on the agenda of the Committee of Social Affairs. The Government indicates that it respects the opinions of CTRN and requests the International Labour Office to provide its views on this subject so that the Government can analyse and take them into consideration.

The Committee notes the Government’s request to the International Labour Office for comments on the bill. It also notes that the Government has tentatively decided to remove the bill from the agenda of the plenary of the Legislative Assembly and to resubmit it to the Committee on Social Affairs.

In the version communicated by the CTRN, the bill contains certain provisions which would, if adopted, be contrary to the Convention (in particular, the annualization of working time and the extension of the hours of work to up to 12 hours per day). As the Government has requested the comments of the Office on this bill, it is invited to transmit an updated version of this text and to keep the Committee informed of all developments related to the adoption of the bill.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Since the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention, the Committee has pointed to the non-conformity of sections 136 and 140 of the Labour Code with the Convention and to the need to amend these provisions. The discrepancies between the Labour Code and the Convention are repeated below.

Article 2 of the Convention. Maximum daily limit on the hours of work. Article 2 of the Convention provides for the general principle, that working hours shall not exceed eight per day and 48 per week. Paragraph (b) of this provision allows, under certain circumstances, for the daily limit of eight hours to be exceeded by one hour in cases of uneven distribution of hours of work within the week. In such cases, the hours of work shall not be more than nine hours per day. Section 136 of the Labour Code is not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention on this point, as it provides for the possibility to work up to ten hours per day for work which is not inherently unhealthy or dangerous.

Article 6. Overtime. Section 140 of the Labour Code provides that the hours of work, including overtime, shall not exceed 12 hours per day (which is four hours more than the normal hours of work). Article 6 of the Convention gives an exhaustive enumeration of cases in which permanent and temporary exceptions are allowed. Therefore, additional hours of work cannot be authorized in all circumstances. Furthermore, such exceptions must remain within reasonable limits (see paragraph 226 of the General Survey of 1967 on the hours of work which deals with this issue). Permitting four additional hours per day without any monthly or yearly limit does not appear to fulfil this condition.

The Committee hopes that in the light of these new explanations, the Government will soon be able to amend sections 136 and 140 of the Labour Code in order to bring them in line with the Convention.

In a request addressed directly to the Government the Committee raises certain further issues concerning, in particular, a draft amendment to the Labour Code, on which an observation has been made by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN). If adopted, the draft amendment would not appear to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the amendments to the Labour Code, which it has been requesting repeatedly for many years, and more generally, the underlying principles in the Convention, will be taken into account during the drafting of the new legislation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s request for technical assistance. It hopes that, with the Office’s advice to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on the measures necessary to bring the national legislation into conformity with the provisions of Article 2(b) and Article 6(1) of the Convention, the Government will be able to harmonize its legislation with these provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to supply details on the progress achieved in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's last report on the application of the Convention. It notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 7679 of 17 July 1997 repealing section 146 of the Labour Code. It also notes the Government's statement that it wishes to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the provisions of Articles 2(b) and 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee is aware that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security applied to the Office in 1998 for technical assistance, and trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide detailed information on progress made in this respect in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes that section 146 of the Labour Code has not yet been repealed. It notes the information contained in the Government's report sent in June 1996 according to which the Standing Committee on Social Affairs of the Legislative Assembly approved the repeal in question, and hopes that the Government will be able to provide, in its next detailed report, information on the adoption of the Act repealing section 146 of the Labour Code, to ensure that national legislation and practice in this area are brought into line with the Convention as soon as possible.

2. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in reply to the comments it made in its previous observation which read as follows:

Referring to the comments it has been making for several years, the Committee notes, once again, that the Government has not supplied any new information on the application of Articles 2(b) and 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It recalls that, even though ratification of the Convention implies that the latter shall prevail, according to the national Constitution, it is nevertheless necessary to lay down specific provisions on the following matters.

1. Article 2(b) of the Convention.The second paragraph of section 136 of the Labour Code supplements the principle contained in the Constitution in the following manner: Nevertheless, in work which is not inherently unhealthy or dangerous, a normal working day of up to ten hours and a mixed working day of up to eight hours may be determined, provided that weekly working hours do not exceed 48. The Committee notes that under the terms of the above-mentioned provision of the Convention, the additional hours authorized shall in no case be more than one hour a day. It requests the Government to indicate how compliance with this provision is ensured in practice.

2. Article 6, paragraph 1. In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 140 of the Labour Code, which provides that normal working hours, plus overtime hours, must not exceed 12 hours per day. The Committee recalls that the exceptions authorized to the above provision of the Convention must remain within reasonable limits, and that regulations on this matter must be adopted by the public authorities. Permitting four hours overtime per day, without any other guarantee, such as a monthly or yearly limit, does not therefore appear to be in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the Government will supply in its next report information on the measures taken to ensure proper application of this paragraph.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous observation. It notes with satisfaction the adoption, on 5 March 1996, of the law repealing section 146 of the Labour Code which was the reason why the courts constantly refused to recognize, in the transport sector, the limits to the working day laid down in the Constitution and, consequently, payment of overtime in this sector.

Furthermore, referring to the comments it has been making for several years, the Committee notes, once again, that the Government does not supply any new information on the application of Articles 2(b) and 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It recalls that, even though ratification of the Convention implies that the latter shall prevail, according to the national constitution, it is nevertheless necessary to lay down specific provisions on the following matters.

1. Article 2(b) of the Convention. The second paragraph of section 136 of the Labour Code supplements the principle contained in the Constitution in the following manner: Nevertheless, in work which is not inherently unhealthy or dangerous, a normal working day of up to ten hours and a mixed working day of up to eight hours may be determined, provided that weekly working hours do not exceed 48. The Committee notes that under the terms of the above-mentioned provision of the Convention, the additional hours authorized shall in no case be more than one hour a day. It requests the Government to indicate how compliance with this provision is ensured in practice.

2. Article 6, paragraph 1. In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 140 of the Labour Code, which provides that normal working hours, plus overtime hours, must not exceed 12 hours per day. The Committee recalls that the exceptions authorized to the above provision of the Convention must remain within reasonable limits, and that regulations on this matter must be adopted by the public authorities. Permitting four hours overtime per day, without any other guarantee, such as a monthly or yearly limit, does not therefore appear to be in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the Government will supply in its next report information on the measures taken to ensure proper application of this paragraph.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

I. The Committee notes the observations transmitted by the Government in June 1995 and the report received in October 1995 on the subject of the comments made by the Workers' Confederation "Rerum Novarum" on behalf of the Transport Workers Trade Union of Costa Rica (SICOTRA). The workers' organization referred to section 58 of the Political Constitution and sections 133-146 of the Labour Code and states that the above provisions do not give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. In the absence of regulations under section 146 of the Labour Code, working days of 12, 14, 16, 18 and even 20 hours could be required of workers. The Government recognizes that, according to the courts, since the regulations required by section 146 of the Labour Code have not been adopted, all hours worked in the road transport sector are payable at the same rate of remuneration, with the result that no special payment is made for overtime. The Government also states that the courts considered the issue once again and agreed that transport workers should be treated in conformity with the general legislation. The courts decided to apply to drivers sections 136 and 139 of the Labour Code, which lay down that eight hours is the normal working day and that hours in excess of this number give rise to wages that are 50 per cent higher. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, after consultations with employers' and workers' bodies, submitted a Bill in March 1995 to the President of the Republic to establish an exemption to section 146 of the Labour Code. This text recognizes that the application of section 146 provided a basis for the labour courts to declare inapplicable over a long period the limits on maximum working hours set out in the Constitution and to come out against the payment of overtime rates in the transport sector. The draft text explicitly states that the proposed exemption would also comply with a series of comments made by the Committee in this respect. The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to include information in its next detailed report on the adoption of the Act to establish an exemption from section 146 of the Labour Code so that national law and practice are brought into conformity with the Convention as rapidly as possible.

II. The Committee considers it appropriate to recall its previous comments, which raised other questions relating to the application of the Convention.

1. Article 2(b) of the Convention. Section 136(2) of the Labour Code supplements the principle contained in the Constitution in the following manner: Nevertheless, in work which is not inherently unhealthy or dangerous, a normal working day of up to ten hours and a mixed working day of up to eight hours may be determined, provided that weekly working hours do not exceed 48. The Committee notes that under the terms of the above provision of the Convention, the additional hours authorized shall in no case be more than one hour a day. In its previous reports, the Government stated that it applied Article 5 of the Convention, which in exceptional cases and under determined conditions permits the daily limit of working hours to be exceeded. The Committee considers that the information supplied by the Government does not contain grounds enabling it to find that the requirements set out in Article 5 of the Convention have been met. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give full effect to the limit of one hour a day set out in Article 2(b) of the Convention so that it does not continue to apply provisions and follow practices which are contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 6, paragraph 1. In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 140 of the Labour Code, which provides that normal working hours, plus overtime hours, must not exceed 12 hours per day. The Committee recalls that the exceptions authorized to the above provision of the Convention must remain within reasonable limits and that permitting four hours overtime per day, without any other guarantee, such as a monthly or annual limit, does not appear to comply with the terms and, especially, with the spirit of the Convention. The Committee is therefore bound to hope that the next report will contain information on the proper application of the above provision.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the "Confederación de Trabajadores Rerum Novarum" in April 1994 where it referred to the absence of regulations on the hours of work to be applied specially, inter alia, to transport by highway, cargo in general, and passengers. The Government has not submitted its comments on the said information.

In its previous direct requests, the Committee referred to the possible differences between certain provisions of the Labour Code and the Convention. In previous reports, the Government manifested that under section 136 of the Labour Code, the workers and employers can agree to fix the hours of work up to ten hours a day as long as the limit of 48 hours of work per week is respected, which is contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, which provides that only in certain circumstances can hours of work be exceeded by one hour per day. The Government also assures that it is applying Article 5 of the Convention, but this Article refers only to "in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied ...". This does not seem to be the case under section 136 of the Labour Code. Furthermore, in cases referred to in Article 5 of the Convention, but only in such cases, the Convention provides that agreements between workers' and employers' organizations, if they are given the force of regulations by the Government, could provide for the daily limit of work over a longer period of time. However, regarding the information transmitted by the "Confederación de Trabajadores Rerum Novarum", it seems that the agreements of workers and employers or the pertinent regulations do not exist.

The Committee asks the Government to give all necessary information on that matter.

On the other hand, Article 6 of the Convention establishes the obligation of determining by regulations the possible exceptions, permanent or temporary, in certain cases and under certain conditions. The Committee recalls that these exceptions have to be maintained within reasonable limits. The Committee asks the Government to provide all available information on the application of these provisions.

More generally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity between the legislation and the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail by 1 September 1995, at the latest]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's brief report supplied in response to its previous direct request. It notes with regret that as yet there have been no changes because the proposed amendments to the legislation are linked to the reveiw of the Labour Code, which is still under way. Consequently it is bound to reiteriate its previous direct request which read as follows:

In relation to Article 2(b) of the Convention, the Committee points out that section 136 of the Labour Code permits an agreement to be entered into providing for an ordinary working day not exceeding ten hours, while the Convention only authorizes, in certain circumstances, the daily limit to be exceeded by one hour. In its report, the Government states that it applies the provisions set out in Article 5. These permit the daily limit of work to be exceeded provided that the weekly limit of 48 hours is observed. Although this condition would seem to be fulfilled by section 136 above, the Committe points out however that Article 5 only covers "exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied". This does not appear to be the case with section 136, which is of general application. The Committee however notes that the Government will take its comments into account during the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee once again hopes that this revision will be completed as soon as possible and it requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of all developments in this respect.

The Committee also trusts that the Government will use the same occasion to set out with precision the limits and conditions in which exceptions to the normal working day can be authorized in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1. It recalls that these exceptions must remain within reasonable limits and that providing for four additional hours per day, without any other restriction (such as a monthly or annual limit), does not appear to conform, if not to the letter, as least to the spirit of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

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:

In relation to Article 2(b) of the Convention, the Committee points out that section 136 of the Labour Code permits an agreement to be entered into providing for an ordinary working day not exceeding ten hours, while the Convention only authorizes, in certain circumstances, the daily limit to be exceeded by one hour. In its report, the Government states that it applies the provisions set out in Article 5. These permit the daily limit of work to be exceeded provided that the weekly limit of 48 hours is observed. Although this condition would seem to be fulfilled by section 136 above, the Committe however points out that Article 5 only covers "exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied". This does not appear to be the case with section 136, which is of general application. The Committee however notes that the Government will take its comments into account during the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee once again hopes that this revision will be completed as soon as possible and it requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of all developments in this respect.

The Committee also trusts that the Government will use the same occasion to set out with precision the limits and conditions in which exceptions to the normal working day can be authorized in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1. It recalls that these exceptions must remain within reasonable limits and that providing for four additional hours per day, without any other restriction (such as a monthly or annual limit) does not appear to conform, if not to the letter, at least to the spirit of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

In relation to Article 2(b) of the Convention, the Committee points out that section 136 of the Labour Code permits an agreement to be entered into providing for an ordinary working day not exceeding ten hours, while the Convention only authorises, in certain circumstances, the daily limit to be exceeded by one hour. In its report, the Government states that it applies the provisions set out in Article 5. These permit the daily limit of work to be exceeded provided that the weekly limit of 48 hours is observed. Although this condition would seem to be fulfilled by section 136 above, the Committe however points out that Article 5 only covers "exceptional cases where it is recognised that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied". This does not appear to be the case with section 136, which is of general application. The Committee however notes that the Government will take its comments into account during the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee once again hopes that this revision will be completed as soon as possible and it requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of all developments in this respect.

The Committee also trusts that the Government will use the same occasion to set out with precision the limits and conditions in which exceptions to the normal working day can be authorised in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1. It recalls that these exceptions must remain within reasonable limits and that providing for four additional hours per day, without any other restriction (such as a monthly or annual limit) does not appear to conform, if not to the letter, at least to the spirit of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988. This refers mainly, once again, to the draft reform of the Labour Code, and affirms that the special commission responsible for drawing up the reforms has taken into consideration the questions raised by the Committee in its comments.

In these comments, the Committee noted, in relation to Article 2(b) of the Convention, that section 136 of the present Labour Code permits an agreement to be entered into providing for an ordinary working day not exceeding ten hours, while the Convention only authorises, in certain circumstances, the daily limit to be exceeded by one hour. The Committee once again hopes that the new Labour Code will amend the above section to bring it into conformity with this provision of the Convention. In the case of the exceptions in which the limits set out in Article 2 are not applicable, the Government could avail itself of the possibility of having an arrangement in acordance and under the conditions set out in Article 5.

The Committee once again hopes that the new Code will set out with precision the limits and conditions in which exceptions to the normal working day can be authorised in accordance with Article 6. It recalls that these exceptions must remain within reasonable limits and that lengthening the working day to 12 hours, without any restrictions, would clearly seem to exceed these limits.

The Committee trusts that the draft amendments to the Labour Code will be adopted in the near future and that they will take its comments into account.

The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.