ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2008, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

Convenio sobre las vacaciones pagadas, 1936 (núm. 52) - Paraguay (Ratificación : 1966)

Otros comentarios sobre C052

Observación
  1. 2023
Solicitud directa
  1. 2013
  2. 2008
  3. 2006
  4. 2005
  5. 2004
  6. 2003
  7. 2000
  8. 1995

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention. Home work. The Committee notes that, under section 147 of the Labour Code, the provisions of that Code relating to annual holiday with pay are not applicable to homeworkers. It draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1, paragraph 3(a), of the Convention only allows persons employed in undertakings or establishments where members of the employer’s family are employed to be exempt from the application of this Convention. However, although the definition of home work set out in section 137 of the Labour Code includes work carried out in family workshops, it is not limited to such work and also extends to any work carried out for other people at the worker’s home or in another place chosen by the worker, without the direct supervision of the employer or his representative. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether other legal provisions regulate the right to annual holiday with pay of homeworkers, who are covered by the Convention, and, if so, to provide a copy of any relevant texts.

Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 4. Postponement of annual holidays with pay. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government merely recalls that, under section 223 of the Labour Code, where holidays are granted after expiry of the normal time limit, the employer must pay the worker double salary for the holiday period and therefore the postponement of annual holiday with pay is rare. It recalls that, in its 2006 report, the Government recognized that the national legislation was not in compliance with the provisions of the Convention on this point and indicated that it would ensure appropriate follow-up of the Committee’s comment. While recalling once again that the Convention allows the postponement of the part of the holiday exceeding the minimum provided for by the Convention (namely six working days after one year of service), the Committee trusts that the Government will take the measures required without delay to amend the Labour Code in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2, paragraph 3(b). Exclusion of absence due to sickness from the annual holiday with pay. The Committee notes that no provisions of the Labour Code exclude interruptions of attendance at work due to sickness from the annual holiday, as required by this provision of the Convention. It recalls in this regard that Act No. 506 of 27 December 1974 had amended section 219 of the Labour Code of 1961, then applicable, by inserting a provision under which “absences from work due to sickness may never be deducted from the annual holiday with pay”. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the measures required to include in the Labour Code a provision similar to that included in section 219 of the Labour Code of 1961, as amended by Act No. 506 mentioned above.

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the extracts of court decisions on the application of the legal provisions relating to annual holiday with pay and the information on inspections in a supermarket, which the Government enclosed with its report. It requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of the Convention in practice, including, in particular, statistical data on the number of workers covered by the Labour Code and extracts from the reports of the labour inspection services indicating the number and type of violations reported relating to annual paid holidays and any measures taken in response.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has not replied to its previous comment concerning the decisions taken by the ILO Governing Body on the proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards. It recalls that the Governing Body considered that Convention No. 52 was outdated and invited the States parties to that Convention to examine the possibility of ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be fully up to date but remains relevant in certain respects (see document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 for persons employed in economic sectors other than agriculture by a State party to Convention No. 52 ipso jure involves the immediate denunciation of that Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision it might take in this regard.

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