On 1 December 1996, Swiss voters decided on a revision of the Labour Act (LTr) passed by Parliament on 22 March 1996. The 1877 statute still banned night and Sunday work for women; the revision sought to lift that ban, in the name of equality and following the denunciation of an ILO convention obtained at the employers' request.
The bill went further, however: it allowed staff to be employed until 11 p.m. (instead of 8 p.m.) without a permit, abolished the permit requirement for overtime and relaxed Sunday protection. Above all, against the Federal Council's wishes, the centre-right parliamentary majority had dropped the time bonuses meant to compensate for night and Sunday work.
Convinced the revision sacrificed social compensation, the Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB), the Christian-National Trade Union Federation (CNG) and the Federal Democratic Union (EDU) launched a referendum. In a highly emotional campaign, the united union front and the left, backed by parts of the centre and the churches, faced a coalition of FDP, SVP and employers.
The stakes: should working hours be deregulated with no compensation for employees? The ballot box answered unequivocally.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton accepted the revision. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All 26 cantons (23 cantonal votes), unanimously: Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva and Jura. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • FDP (Radical Democratic Party) • SVP • Liberal Party (LPS) • Freedom Party (FPS) former Motorists' Party • Vorort / economiesuisse (business umbrella body) • Swiss Employers' Association • Swiss Trade Association • Swiss Farmers' Union | ▼ No camp • SP • CVP (Christian Democratic People's Party) • Greens • EVP (Evangelical People's Party) • EDU (Federal Democratic Union) • LdU (Alliance of Independents) • PdA (Labour Party) • Swiss Democrats • SGB, CNG, VSA (unions, referendum committee) • Church circles (defence of Sunday rest) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Deregulating working hours strengthens Switzerland as a business location « More flexible working-time arrangements are essential to stay competitive and preserve jobs. » — FDP, SVP and employers' organisations, 1996 ✗~ Partly refuted Flexibilisation was ultimately achieved as early as 1998 — but with the very social compensation the Yes camp deemed superfluous. The Swiss economy did not collapse: the scenario of lost competitiveness for lack of "hard" deregulation never materialised. Source: swissvotes.ch (no. 433); revised Labour Act, accepted on 29.11.1998. Lifting the ban on night work for women is an equality measure « Keeping a ban that applies only to women is discrimination from another era. » — Supporters of the revision, 1996 ✓ Argument confirmed The goal was reached with the 1998 revision: the women-specific ban on night and Sunday work was abolished, establishing an identical regime for both sexes — but this time with protections attached. Source: SECO, Labour Act (LTr) in force since 2000. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The revision removes compensation for night and Sunday work « They want people working nights and Sundays with no compensation whatsoever: a policy serving shareholders alone. » — Swiss Trade Union Federation, 1996 ✓ Argument confirmed Voters proved the referendum backers right, and so did the facts: the 1998 revision, accepted, reintroduced a 10% time bonus for regular night work (art. 17b LTr). The compensation called "superfluous" in 1996 became the legal norm. Source: SECO, art. 17b LTr; swissvotes.ch. The revision weakens protection of Sunday rest « Trivialising Sunday work means attacking an essential social and family anchor. » — Church and union circles, 1996 ✓~ Partly confirmed Sunday work did expand over the years (tourist zones, stations, shops). But the permit regime and bonuses were maintained: the erosion was gradual and regulated, not the total liberalisation that was feared. Source: SECO, night and Sunday work; ch.ch. |
Affiches de campagne (16)
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | Social compensation obtained in the end Two years after the rejection, Parliament reworked its draft. The Labour Act revision of 20 March 1998, accepted at the ballot on 29 November 1998 and in force from 2000, reintroduced the time bonus for night work. The 1996 "no" thus directly shaped a more balanced labour law. Source: swissvotes.ch; SECO. |
| ✓ | Equality, the upward way The women-specific ban on night and Sunday work — a legacy of 1877 — was indeed lifted in 1998, but within a protective framework identical for all. The equality argument put forward by the Yes camp ultimately prevailed, in a socially compensated form. Source: SECO, LTr. |
| ~ | Gradual liberalisation, not a big bang Night and Sunday work gradually expanded (station shops, tourist zones, services). The permit regime and bonuses nonetheless remain: the total deregulation announced by some and feared by others did not happen. Source: SECO; ch.ch. |
The rejection of 1 December 1996 — 67% no, every canton opposed, turnout of 46.7% — is one of the decade's clearest in labour policy. It sanctioned less the principle of modernising the law than the method: by stripping out the compensatory bonuses against the Federal Council's own advice, the parliamentary majority handed referendum backers an unanswerable argument.
The verdict of the facts is instructive. Far from blocking all reform, the "no" gave birth to a better law: as early as 1998 voters accepted a revision that lifted the ban on women's night work — the Yes camp's equality goal — while guaranteeing a 10% time bonus for regular night work. The compensation deemed superfluous by the presumed victors of 1996 became the bedrock of the 1998 compromise.
In hindsight, the vote illustrates a classic mechanism of Swiss direct democracy: the referendum does not kill reform, it rebalances it. Fears of dismantling Sunday protection were only partly borne out, in a regulated and gradual form; the employers' competitiveness promises needed no compensation-free deregulation to come true.