CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted communications received in 2008 and 2009 from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which alleged that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, there were continued non-governmental organizations denouncing, and media reports recording the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The IOE and the ITUC alleged that the Government systematically mobilized both school-aged children and adults to work in the annual cotton harvest for purposes of economic development. The Committee also noted previously the comments made by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its 2004 report, which contained allegations concerning practices of mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in cotton production, in which public sector workers, school children and university students were involved.

The Committee notes two new communications received in November 2010 from a number of workers’ organizations: a communication dated 19 November 2010, received from the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (EURATEX) and the European Trade Union Federation: Textiles, Clothing and Leather (ETUF: TCL); and a communication dated 22 November 2010 received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the ETUF: TCL, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT). Both communications, which relate to the issue of continued use of child labour in the cotton harvest, were sent to the Government, in November 2010, for such comments as it may wish to make on the matters raised therein.

The Committee notes the Government’s response to the 2008 and 2009 communications by the IOE and the ITUC, received in January 2010, in which the Government submitted its observations on the alleged cases of widespread use of forced child labour in the cotton industry, including information on the implementation of the national action plan concerning the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), likewise ratified by Uzbekistan. In so far as Article 3(a) of Convention No. 182 provides that the worst forms of child labour include “all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour”, the Committee is of the view that this problem can be examined more specifically under Convention No. 182. The protection of children is enhanced by the fact that Convention No. 182 requires States which ratify it to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its comments on the application of Convention No. 182.

However, the Committee previously noted that, according to the above allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC, adults were also subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC alleged, in particular, that local administration employees, teachers, factory workers and doctors were commonly forced to leave their jobs for weeks at a time and pick cotton with no additional compensation; in some instances refusal to cooperate could lead to dismissal from work; even elderly people and mothers of young babies had been reportedly ordered by local government officials to pick cotton or lose their pensions or child benefits. The ITUC concluded that, even if forced labour in the cotton fields was not the result of state policy, the Government still violated the Convention by failing to ensure its effective observance, since it systematically required persons to work in the cotton fields against their will, under the threat of a penalty and in extremely perilous conditions for the purposes of economic development.

The Committee notes that, in its reply to the above communications by the IOE and the ITUC, received in January 2010, the Government denies the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural work and reiterates that, under no circumstances, employers may use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with penal and administrative sanctions, and employers being liable for violation of labour legislation. The Government also reiterates its earlier statement that almost all the country’s cotton is produced by private undertakings that have no economic interest in employing additional labour.

While noting these indications, the Committee asks the Government to state, in its next report, whether public sector workers and university students participate in the cotton harvest and, if so, how their work is organized, indicating, in particular, the measures taken, including through labour inspection, in order to eliminate any possibility to use compulsory labour in cotton production, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development. Please also provide information on the legal proceedings which have been instituted against employers for the exaction of compulsory labour in cotton production under the existing penal and administrative provisions, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.