CMNT_TITLE

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Uzbekistan (RATIFICATION: 1997)

Other comments on C105

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), dated 22 October 2012, which relate to the mobilization of adults, particularly teachers, university students and employees from the private and public sectors, in the national cotton harvest, as well as the Government’s reply to these comments dated 20 November 2012.

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 the allegations made in 2008 and 2009 by the IOE and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The Committee recalled that similar allegations were made in 2004 by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, which referred to practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in cotton production, in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students were involved.

As regards practices of forcible involvement of schoolchildren in the cotton harvest, the Committee previously asked the Government to refer to its comments on the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), likewise ratified by Uzbekistan.

However, as the Committee previously noted from the above allegations made by employers’ and workers’ organizations, not only children but also adults were subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC asserted, in particular, that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, 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 Committee previously noted that, in its reply to the above communications by the IOE and the ITUC, the Government denied the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural works and reiterated that under no circumstances may employers 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 further indicated in its reply to the Committee’s comments received in May 2011 that, according to the legislation in force, public sector workers and university students may participate in the cotton harvest if such work is performed under a labour contract concluded between an employer and a worker under section 72 of the Labour Code. Any other exaction of labour from these categories without payment would be considered as compulsion to work, which involves responsibility and punishment of perpetrators in accordance with the legislation. The Government also added that the State Legal Labour Inspection intervenes upon every revealed case of the exaction of forced labour and applies appropriate legal measures, while informing the competent bodies of the detected violations of labour legislation. The Government further made reference to the recent legislative measures aimed at improving the legal framework for the abolition of forced labour, such as the adoption of the Law on Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons and respective amendments to the Criminal Code.

The Committee refers, however, to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 182, in which it notes the ITUC observations under that Convention received in 2010, 2011 and 2012, as well as the IOE comments received in 2010 and 2012 and, in particular, the assertion contained in these communications that, despite the Government’s denial, sources in the country indicate the widespread mobilization of forced labour (particularly of children) in the annual cotton harvest in a number of Uzbekistan’s regions.

Recalling that the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the concrete measures taken, including through labour inspection, to ensure the elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public sector workers and students in cotton production. Noting also the general statistical data concerning a number of violations of the labour legislation detected in 2011 and a number of cases in which administrative penalties (fines) have been imposed on responsible public officials for such violations, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of cases of forced labour detected by the State Legal Labour Inspection, indicating in particular whether judicial proceedings have been instituted in such cases and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.

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