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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In observations addressed to the Government since 2002, the Committee has noted that, under article 12, section 95-98.1, of the North Carolina General Statutes, strikes by public employees are declared illegal and against the public policy of the state. Under section 95-99, any violation of the provisions of article 12 is declared to be a class 1 misdemeanour. Under section 15A-1340.23, read together with section 15A-1340.11 of Chapter 15A (Criminal Procedure Act), a person convicted of a class 1 misdemeanour may be sentenced to “community punishment” and, upon a second conviction, to “active punishment”, that is, imprisonment. The Committee has noted the Compendium of Community Corrections Programs in North Carolina, published by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, which explains that the imposition of community punishment may include assignment to the state’s Community Service Work Program (CSWP): “The CSWP is an alternative to incarceration imposed as part of a community punishment or DWI sentence, or in some cases as the sole condition of unsupervised probation.” The report also states: “CSWP is a community punishment. It is also used as a sanctioning tool at every stage of the criminal justice system … CSWP requires the offender to work for free for public or non-profit agencies in an area that will benefit the greater community.” The Committee has also noted that article 3 (Labor of Prisoners), section 148-26, of Chapter 148 (State Prison System) declares it to be the public policy of the state of North Carolina that all able-bodied prison inmates shall be required to perform diligently all work assignments provided for them.

The Committee notes from its latest report the Government’s repeated assertion that no North Carolina public employee has ever been, or is likely to be, prosecuted under the law in question, and the Committee’s concern remains “hypothetical”, and that “no measures need to be taken to change that state’s law”. The Committee is bound to repeat its observation that the provisions of North Carolina law and policy discussed above contravene Article 1(d) of the Convention. Taking into account the Government’s assertions about the dormancy of the law in question, the Committee trusts it will be all the more cognizant of the need for measures to bring the state’s law into conformity with the Convention, and it urges the Government to do so without further delay.