Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

Other comments on C105

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

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 International Organisation of Employers (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 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 further indicates 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 the 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 being considered as compulsion to work, which involves responsibility and punishment of perpetrators in accordance with the legislation. The Government also adds in its 2011 report that the State Legal Labour Inspection intervenes upon every revealed fact of the exaction of forced labour and applies appropriate legal measures, while informing the competent bodies of the detected violations of labour legislation. It further recalls the recent legislative measures aiming 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 noted the ITUC observations under that Convention received in 2010, and in particular, the ITUC assertion that, despite the Government’s denial, sources in the country confirm the widespread mobilization of forced labour (particularly of children) in the 2009 cotton harvest in a number of Uzbekistan’s regions.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on concrete measures taken, including through labour inspection, in order to eliminate any possibility of using compulsory labour of public sector workers and university students in cotton production, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development. Noting also the general statistical data concerning a number of violations of the labour legislation detected in 2010 and a number of cases in which administrative penalties (fines) have been imposed on responsible public officials for such violations, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide statistics on the number of cases of forced labour detected by the State Legal Labour Inspection, to which reference is made in the Government’s report, 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.