Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2012, Publicación: 102ª reunión CIT (2013)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Uganda (Ratificación : 1963)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee has noted the adoption of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006, which repealed and replaced the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 1964. It has noted that the new Act contains provisions concerning the resolution and settlement of labour disputes which could lead to the imposition of compulsory arbitration procedure, thus making strikes or other industrial action unlawful. Strikes may be declared unlawful, for example, where the minister or the labour officer refers a dispute to the Industrial Court (section 28(4)) or where the Industrial Court makes an award which has come into force (section 29(1)), organization of strikes in these circumstances being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) (sections 28(6) and 29(2), (3)), which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations provided in paragraph 187 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed out that, when such restrictions and prohibitions on the right to strike, connected with the imposition of compulsory arbitration, are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they should be limited to the sectors, types of employment or situations where, in conformity with freedom of association principles, restrictions may be imposed on the right to strike itself (such as, for example, essential services in the strict sense of the term or situations of acute national crisis).

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006, into conformity with the Convention, either by removing the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, or restricting their scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely those services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or to situations of acute national crisis. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on progress made in this regard.

The Committee has noted that, under section 34(5) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006, the minister may refer the dispute in essential services to the Industrial Court, thus making illegal any collective withdrawal of labour in such services, violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) (section 33(1) and (2) of the Act). It has also noted that the list of essential services given in Schedule 2, while including those services generally recognized as essential ones, also refers to civil aviation services, the interruption of which does not necessarily endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Referring to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention, for example, by restricting their scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, as explained above.