CMNT_TITLE

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - Colombia (RATIFICATION: 1976)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 30 June 2008. It also notes the observations submitted by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) dated 31 August 2007, and the Government’s reply to these comments dated 21 February 2008. The Committee points out that the CUT also sent, on 28 January 2008, comments in the form of a report entitled “Labour rights and freedom of association in Colombia: Evaluation and proposals for the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement”, on its own behalf and on behalf of the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Confederation of Pensioners in Colombia (CPC). The Committee notes that the Government sent replies to the questions raised in this report to the ILO on 9 June 2008, and that comments from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), dealing mainly with the inadequacy of the staff in the labour inspection services, were forwarded to the Government on 19 September 2008.

Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Associated work cooperatives (CTA), subcontracting, increasingly precarious working conditions and legal void. Referring to its comments under Convention No. 81 on the widespread use of employment relationships in the context of associated work cooperatives (CTAs), the Committee observes that the trade unions draw particular attention to this practice in the sugar-cane and flower-growing sectors. They emphasize that sugar has become one of the country’s most important agricultural export products and that Colombia is among the ten major sugar exporting countries in the world. About 16,000 workers in this sector are sugar-cane harvesters, which is the most physically demanding job in the sugar production process, and the worst paid. Some 90 per cent of these workers are recruited through the CTAs and do not even earn the minimum wage. According to the trade unions, the massive recourse to labour under the conditions imposed by the CTAs generate higher profits for the sugar refineries, but that the workers are denied the right to a decent salary and trade union representation. The flower-growing sector, mainly geared to the export of freshly cut flowers (of which Colombia is the major supplier to the United States), absorbs a considerable number of workers, mostly made up of women heads of households with a low educational level, whose opportunities of employment in other sectors are almost non-existent. According to the report of the trade union organizations, a high percentage of workers on sugar-cane plantations and in flower-growing enterprises are recruited though temporary employment agencies, CTAs or other forms of subcontracting.

According to information available to the ILO, a strike was called in September 2008 by some 18,000 sugar-cane harvesters from the department of Valle del Cauca, who had been recruited through the associated labour cooperatives. The strikers claimed the end of the “pseudo-associated labour cooperatives”, direct recruitment, job stability, wage increases, social security coverage, entitlement to social benefits, education and housing allowances, effective control of the weight of sugar cane harvested, etc. They were protesting against a system which obliged them not only to bear the cost of their social security contributions, but also costs relating to occupational safety, the purchase of work tools (machetes), protective equipment such as gloves, protection for the ankles, leather shoes and work clothes. Due to a lack of efficient health services and programmes for the prevention of occupational hazards, cases of partial or total paralysis, injuries to limbs and the spine, as well as arthritis, herniated discs and infections caused by contaminated water and the use of pesticides, are widespread among this labour force; moreover, working time may be as high as 70 hours per week for a monthly wage equivalent to about US$230.

Referring to its comments under Convention No. 81, the Committee particularly draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 133 of its General Survey on labour inspection of 2006, in which it emphasizes the meaning and scope of Article 6, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention, under the terms of which labour inspectors shall bring to the notice of the competent authority defects or abuses not specifically covered by existing legal provisions. The Committee considers that the deterioration in the working conditions of a large number of workers, many of whom are women, would largely justify entrusting labour inspectors with carrying out a survey on the actual working relations between those giving instructions or receiving goods and services produced by the CTAs, and the workers in the CTAs. Any defects or abuses harmful to these workers could therefore be identified, which could result in an improvement in the existing legislation on working conditions and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. The Committee firmly encourages the Government to ensure that a mission of this nature is entrusted to labour inspectors in agriculture rapidly to help bring about a change in the law adapted to the new realities of the world of work which consist of the subordination of CTAs in relation to the enterprises for which they are producing goods and services without any labour contract. The Government is requested to submit relevant information, accompanied by a copy of any text giving effect to Article 6, paragraph 1(c).

Inadequacy of structures, means and logistics of the labour inspection service in agriculture. In its comments in 2007, the CUT pointed out that, although the inspection service was the same for all branches of the economy, on account of their geographical situation some offices deal mainly with agriculture and have to cover up to ten districts, including vast areas to which access is difficult. Labour inspection is ineffective in these vast areas, which are mainly devoted to agriculture and stock-breeding. According to the CUT, the lack of a specific inspection system in agriculture, exacerbated by a lack of resources, prevents the inspection of agricultural undertakings as often and as thoroughly as is required to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions covered by the Convention.

According to the information provided by the Government in its report and that published by the Ministry of Social Protection on its Internet site, a number of measures to strengthen the labour inspection system are planned, with the assistance of the Office, on the one hand, and in the context of the framework of the USAID–Midas (More Investment for Alternative Sustainable Development) programme on the other. The Committee invites the Government to refer to its comments under Convention No. 81 in relation to: increasing the number and reinforcing the qualifications of labour inspectors, and improving the status of labour inspectors (Articles 14 and 9, paragraph 3, of the present Convention); the material working conditions and transport facilities of labour inspectors (Articles 15 and 16, paragraph 1(c)(iii)); further duties entrusted to labour inspectors (Article 6, paragraph 3); adequate penalties that are effectively enforced (Article 24); principle of confidentiality as to the source of any complaint (Article 20(c)) and annual report of the inspection services (Articles 26 and 27).

Article 9, paragraph 3. Specific training of labour inspectors in agriculture. With regard to the application of this Convention, the trade unions regret the lack of specialized labour inspectors in agriculture. Noting the Government’s recognition of the need to strengthen the labour inspection system by providing specific training to inspectors, the Committee asks it to indicate the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors in agriculture are provided with initial training, as well as further training during their work, which is adequate and takes account of developments in technology and working methods (risks of accidents and specific medical conditions inherent in the use of machinery and tools, and the handling of chemical products and substances).

Article 17. Association of labour inspection in the preventive control of agricultural enterprises. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on measures taken to associate labour inspection in the preventive control of new plant, new substances and new methods of handling or processing products which appear likely to constitute a threat to health or safety, the Government indicates that this matter lies within the joint competence of occupational health institutions, departmental and local committees, joint occupational health committees within the enterprise, monitors and insurance companies authorized to operate in the field of occupational hazards, as all these bodies are duly aware of the high risk of agricultural activities. The Committee points out that the labour inspection services do not appear to be associated in any way with this type of control. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate the legal provisions relating to this matter and to provide practical examples of their application in agricultural enterprises.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.