Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Panama (Ratification: 1958)

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Federation of Associations and Organizations of Public Employees (FENASEP), received on 28 August 2012, and the Government’s reply to those, received on 24 January 2013. It also notes the comments by the National Confederation of United Independent Unions (CONUSI) and the National Council of Organized Workers (CONATO), received on 30 August 2013. Those comments deal partly with issues covered previously by the Committee and include the failure to send the reports to the trade unions; the recruitment and dismissal of inspectors on the basis of political clientelism and their unsuitability for the performance of inspection duties; the lack of employment stability and the conditions of service of labour inspectors; the ineffectiveness of inspections; the insufficient number of inspectors; the lack of integrity of such inspectors; the non-payment of fines handed down by labour inspectors by order of the hierarchical authority; the persistence of industrial accidents in the construction sector; and the need for political will and for increased ILO technical assistance to improve inspection services. The Committee requests that the Government communicate its comments in this regard.

Articles 6, 7 and 15(a) of the Convention. The need to improve conditions of service of labour inspectors to ensure compliance with deontological principles; conditions for the recruitment and adequate training of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, in its 2012 comments, FENASEP alleges that the situation relating to the dismissal of inspectors on the basis of political clientelism which it pointed out in 2011 has not changed and that none of the inspectors who had been dismissed, including the official who benefited from trade union immunity in his capacity as General Secretary of the Association of Employees of the Ministry of Labour (ASEMITRABS), had not been reinstated. It also emphasized the fall in the number of labour inspectors (of the 128 inspectors assigned by the previous Government, only 86 were appointed in 2012) and the fact that they were insufficient to monitor enterprises throughout the country. It also alleges that the wages of inspectors, which has been the same for the last five years, are insufficient and allow for corruption; that there is no basic training for employment, no regular skills refresher courses, no regular evaluation, and no skills accreditation. Many inspectors resign once they have acquired sufficient skills for the performance of their duties and are recruited in the private sector.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although it is properly registered, ASEMITRABS does not operate, but has been used by various former officials of the Ministry to benefit from so-called trade union immunity. Orders for reinstatements of inspectors who have been dismissed are issued by the judicial body but no judicial order has been received for the reinstatement of former officials for reasons of trade union immunity. According to the Government, the FENASEP statement regarding the fall in the number of inspectors is unfounded. It emphasizes that 125 inspectors were appointed in 2010, 128 in 2011, and 114 in 2012 (the table included in the Government’s report shows 111 inspectors and 95 safety officers in 2013). It adds that the 2012 budget provided for a rise in inspectors’ salaries to 1,000 Panamanian balboas (PAB) and in safety officers’ salaries, which was fixed at PAB1,200. These increases, however, had not been applied owing to budgetary cuts but a rise had once again been envisaged for 2013. The Government also maintains that from 2009 ongoing training has been provided for labour inspectors (it has provided tables on the training activities in which labour inspectors and safety officers participated between 2010 and 2013) and clarifies that any public official working in the Ministry is free to change employment whenever they deem it appropriate.

In its reply to the Committee’s previous comments, relating to the grounds for the removal of 70 per cent of civil servants whom it was considered did not meet performance expectations, the Government states that they: (i) did not meet the academic requirements (to hold a higher education certificate (bachiller) in science, humanities or business); (ii) did not have one year of professional experience in the basic labour inspection functions; and (iii) had not attended courses or seminars on the application of labour law. In relation to the grounds for the removal of 5 per cent of civil servants for breach of internal rules or misconduct, the Government states that those grounds were: (i) non-fulfilment of the main functions of the post (preparation of reports, inspections); (ii) failure to comply with work hours and ongoing unjustified absences; (iii) requests for and acceptance of bribes; and (iv) failure to comply with orders given or programmes established by hierarchical authorities. All such offences are contained, according to the Government, in the internal rules of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Development, Act No. 9 of 20 July 1994 which establishes and regulates administrative careers and its applicable text, Executive Decree No. 222 of 12 September 1997, which establishes and regulates the General Directorate of Administrative Careers. The appeal lodged against the decision gave rise to a disciplinary investigation, at the end of which the decision to remove the public servant from their post was upheld. The Government also states that the main grounds for resignation are to gain a more senior post with a better salary, and personal reasons.

Regarding measures taken or envisaged to retain qualified and experienced staff and in particular to safeguard the independence of labour inspectors necessary for the discharge of their functions, the Government refers to performance assessments, which enable evaluation of inspectors’ participation and cooperation, so that motivational and skills-building training may be carried out a posteriori, as well as to the enhancement of their discipline and commitment, which help inspectors to gain promotion to coordinator positions.

The Committee also notes that the Code of Conduct with which inspectors must comply is contained in Executive Decree No. 246 of 15 December 2004, which enacts the Uniform Code of Conduct for public servants working in central government bodies, non-compliance with which may result, in accordance with the seriousness of the offence, in a verbal or written warning, suspension, or removal from the post, in accordance with the corresponding administrative procedure.

The Government states that the recruitment of labour inspectors takes place by means of interviews carried out by qualified staff who are responsible for ensuring that the minimum requirements for the fulfilment of the post are met. It also states that the manual on inspection procedures drawn up by the National Directorate of the Labour Inspectorate is being updated, given the structural changes to the Directorate.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text setting out the conditions for the recruitment of labour inspectors. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that inspectors are recruited solely on the basis of the candidate’s suitability for the discharge of the functions of inspection, and on the measures taken or envisaged to retain qualified and experienced staff (improvements in career prospects and levels of remuneration in relation to other comparable civil servant categories) and, in particular, those to safeguard the necessary independence of labour inspectors for the discharge of their functions. The Committee also hopes that the Government will continue to report on training given to inspectors for the performance of their functions (indicating the type of activity, duration, subject, number of inspectors participating and the body responsible for the training).

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), and 13. Prevention relating to safety and health in the construction sector. The FENASEP alleges that although the boom in the construction industry contributes to the strengthening of legal protection mechanisms in this sector, labour inspection activity in the sector is lagging behind. The Government states that safety officers are responsible for supervising and ensuring that, at the site designated to them, safety and health measures are applied, and that there are currently 95 safety officers at the national level. The Committee requests the Government to report on any measures adopted with a view to strengthening the conditions of safety and health in the construction sector, in particular by means of monitoring activities and technical information and advice on inspection.

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