Definitive Report - Report No 6, 1953

Case No 42 (United States of America) - Complaint date: 01-JAN-52 - Closed

A. Analysis of the Complaint

1. 565. The complainant makes the following allegations
2. 566. Mr. Juan V. Espiazzano, Secretary-General of the General Workers' Union of the Republic of Panama, was arbitrarily dismissed from his employment in the Canal Zone by reason exclusively of his trade union activities. The reactionary and anti-union attitude adopted by the authorities administering the Canal Zone toward Mr. Espiazzano is only one more manifestation of the continual violations of the Panamanian Constitution and of the international agreements signed by two States Members of the International Labour Organisation and constitutes on infringement of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Human Rights.
3. 567. Panamanian workers are being threatened and persecuted if they attempt to exercise their right to organise, a practice which is doubly censurable and reprehensible in view of the fact that non-Panamanian trade unions have the right to operate freely in the Canal Zone and that it constitutes a violation of the international agreements which Panama has signed. This discrimination practised in the Canal Zone against workers other than Americans should be examined by organisations like the I.L.O which fight for the freedom and rights of employees in all countries.

B. Analysis of the Government's Reply

1. 568. The Government of the United States, in its reply dated 28 November 1952, presents the following observations
2. 569. The dismissal of Mr. Espiazzano was occasioned not by his trade union activities but by his hostile activities against the United States which showed him to be a potential threat to the interests of the United States in the security and welfare of the Panama Canal.
3. 570. The Panama Canal is of strategic importance to the security of the United States. This factor prevents the United States from temporising with situations which might affect the security and welfare of the Canal and its availability for continuous operation.
4. 571. The agency of the United States charged with the operation of the Canal is the Panama Canal Company, a wholly Government-owned company. Employees of the Company are employees of the United States and their position is not comparable with that of employees in private undertakings. One of the qualifications for employment therein is that the hiring and retention of an individual will not threaten the security interests of the United States. With the advent of Communist aggression in Korea, security measures in regard to employment in the Canal Zone have been intensified and employees are thoroughly screened as security risks. These measures apply to United States as well as Panamanian citizens.
5. 572. Espiazzano had been employed by the United States for eleven years and, while it was generally known that he was active as a trade union official and organiser, he had in no way been discriminated against because of his trade union activities. There had been no objection to his trade union activities as such and he was not dismissed on their account, but only because of other activities considered to be a potential threat to United States security.
6. 573. The answers to the general allegation of discrimination against Panamanian workers in their attempts to organise in the Canal Zone, which the Government formally denies, will be found in the report on labour conditions in the Canal Zone submitted to the International Labour Organisation by the United States in 1950. The Government contends, further, that the only evidence adduced by the complainant in support of this allegation is the dismissal of Mr. Espiazzano.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 574. Under Article II of the Convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama for the Construction of a Ship Canal to Connect the Waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, signed on 18 November 1903, and revised on 2 March 1936, the Republic of Panama granted "to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of " the Panama Canal. Further, under Article III of the Convention, the Republic of Panama granted " to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign " of the Zone, " to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority ".
2. 575. It is evident from Article III, cited above, that the authorities charged with the administration of the Panama Canal Zone are responsible only to the Government of the United States, and that it is, consequently, the responsibility of this Government to guarantee the free exercise of trade union rights.
3. 576. With regard to the first allegation, the complainant has furnished no particulars in support of the statement that Mr. Espiazzano was dismissed solely and exclusively for trade union activities. The Government contends that he was not dismissed for trade union activities but for activities hostile to the United States which caused him to be considered a potential threat to the security and welfare of the United States in the Canal Zone.
4. 577. The Committee considers that the Government's contention that Mr. Espiazzano was dismissed solely on the ground of his having become a " bad security risk " is corroborated by the fact that the dismissal followed a period of eleven years employment of the Government without any discrimination having been exercised against him during that period although the Government was well aware of the trade union activities which he carried on.
5. 578. In these circumstances the Committee considers that this part of the complaint does not in fact concern the question of the exercise of trade union rights and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation does not call for further examination.
6. 579. With regard to the second allegation, the complainant contends that discrimination is practised in the Canal Zone against non-American workers and that, while non-Panamanian trade unions have the right to operate freely in the Zone, the right of association and organisation of Panamanian workers is restricted and they are threatened when they attempt to exercise that right.
7. 580. The Government states that the inaccuracy of this allegation is indicated in the report on labour conditions in the Canal Zone which it transmitted to the I.L.O in 1950. The final paragraph of this report deals with the right to organise and reads as follows:
   • In common with all other employees of the United States Government, none of the Zone workers has the right to strike, and their conditions of employment in the matters of wage and salary systems, plans covering retirement or disability compensation, hours of work, and annual and sick leave benefits are regulated by Congress or are in accordance with principles and regulations of the President. All workers have the right to organise, however, and representative unions have been recognised officially for the purpose of consultation with Zone authorities, settlement of grievances, etc. The unions also are active in working to obtain from the Congress legislative measures to improve working and living conditions. In April 1950, it was estimated that 7,000 workers in the Zone (about 24 per cent of the Zone civilian employees) were organised in 37 different unions. Some of these unions were affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and some with the Congress of Industrial Organisations.
8. 581. It would appear from the evidence of the report that all workers in the Zone have the right to organise and that, in fact, 37 different unions exist.
9. 582. The Committee considers that the complainant has not furnished sufficient proof in support of the allegation that Panamanian workers are restricted in their exercise of the right to organise and are threatened when they attempt to organise, and, accordingly, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 583. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.