Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 376, October 2015

Case No 3055 (Panama) - Complaint date: 19-NOV-13 - Closed

Allegations: Dismissal of trade unionists, detention of trade unionists and fines for participation in a trade union protest, filing of a criminal complaint for trade union activities, and break-in at the headquarters of the Firefighters’ Association of the Republic of Panama

1. 805. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 19 November 2013 from the Confederation of Workers of the Republic of Panama (CTRP).
2. 806. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 15 May 2014 and 30 January 2015.
3. 807. Panama has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 808. In its communication dated 19 November 2013, the CTRP alleges that in December 2012 and January and February 2013 the permanent staff of the Fire Service of the Republic of Panama, who are members of the Firefighters’ Association of the Republic of Panama, held a number of protests to demand better conditions of work and wage increases which had been established by law but not implemented by the administration. The protests culminated in agreements signed by the parties concerning observance of the law with regard to wages and the promise by the administration to seek to improve conditions of work for the protestors.
2. 809. The complainant organization indicates that, as part of the protests, over a dozen firefighters announced a hunger strike and took up positions outside a number of fire stations. The administration dismissed all of them. As a result of the pressure of the protest and further to mediation by the Catholic Church, nearly all the firefighters were reinstated, the exceptions being two union members, Mr Cruz Gómez and Mr Raúl Marshall, who were not reinstated on account of being the most belligerent participants in the protest.
3. 810. The CTRP adds that in February 2013, as a result of the protests, the director-general of the Fire Service of the Republic of Panama filed a criminal complaint against the protesters, claiming improper use of institutional property, which was dismissed by the judicial authorities.
4. 811. Furthermore, according to the allegations, in February 2013 the peaceful protest held by the firefighters outside certain stations was dispersed by the national police, which arrested 18 of them and brought them before the administrative police authorities (Corregidor de California), which ultimately fined them for causing public disorder. The fines had to be paid in order to secure their release.
5. 812. The CTRP also adds that the headquarters of the Firefighters’ Association was broken into by the administration of the fire service, without any justification and in the absence of its leaders, the doors being forced. As a result of this offence, it was necessary to file a complaint with the competent authorities.
6. 813. The CTRP emphasizes that no regulations have been adopted in the Republic of Panama indicating that firefighters are excluded from exercising freedom of association or engaging in protests. On the contrary, section 192 of the Administrative Careers Act (No. 9 of 1994) includes the fire service among the institutions which are obliged to provide a minimum service during a strike, which implies that the right to strike and hence to freedom of association is recognized for these public servants under the law.
7. 814. The CTRP requests the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association to call on the Government to put an end to the harassment of trade union officials in the public sector and to respect the freedom of association of permanent fire service staff, who are members of the Firefighters’ Association of the Republic of Panama, by dropping the measures taken in reprisal against their leaders.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 815. In its communications dated 15 May 2014 and 30 January 2015, the Government states that when the protests by the Firefighters’ Association of the Republic of Panama began in December 2012, the Fire Service of the Republic of Panama was not paying the wage increases prescribed in Act No. 10 of 16 March 2010 since they did not have the budget resources to do so. The Government states that at the end of October 2012 the firefighters announced the submission of a list of 13 points, which received a reply on 29 November 2012, with various acts of protest and demonstration being carried out both previously and subsequently. The Government adds that the protests culminated in the signature of agreements by the parties designed to ensure compliance with the legislation relating to wages and improvements in conditions of work, uniforms, firefighting equipment, vehicles and training, which took effect in 2013 and 2014, as well as improvements regarding promotion, changes of category for candidates, wage standardization – which took effect according to rank –, bonuses and discounts for operators. The Government also states that seven of the nine individuals dismissed in the wake of the protests of 9 January 2013 were reinstated in their posts after a review by the fire service at the request of the persons concerned, and two trade unionists (Mr Cruz Enrique Gómez and Mr Raúl Marshall) were reinstated later, without any interruption to their period of service.
2. 816. The Government states, in relation to these dismissals, that a number of firefighters announced as part of the trade union protests and demonstrations that they were on hunger strike, taking up positions outside a number of fire stations, and that the demonstrators used firefighting vehicles in an unauthorized manner, grouping all the vehicles together at one depot, using sirens for lengthy periods, holding placards with degrading messages and shouting slogans against the authorities of the institution. During the second wave of protests, there were marches, stoppages, strikes, calls for anarchy and contempt of the authorities, which culminated in the protest of 13 March 2013. This was not a peaceful protest: masked individuals carrying blunt objects made use of service vehicles and blocked the public highway, as a result of which the police were obliged to intervene to restore public tranquillity.
3. 817. The Government adds that the complainant’s statement that the criminal complaint filed by the director-general of the fire service against the protestors for unauthorized use of the vehicles of the institution was dismissed by the authorities is only partially accurate, since the competent authorities conducted inquiries of their own in the wake of the complaint and in some cases the prosecutor’s office requested a temporary stay of proceedings, so the complaint cannot be considered to have been dismissed by the authorities. On the contrary, the complaint continues to be under investigation, having given rise to the temporary detention of 18 demonstrators and fines for public disorder.
4. 818. As regards the allegation that the Firefighters’ Association headquarters was broken into by the fire service administration, with no justification, in the absence of its leaders and with entry having been forced, as a result of which it was necessary to file the criminal complaint, the Government disputes the accuracy of this statement, since the premises were transferred to the National Directorate for Firefighting, Search and Rescue Operations at the request of its director on grounds of insufficient physical space, and this arrangement was duly communicated to the Firefighters’ Association, even though its leaders failed to comply with it. The Government adds that the fire service administration knew that the Association had filed a complaint when staff from the Public Prosecution Service came to conduct an on-the-spot inspection; nevertheless, to date no charges have been brought against the fire service administration.
5. 819. In conclusion, the Government points out that it is committed to respecting, promoting and fully applying Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and is striving to strengthen tripartite dialogue mechanisms. Accordingly, it has submitted the present case to the Committee for the rapid handling of complaints relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining with a view to reaching agreement by consensus.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 820. The Committee observes that the complainant organization alleges that in the present case anti-union reprisals occurred in the context of a dispute that started in 2012 owing to non-payment of wage increases established by law (a point acknowledged by the Government) and a number of trade union demands relating to conditions of work. The Committee observes that both the complainant and the Government concur that the parties reached agreements which settled the demands from which the dispute had arisen and that the trade unionists who had been dismissed were reinstated in their posts. The Government points out that the dismissals and the temporary detention of 18 demonstrators with the imposition of fines were due to excesses committed by the demonstrators, including the use and accumulation of official vehicles at one station, calls to anarchy, blocking of the public highway, the carrying of blunt objects by masked individuals and various instances of public disorder.
2. 821. The Committee notes the complainant’s statement that the judicial authorities dismissed the criminal complaint filed by the director-general of the fire service for unauthorized use of official vehicles, while the Government maintains that the complaint is still under investigation and that in some cases the prosecution service requested a temporary stay of proceedings. In view of the fact that the vast majority of the points of dispute were settled through agreements between the parties and taking account of the situation involving a requested temporary stay of proceedings by the prosecution service, the Committee, while acknowledging that there should be no unauthorized use of official vehicles in the context of the exercise of freedom of association, welcomes the submission of the case to the Committee for the rapid handling of complaints relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining (which the Committee recalls is a mechanism that was the result of ILO technical assistance and a tripartite agreement) and suggests, with a view to the full restoration of harmony in labour relations, that, to the extent possible, recourse is had to dialogue, rather than penal action.
3. 822. As regards the alleged break-in at the headquarters of the Firefighters’ Association of the Republic of Panama, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the transfer of the premises to the National Directorate for Firefighting, Search and Rescue Operations as decided by its director was due to the fact that the directorate had insufficient physical space and that the Association was duly notified of this decision. The Committee observes that, according to the Government’s reply, the Association filed a complaint with the prosecution service in relation to the break-in at its headquarters.
4. 823. The Committee requests the complainant organization and the Government to inform it of any ruling handed down in this respect and, in view of the damage caused to the Firefighters’ Association as a result of the administrative decision which deprived it of its headquarters, invites the Government to take steps, pending the judicial ruling, to provide the Association with premises to facilitate the exercise of its activities.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 824. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee welcomes the submission of the case to the Committee for the rapid handling of complaints relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and suggests, with a view to the full restoration of harmony in labour relations, that, to the extent possible, recourse is had to dialogue rather than penal action.
   • (b) The Committee requests the complainant organization and the Government to inform it of any ruling handed down with regard to the alleged break-in at the headquarters of the Firefighters’ Association and the deprivation of the use thereof to the detriment of the Association, and invites the Government to take steps, pending the judicial ruling, to provide the Association with premises to facilitate the exercise of its activities.