Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 109, 1969

Cas no 446 (Panama) - Date de la plainte: 01-JUIN -65 - Clos

1. 16. The complaint of the Trade Union Federation of Panama Workers is contained in a communication dated 1 June 1965 and forwarded directly to the ILO. The complainants were informed by a letter dated 30 July 1965 of their right to submit further information in support of their complaint, but they did not avail themselves of this opportunity. The complaint was forwarded on 30 July 1965 to the Government, which presented its observations thereon in a communication dated 25 September 1968.
2. 17. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 18. The complainants allege, though in general terms, that most employers, particularly where there are large numbers of workers, as in large national and foreign undertakings like the CONOCO Oil Refinery or the Chiriqui Land Company, tolerate the existence of trade unions only so far as they are subjected to their will and that in this way they flagrantly violate the trade union rights of the workers, with the consent of the authorities.
2. 19. The complainants also allege, without giving details, that the active members and officers of the trade unions are the subject of reprisals and that their names are entered on " black lists ".
3. 20. Finally, the complainants call on the ILO to put pressure on the Government to ensure respect for freedom of association in the country.
4. 21. The Government states in its observations that the National Constitution embodies the right to form trade unions and ensures freedom of association to all " salaried employees, wage earners, professional workers and employers of all classes ". It indicates that when it happens that the legislative provisions in the field are violated, the administrative labour authorities are " prompt to deal with any such problems, making use, when necessary, of the means that the law empowers them to employ ".
5. 22. The Government continues by stating that the law protects in particular the members and officers of trade unions and adds that section 307 of the Labour Code, which is relevant to the question, is constantly applied by the administrative labour authorities and by the labour court. The Government quotes section 307 of the Code which is as follows:
   • Members of industrial associations which are in process of formation and members of the committees of management of such associations and trade union delegates, to whom section 288 (5) of this Code refers, shall not be dismissed, their conditions of employment shall not be altered for the worse, and they shall not be transferred to other establishments of the same undertaking or to a different municipality without the authorisation of a competent judge subject to the statutory conditions. This right shall be extended for a period of one year after a worker has ceased to be a member of the committee of management, having completed the period for which he was appointed, and for three months after he has completed his period as a trade union delegate.
6. 23. The Government then asserts categorically that the allegation that the trade union organisations are subservient to the employers with the consent of the labour authorities is entirely without foundation. In this connection it points out that the organisations to which the complainants seem to refer are powerful ones, the Oilworkers' Union and the Workers' Union of the Chiriqui Land Company each having over 5,000 members, and have signed with the undertakings collective agreements whose terms are very often more favourable than the provisions of the national labour legislation.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 24. The Committee notes that the Government supplies detailed observations in reply to the allegations of the complainants. It also notes that these allegations are framed in very general terms. There is, indeed, no precise fact to support their assertion that the trade unions are subservient to the employers; nor is there any example of the alleged reprisals taken against active members and officers of the trade unions or of their being put on " black lists ".

The Committee's recommendations

1. 25. In these circumstances, and taking into account the fact that the complainant organisation did not supply further information in support of its complaint, although it had been offered the opportunity to do so, the Committee considers that the complainants have not proved their contentions and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case, which dates from 1965, does not call for further examination.