Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Panama (Ratification: 1958)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which referred to:

- the exclusion of public servants from the scope of the Labour Code and consequently from the right to organize (section 2(2) of the Labour Code);

- the requirement, under section 344 of the Code, of too high a number of members in order to establish an occupational organization (50 workers and ten employers);

While noting that section 46 of Act No. 44 amends section 369 of the Code by abolishing the requirement that members of the executive board of a trade union must be of Panamanian nationality, the Committee expressed the hope that this requirement would also be removed from the Constitution (Article 64).

Moreover, the Committee noted with interest that under section 41 of the above-mentioned Act No. 44, section 344 of the Labour Code is amended, reducing from 50 to 40 the minimum number of workers needed to establish an occupational organization. The Committee observed, nevertheless, that the too-high number of ten employers needed to establish an occupational organization had not been modified and hoped that the Government, in consultation with the social partners, would be able to reduce this requirement also and would continue to reduce still further the minimum number of workers in order to establish a trade union on the enterprise level.

With reference to the exclusion of public servants from the scope of the Labour Code and consequently from the right to organize (section 2(2) of the Labour Code), the Committee noted with interest that section 174 of Act No. 9 ("establishing and regulating administrative careers"), adopted on 20 June 1994 provides for the right to organize of public servants by establishing that "public servants engaged in administrative careers may establish or join associations of public servants of a social, cultural and economic nature, of their respective institutions, which have the aim of promoting the studies, training, improvement and protection of their members ...". The Committee duly noted that Act No. 9 lays down the right of public servants to strike in conformity with the law as well as the right to collective bargaining.

Nevertheless, the Committee observed that section 174 of Act No. 9 lays down that there shall not be more than one association in an institution and that the last paragraph of section 178 stipulates that the associations may have provincial or regional chapters but not more than one chapter per province.

In this respect, the Committee pointed out that any system of trade union unity or monopoly imposed directly or indirectly by the law runs counter to the principle of free establishment of organizations of workers and employers set forth in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee reminded the Government that although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. There is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law and, on the other hand, voluntary groupings of workers or unions which occur (without pressure from the public authorities, or due to the law) because they wish, for instance, to strengthen their bargaining position, or to coordinate their efforts to tackle ad hoc difficulties which affect all their organizations (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91).

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will continue to make every effort to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests it to keep it informed on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request on certain points to the Government.