Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Panama (Ratification: 1966)

1. Policies to promote equality for men and women in employment. The Committee notes with interest that the text of Executive Decree No. 53 of 25 June 2002, which regulates Act No. 4 of 1999, establishing equality of opportunity, contains a series of provisions to ensure better application of the Convention. It notes in particular that Chapter V (Labour) provides for a number of mechanisms to apply the national policy on equal treatment for men and women in employment, and is supplemented by the Equal Opportunities Plan, "PIOM II", adopted in May 2002. A series of measures have been applied under the above legislation and the Plan, concerning training, hiring incentives, wages, and studies in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee refers in greater detail to these matters in its direct request.

2. Discrimination on political grounds. In its previous comments, the Committee noted a communication sent in 2001 by the National Federation of Associations and Organizations of Public Servants (FENASEP) alleging that the Government had dismissed more than 19,000 public servants without establishing just cause and without following the statutory procedures. According to FENASEP, 80 per cent of those dismissed are registered members of a political party called the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), and the dismissals constitute discrimination on grounds of political opinion, in breach of Article 1 of the Convention.

3. In its reply of 24 October 2001, the Government stated that the public servants in question had been appointed between June and September 1999, in a transitional period between two governments, and that the appointments constituted "arbitrary and indiscriminate recruitment of public servants" who were members of the coalition government of the time and did not meet the statutory requirements. According to the Government, this explains the fact that a large proportion of those dismissed turned out to be PRD members; however, they were dismissed not on political grounds but because they failed to meet the statutory requirements for appointment.

4. The Committee pointed out that exclusion arising out of inherent requirements of a particular job must be interpreted narrowly so as not to give rise to undue limitations on the protection afforded by the Convention, and requested detailed information on the criteria applied in determining the grounds for the dismissals. It also requested copies of any complaints against such dismissals and the court decisions handed down.

5. In its last report, sent in September 2004, the Government stated that the dismissals had been necessary in order to contain the growing numbers of state employees. As other grounds for the dismissals it gave foreign currency savings, investment in infrastructure, finalization of projects and suitability, but denied that political opinion had been a criterion. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent all the information requested. It accordingly reiterates its request for information on the legislation governing the dismissal and/or termination of service of public servants or other employees hired by the State, the manner in which the Government ensures that there are no dismissals on grounds of political opinion, the available means of redress, the number of complaints against dismissals filed with the courts of law in connection with the 19,000 dismissals referred to above, and copies of any complaints alleging political discrimination and of the sentences handed down.

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