Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1998, Publicación: 87ª reunión CIT (1999)

The Committee notes that the information contained in the Government's report does not respond to the points raised in its previous comments which referred to the following:

1. Compulsory arbitration

-- the powers of the Regional or General Labour Authorities to submit collective disputes to compulsory arbitration to settle disputes which occur in public service enterprises, which are not essential services in the strict sense of the term (the food and transport services), in accordance with sections 486 and 452(3) of the Labour Code.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the detailed information contained in the Government's report to the effect that the food services included under section 486 of the Labour Code are considered as essential services since essential items which affect several integral service sectors are referred to thereunder. In particular, the Committee takes due note of the Government's statement and recalls that the establishment of a minimum service could be established to ensure that the basic needs of these sectors are satisfied (see the General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 162).

With regard to the transport service, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that collective and individual transport is a public service which is offered by the State and which is considered as an essential service due to the population's general dependency on this service and the paralysis of the transport service, particularly in an urban area, would constitute an infringement of the freedom of movement which is guaranteed by the State.

The Committee, whilst taking due note of the Government's comments, insists that the transport service is not an essential service, per se, but may become essential if the strike affecting it exceeds a certain duration or extent so that the life, personal safety or health of the population are endangered, or in a situation of acute national crisis (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160).

2. Minimum service

-- the obligation to provide minimum services with 50 per cent of the persons who normally work in these services which provide essential public services (section 185 of Act No. 9 of 1994 "which are established and regulated by administrative authority"), such as the transport service (section 486 of the Labour Code).

In this regard, the Committee again requests that in the event that a service is not an essential service in the strict sense of the term, a negotiated minimum service should be established, which is limited to the basic needs of the population or to satisfying the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 161).

3. Sanctions

-- the summary dismissal for calling or participating in illegal or unlawful strikes or failing to comply with the requirements of a minimum service in a legal strike (section 152(14) of Act No. 9).

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that calling or participating in an illegal strike are grounds for summary dismissal. The Committee recalls that "sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association" (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177).

4. Public servants' organizations

-- section 176 of Act No. 9, which lays down that public servants' associations may group together to form federations of public servants' associations by occupation or branch of activity, who may, in turn, form confederations.

The Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that the legal status and interests of public servants' associations differ from those of trade union organizations in the private sector, as a consequence of which, in practice, it would be difficult for higher-level organizations to form or affiliate with workers' organizations in the private sector. Nevertheless, the Committee takes due note of the Government's statement to the effect that the Public Servants' Federation is a member of the National Workers' Organization Council (CONATO).

5. Dismissal

-- work-stoppages which have not complied with the requirements established in law empower the employer to request the labour administration authorities to dismiss the worker or workers who instigated the stoppage or the administrative authorities to impose a fine of 50 to 500 balboas (section 15 of Executive Legislative Decree No. 3 of 7 January 1997).

In this respect, the Committee takes due note that the dismissal procedure guarantees the worker concerned the right to a defence hearing.

6. Prohibition strikes in the Panama Canal zone

The Committee regrets that the Government has not responded to its comments concerning the prohibition to call or participate in strike action, go-slows or any other unjustified work stoppage or slow-down which may jeopardize the smooth functioning of the international public service for which the Panama Canal was created (section 92 of Act No. 19 of 11 June 1997 which established the Panama Canal Authority).

In this respect, the Committee again recalls that in the event that strike action is prohibited, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their social, economic and occupational interests should be afforded rapid and impartial compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 164). The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or adopted in this respect.

7. Requirement of 75 per cent of Panamanian nationals to establish a trade union

The Committee regrets that the Government has not responded to its comment relative to the precondition that 75 per cent of the members of a trade union should be Panamanian nationals. The Committee takes into account that this provision (section 347 of the Labour Code) has been the subject of its comments for reasons of non-conformity with the Convention and that the Committee had noted with satisfaction in its 1996 observation that section 70 of Act No. 44 of 1995 had repealed this provision, and requests the Government to specify whether section 347 of the Labour Code which still appears in a publication after 1996 remains in force and, if so, the necessary measures taken to repeal this provision.

The Committee again expresses the hope that a report will be submitted to enable its examination during the next session and that it will contain full information on the points raised.