Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 281, Marzo 1992

1. 107. The case was examined by the Committee at its meeting in May 1991, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body (see 278th Report of the Committee, paras. 422-450, approved by the Governing Body at its 250th Session (May-June 1991)). Subsequently, the Government provided its observations in a communication dated 6 January 1992.
2. 108. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 109. The allegations in this case concern events that took place during the change of regime that occurred in exceptional circumstances in December 1989 (see 278th Report, paras. 443-450). In the Committee's previous examination of the case (May 1991), the allegations presented by the ICFTU remained outstanding. They concerned massive dismissals in the public sector, the dismissal and forced removal from her workplace of trade union leader Lourdes Salazar, the outcome of the proceedings for reinstatement initiated by workers dismissed from Jenny Manufacturing International Inc. and the appeal, on grounds of unconstitutionality, lodged by this enterprise on 4 September 1990.
2. 110. At its meeting in May 1991 the Committee drew up the following recommendations (see 278th Report, para. 450):
3. As concerns the allegation of massive dismissals in the public sector, the Committee requests the Government to supply precise information in this respect so as to enable the Committee to determine whether or not these dismissals were based on the trade union membership or activities of those involved.
4. As regards the dismissal and forced removal from her workplace of trade union leader Lourdes Salazar, the Committee asks the Government to inform it of the events which led to the dismissal of this official and whether she has been reinstated in her workplace or has initiated any kind of judicial proceedings for this purpose. The Committee also asks the Government to inform it of the results of the proceedings for reinstatement initiated by workers who were dismissed from Jenny Manufacturing Inc.
5. B. The Government's reply
6. 111. In its communication dated 8 January 1992, on the subject of the outstanding allegation, the Government refers to the reasons for the dismissals in the public sector, stating that these concerned solely public employees who, protected by the military regime, engaged in activities of persecution, repression, threats, harassment, the destruction and theft of public and private property, and arms trafficking, or who in any other notorious way undermined the dignity and human rights of their workmates and of other Panamanian or foreign citizens. The Government explains that no dismissal was connected with the exercise of legitimate trade union activities.
7. 112. The Government adds that on 4 December 1991 a tripartite agreement was reached between the workers', employers' and government sectors concerning consultations on social and labour matters and that the first meeting of the committee set up for this purpose was held on 19 December 1991.
8. 113. As regards the dismissal of Lourdes Salazar, the Government states that on 28 May 1991 Mrs. Salazar presented a document to the Second Labour Court (second section), whereby she withdrew the reinstatement proceedings instituted against Greenbay Overseas International Inc., requesting that the case be closed and placing on record that she had no claim whatsoever against the enterprise in question, the case thereby being closed.
9. 114. As regards the dismissal of workers from Jenny Manufacturing Inc., the Government refers to Mrs. Gisela Cedeño, whose dismissal was confirmed by three courts (the Fourth Labour Court (first section); the Higher Labour Court and the Supreme Court of Justice (Division 3)) (the Government encloses copies of the court rulings), and to Mrs. Mirna Marquez, who signed an agreement with the enterprise to the effect that the employment relationship had terminated.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 115. As regards the allegations of massive dismissals in the public sector, the Committee observes that according to the Government no dismissal was connected with the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and that the dismissals which took place concerned public employees who, protected by the military regime, had engaged in activities of persecution, repression, threats, harassment, the destruction and theft of public and private property, and arms trafficking, or who in other notorious ways had undermined the dignity and human rights of their workmates and of other Panamanian or foreign citizens. Since the Government's version conflicts with that of the complainants, who maintain that the majority of the 3,000 dismissals were arbitrary, unjustified and without grounds, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary action, so that the tripartite committee which was set up under the agreement signed on 4 December 1991 for the purpose of consultations on social and labour matters, examine and remedy all dismissals that may have been motivated by the trade union function or activities of the officials and employees concerned. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the matter.
2. 116. As regards the other alleged dismissals, the Committee notes that trade union leader Mrs. Lourdes Salazar withdrew the reinstatement proceedings she had initiated against Greenbay Overseas International Inc. and that Mrs. Mirna Marquez signed an agreement with Jenny Manufacturing Inc., signifying that the employment relationship was terminated. Similarly, the Committee observes that the dismissal of Mrs. Gisela Cedeño by Jenny Manufacturing Inc. was confirmed by three courts, which indicated in their rulings that this worker had refused to carry out tasks stipulated in her contract of employment although these were tasks that she had undertaken on previous occasions. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that there is no point in pursuing its examination of these allegations.