Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 79, 1965

1. 101. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 26 June 1963, accompanied by a number of documents and newspaper cuttings. It was duly forwarded to the Government of the Republic of Panama, which sent its reply on 20 August 1964.
2. 102. Panama has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 103. In their communication dated 26 June 1963 the complainants asked for an investigation to be carried out into, inter alia, the exercise of freedom of association in Panama, but gave no reasons for their request. They attached a quantity of newspaper cuttings and other documents dealing with various events which had no connection with the principles governing freedom of association, together with various other documents, the contents and implications of which were difficult to interpret without further details. These details were not supplied by the complainants even though they were informed on 18 July 1963 that under the Committee's procedure they were entitled to submit additional information in support of their complaint.
2. 104. Nevertheless the Committee notes that three of the newspaper cuttings in question appear to show quite clearly that the executive power has intervened in the affairs of the Confederation of Labour of the Republic of Panama since it issued a decision (No. 46) on 5 June 1963 dismissing the members of the Executive Board of the Confederation. The complainants stated that they had lodged an appeal against this order with the Supreme Court.
3. 105. In its reply, which was not sent until 20 August 1964, the Government stated briefly that the complainants' allegations were untrue, since all workers were entitled to form trade unions and organise themselves as they wished, subject only to the restrictions imposed by law. All constituted organisations were at all times entitled to exercise their trade union rights and to operate in complete freedom in accordance with the democratic principles of the Constitution.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 106. The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the three newspapers referred to, it would appear that a breach has occurred of the provisions of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 (ratified by Panama), under which workers' organisations are entitled to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their own administration and public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise.
2. 107. However, the Committee considers that it does not possess sufficient information to be able to judge the situation properly and submit any conclusions. In the first place, the Government's reply is extremely imprecise and general in character and contains no information which could help the Committee in its examination of the case. In the second place, the Committee notes that the Government has not submitted any report on, inter alia, the application of Convention No. 87, despite the fact that it ratified it in 1958. On this subject the Panamanian Workers' member of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at the 47th Session of the International Labour Conference asserted that Convention No. 87 was never applied in his country. During the general discussion on this Committee's report in a plenary session of the Conference the Panamanian Workers' delegate referred to news items which had appeared in a number of newspapers and declared that they showed that the Panamanian Government was intervening directly in the internal affairs of the Confederation of Labour of the Republic of Panama.