Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 370, Octobre 2013

1. 599. The complaint is set forth in a communication from the Panama Judicial Services Workers’ Trade Union (SITRASEJUP) dated 31 January 2012.
2. 600. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 3 May 2013.
3. 601. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 602. In its communication of 31 January 2012, SITRASEJUP states that it is a nationwide trainee lawyers’ association and that it submitted an application for legal personality to the Department of Social Organizations of the General Labour Department of the Ministry of Labour and Labour Development on 28 October 2011. SITRASEJUP alleges that the application was rejected and that this is stated in resolution DM205-2011 of 13 December 2011.
2. 603. The complainant states that the administrative authority is preventing the professionals it represents from enjoying the right to organize and is in breach of article 68 of the national Constitution, which grants employers, employees and professionals of all categories the right to organize, and article 342(1) of the Labour Code, which provides for the existence of trade unions of persons from the same profession, trade or specialist skill area.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 604. In its communication of 3 May 2013, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Labour Development decided, by resolution DM205-2011 of 13 December 2011, to reject SITRASEJUP’s application for legal personality as it failed to satisfy the criteria laid down in the Labour Code. The Government states that the documentation submitted by the complainant organization failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in article 352 of the Labour Code. Furthermore, the Government notes that the trade union statute provides for eight secretariats whereas the founding instrument names only seven directors, and that the women’s secretariat is mentioned in the founding instrument but not in the statute. The Government states that it issued the aforementioned resolution after examining the application and taking into account the shortcomings and inconsistencies.
2. 605. The Government notes that after the trade union received notification of the resolution, its authorized representative submitted a request for review; however, the appellant failed to substantiate said request within the statutory time period and it was declared null and void.
3. 606. Lastly, the Government informs the Committee that the case was due to be examined by the Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints concerning Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining established under the 2012 Panama Tripartite Agreement, but that the work of said committee has been suspended since November 2012 because the workers’ sector withdrew from the committee.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 607. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that on 28 October 2011, the Department of Social Organizations of the General Labour Department of the Ministry of Labour and Labour Development rejected its application for legal personality by resolution DM205-2011 dated 13 December 2011 and that it thereby prevented the professionals it represents from enjoying the right to organize.
2. 608. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government reports that: (1) the Ministry of Labour and Labour Development decided, by resolution DM205-2011 of 13 December2011, to reject SITRASEJUP’s application for legal personality as it failed to satisfy the criteria and minimum requirements laid down in the Labour Code, in particular article 352; (2) the trade union statute provides for eight secretariats, whereas the founding instrument names only seven directors, and that the women’s secretariat is mentioned in the founding instrument but not in the statute; (3) after the trade union received notification of the resolution, its authorized representative submitted a request for review; however, the appellant failed to substantiate the said request within the statutory time period and it was declared null and void; and (4) the case was due to be examined by the Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints concerning Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining established under the 2012 Panama Tripartite Agreement, but the work of the said committee has been suspended since November 2012 because the workers’ sector had withdrawn from the committee.
3. 609. The Committee takes note of this information and in particular the Government’s submission that the complainant organization failed to substantiate the request for review which it lodged against the administrative resolution rejecting its application for legal personality. Furthermore, as regards the examination of the case by the Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints concerning Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining and that committee’s operational problems, the Committee notes with interest that, during the June 2013 session of the International Labour Conference, the Standards Department encouraged the Panama tripartite delegation to meet and that during that meeting an agreement was signed whereby the Government and the social partners undertook to make every effort to revive the roundtables with a view to officially resuming their work as soon as possible. Consequently, taking account of the fact that freedom of association is a fundamental right, the Committee is confident that the case in question may be examined promptly within the framework of the aforementioned committee, that the shortcomings identified by the Government will be remedied and that SITRASEJUP will ultimately be granted the legal personality it seeks.