Allegations: refusal to register a transport workers’ trade union, dismissal of
hundreds of workers following that refusal, and the existence of a trade union controlled by
the enterprise
- 407. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation
of Workers of the Republic of Panama (CTRP) of September 2013.
- 408. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 10
March 2014.
- 409. 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
A. The complainant’s allegations- 410. In a communication of September 2013, the CTRP alleges that the
Minister of Labour and Employment Development rejected the registration of the Trade
Union of Public and Private Transport Workers of Panama (SITTRACOSEP) and, on the day
after that rejection, more than 400 workers of the enterprise Transporte Masivo de
Panamá SA “Mi Bus”, who supported the creation of the union, were dismissed.
- 411. The complainant also alleges that an enterprise trade union already
exists, controlled by the enterprise. The complainant attaches the text of the
Minister’s ruling, dated 9 January 2013, in which she rejected the application for the
registration of SITTRACOSEP. The complainant alleges that these acts violate ILO
Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 412. In a communication dated 10 March 2014, the Government declares that
the refusal to grant SITTRACOSEP legal personality was not the result of a
pre-established labour policy, but due to inconsistencies in the documentation provided
in the application for legal personality, which are inadmissible in such an important
act.
- 413. The Government explains that on 4 January 2014, the Department of
Social Organizations of the General Directorate of Labour received an application for
legal personality from the organization.
- 414. Having examined the documentation, the Department observed that the
membership of the trade union that was being established included workers of the
enterprise Transporte Masivo de Panamá SA, and certain self-employed workers, which made
it impossible to continue processing the application, since the law prohibits the
existence of two enterprise unions in the same enterprise, as set out in section 346 of
the Labour Code. Nor could it be considered an industry union as the workers wishing to
create the occupational organization do not work in two or more enterprises. Once the
Department of Social Organizations realized that most of the founding members of the
organization worked for that enterprise, and that the rest were independent transport
operators, it observed that, although the stated purpose of the application was to
register an industry union, section 342(3) of the Labour Code provides that “Trade
unions are: … 3. Industry unions, when they are established by persons with different
occupations, functions or specialities, providing services in two or more enterprises of
the same type”.
- 415. The union merely indicated that its members work for the same
enterprise and that the rest are self-employed.
- 416. However, if it is understood that the application for legal
personality is for an enterprise trade union, the provisional executive committee of the
applicant union is exclusively made up of workers of the enterprise Transporte Masivo de
Panamá SA, which already has a trade union. It is also impossible to determine which
workers are engaged in private transport and/or are self-employed. Accordingly, after
the examination of the documentation, it was concluded that the aim of this new industry
trade union was to carry out the functions of an enterprise union.
- 417. If it is considered to be an enterprise union, the Government
reiterates that the Ministry cannot allow two trade unions of the same nature to coexist
in the same enterprise, in accordance with section 346 of the Labour Code:
Note No. DM.217.2014
- Section 346. An
enterprise shall not have more than one enterprise trade union. Trade unions that
find themselves in such a situation upon the entry into force of this Code will have
one year in which to merge. If such a merger has not occurred by the end of that
period, the Government shall proceed to the dissolution for that reason of the trade
union with the lowest number of members.
- 418. Following its examination of the application, the intention could
not be understood as the establishment of an industry trade union, as it was not
possible to identify the two enterprises in which the workers were engaged, nor an
enterprise union, while another enterprise union existed. On these grounds, the Ministry
of Labour and Employment Development cannot proceed with registration as the application
does not comply with the requirements of section 342 of the Labour Code for the
determination of the type of union that is to be established.
- 419. The Government indicates that the provisions of the Labour Code
respecting the establishment of trade unions, and in particular the prohibition in
section 346 of more than one enterprise trade union in the same enterprise, has been the
subject of “observations” from the ILO supervisory bodies which supervise the
application of Convention No. 87, among others, including the Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), the Conference Committee on
the Application of Standards and the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA).
- 420. Accordingly, the Committee on the Panama Tripartite Agreement, also
known as the “Harmonization Committee” (created in the context of the social dialogue
established under the Panama Tripartite Agreement, signed on 1 February 2012), has
included this subject in the list of observations by the ILO supervisory bodies which
will be examined, studied and consensus-based solutions agreed upon through social
dialogue within the Committee, to align national labour legislation with the provisions
of Convention No. 87. It should be emphasized that the Committee on the Panama
Tripartite Agreement is the social dialogue committee which is responsible for
developing draft legislation and finding compromises based on consensus to align
national law with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, in accordance with the
comments of the supervisory bodies on the application of ILO Conventions. If consensus
is achieved between the parties, its mandate may be extended to the harmonization of
other ILO Conventions ratified by Panama for which there are problems of implementation
in national law.
- 421. The Government indicates that, being aware of the importance of
social dialogue as an instrument to find ways of resolving problems in the
implementation of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, it considered it appropriate to refer
this case to the Tripartite Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints relating to
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (also known as the “Complaints
Committee”) on 10 February 2014 so that it could be examined through tripartite dialogue
in order to identify solutions and reach agreements based on consensus.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 422. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant
organization alleges the rejection of the registration of the legal personality of
SITTRACOSEP on 9 January 2013, and the dismissal of more than 400 workers of the
enterprise Mi Bus on the day after this administrative decision. The complainant also
alleges that an enterprise trade union already exists, controlled by the enterprise. The
Committee notes the Government’s indication that the substantive legal grounds for
refusing the registration of the applicant union related to the fact that it did not
represent workers from two or more enterprises (an industry union) and/or that an
enterprise union already existed, for which reason another could not be registered under
sections 342 and 346 of the Labour Code.
- 423. The Committee notes that the Government recalls that this case
involves provisions of the Labour Code relating to the establishment of trade unions to
which objections have been raised by the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations and the Committee on Freedom of Association, and that
these issues will be discussed in the (Tripartite) Harmonization Committee in order to
find solutions based on consensus. The Committee notes that the Government, which
expresses the wish to align its legislation with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, has also
submitted this case to the Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints Relating to
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining with a view to its examination through
tripartite dialogue in order to identify solutions and reach agreements based on
consensus.
- 424. The Committee recalls that all workers, without distinction
whatsoever, including without discrimination in regard to occupation, should have the
right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, and that the free
exercise of the right to establish and join unions implies the free determination of the
structure and composition of unions [see Digest of decisions and principles of the
Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 216 and 333]. The
Committee firmly expects the Committee for the Rapid Handling of Complaints to reach
solutions which will satisfy the applicant trade union, SITTRACOSEP, and which will
resolve the legislative problems related to the establishment of trade union
organizations mentioned by the Government in its reply, and which make it impossible to
legally establish an enterprise trade union when another already exists, and to
establish an industry union which represents both the workers of an enterprise and
self-employed workers.
- 425. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent any
observations regarding the allegations concerning the dismissal of more than 400 workers
on the day following the refusal to register the applicant trade union, or the
allegation that an enterprise union already exists, which is controlled by the
enterprise. The Committee urges the Government to conduct an inquiry without delay and
to obtain information about the enterprise through the relevant employers’ organization,
and that if the allegations are proven, to take measures to resolve the situation and to
keep it informed in this regard.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 426. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee
invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The
Committee recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, including
without discrimination in regard to occupation, should have the right to establish
and join organizations of their own choosing, and that the free exercise of the
right to establish and join unions implies the free determination of the structure
and composition of unions. The Committee firmly expects the Complaints Committee to
reach solutions which will satisfy the applicant trade union, SITTRACOSEP, and which
will resolve the legislative problems related to the creation of trade union
organizations mentioned by the Government in its reply, which make it impossible to
legally establish an enterprise union when another already exists, and to establish
an industry union which represents both the workers of an enterprise and
self-employed workers.
- (b) The Committee regrets that the Government has not
sent any observations regarding the allegation concerning the dismissal of more than
400 workers on the day following the refusal of the registration of the applicant
trade union, or in answer to the allegation that an enterprise union already exists
that is controlled by the enterprise. The Committee urges the Government to conduct
an inquiry without delay and to obtain information about the enterprise through the
relevant employers’ organization, and that if the allegations are proven, to take
measures to resolve this situation and to keep it informed in this
regard.