Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 387, October 2018

Case No 3106 (Panama) - Complaint date: 10-AUG-14 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 42. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2016 meeting and on that occasion made the following recommendations [see 380th Report, para. 795]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government, in light of all the statistics on the length of the proceedings established as compensatory guarantees, including the frequency of appeals to the Supreme Court, to facilitate dialogue with the social partners in order to ensure the efficiency and rapidity of these procedures for dealing with complaints as compensatory guarantees. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in that regard.
   • (b) The Committee invites the Government to facilitate dialogue between the competent authorities and the social partners on the existing representation privileges and their implementation in practice in light of the principles of freedom of association.
2. 43. In its communication of 10 May 2018, the Government provided information and detailed documentation concerning these recommendations, pursuant to the inputs provided by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP).
3. 44. The Government notes the ACP’s commitment to and engagement in social dialogue with the 12 trade unions present at the Canal, divided into six bargaining units. By law and according to regulations it is compulsory for the ACP to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the workers’ organizations at the Canal, with a view to finding the best solutions for issues that arise or that might arise in the labour relations sphere and in respect of the Canal’s operations. This can be seen, among other indicators, from the five collective agreements concluded in 2016 and the two concluded in 2017 (three of them with the complainant organizations the Union of Panama Canal Pilots (UPCP), the Union of Tugboat Captains and Officers (UCOC) and the Union of Marine Engineers (UIM)). Moreover, as set out in its organizational law, the ACP is in ongoing dialogue to reach supplementary agreements, in the form of memorandums of understanding and operative agreements. The ongoing dialogue is also evident in the participation of the unions in internal bodies, such as the labour–management council, which meets once a month; the industrial training committee, which meets once every three months to deal with training matters; and the risk and occupational health supervisory committee, which meets once a month. These committees were set up to identify problems and find joint solutions. The Government states that, as part of this ongoing dialogue with the workers’ organizations at the Canal, since the last time the Committee examined the case in November 2016, the ACP has held 71 meetings with the various unions in the framework of the abovementioned committees.
4. 45. With regard to the proceedings established as compensatory guarantees, the Government provides detailed information as to how the various existing mechanisms work and also provides statistical data. This information shows that: (i) the proceedings are the result of social dialogue, as they are regulated by the collective agreements (each collective agreement, by agreement of the parties, regulates what is known as “the negotiated complaints procedure”); (ii) concerning the effectiveness and rapidity of the proceedings, it is the parties which, of common accord, determine its modalities – they even agree when the arbitrator will issue the award – and the arbitration outcomes are usually issued within a short time frame of between 30 and 60 days (the delay in some cases is because claimants sometimes invoke the process but do not activate it – by failing to nominate an arbitrator); (iii) with regard to the challenges brought before the Third Administrative Division of the Supreme Court of Justice (brought in the majority of cases by the bargaining units), they are generally settled in just under a year from the submission of the application; and (iv) on a general note, and with regard to the strengthening of dialogue, collective bargaining has resulted in the establishment of forums and workshops to strengthen ongoing dialogue with the trade unions – for example the UCOC and the UIM – in order to address matters relating to working conditions submitted to the administration.
5. 46. As regards the existing representation privileges and their implementation in practice, the Government notes that: (i) the applicable rules provide the guarantees necessary for the exercise of trade union representation, with privileges being set out in the respective collective agreements; (ii) for example, according to the provisions of the respective collective agreement, the bargaining unit of non-professional workers includes six district representatives who have eight hours a day, five days a week, to carry out their trade union activities – in addition, this group has 45 area representatives and 45 substitutes for individual representation cases; (iii) in general quantitative terms, between the 2016 tax year and April 2018, the ACP approved a total of 88,614 hours of representation leave requested by trade union representatives from five of the six bargaining units (equivalent to over US$2 million), in addition to, during the same period, 6,828 hours of representation leave requested by trade union representatives from the sixth bargaining unit – of pilots (equivalent to US$910,667); (iv) the conditions for exercising these privileges are also agreed with the trade unions concerned in the corresponding collective agreements; and (v) these trade union privileges can be used in a flexible manner, with representatives being allowed to change their hours – or agree changes with other workers – in order to perform their representation tasks, subject simply to the authorization of their supervisor.
6. 47. The Committee takes due note of the detailed information provided by the Government on the various mechanisms available to promote ongoing social dialogue at the Canal, both in general – illustrated by the conclusion of seven collective agreements since the submission of the complaint – and in respect of the issues raised in the case. In particular, the Committee notes the direct participation of the social partners in the management of dispute settlement processes established as compensatory guarantees and their joint regulation by way of collective agreements, as well as the statistics relating to their operation. The Committee also notes the results of social dialogue in respect of representation privileges granted to workers’ representatives – agreed and regulated by way of collective agreement – and their practical implementation. Moreover, the Committee observes that it has not received any further information from the complainant organizations since its last examination in 2016. In light of the above, and trusting that the Government will continue to follow up the issues raised with the unions concerned to consider any relevant improvements, the Committee considers its examination to be concluded and will not pursue this case.