REPRESENTATION (article 24) - PANAMA - C087 - 1989

Report No. 265 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 1475 -- Representaion against the Government of Panama presented by the International Organization of Employers (IOE)

Complaint Procedure

1. 54. In a communication dated 28 February 1989 the IOE submitted a representation against the Government of Panama, under article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO, concerning the application of Convention No. 87. The Government sent its observations in a communication which was received by the Office in February 1989.
2. 55. 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).
3. A. The complainant's allegations
4. 56. The IOE alleges that Decree No. 26 of 28 March 1988 relating to the right to associate does not respect the obligations ensuing from Panama's ratification of Convention No. 87.
5. 57. The IOE considers that this Decree:
6. - is not in conformity with Articles 2 and 7 of the Convention since it refuses to recognise an association or federation of employers grouping less than 50 per cent of enterprises in the branch of activity in question and prohibits both the registration and activities of any association that has not obtained prior recognition from the Minister of the Interior and Justice, any persons having engaged in activities before securing this recognition rendering themselves liable to prosecution (sections 3, 14, 29 and 30 of the Decree);
7. - is not in conformity with Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention since it unduly restricts the right of organisations of employers to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes (sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 34, subsections 2 and 3, of the Decree);
8. - is not in conformity with Article 3, paragraph 2, nor with Article 4 of the Convention since it provides for the Minister of the Interior and Justice to exercise control at all times over employers' organisations (finances, documents, activities and administration) and empowers the said Minister to dissolve by administrative authority any association which he considers to be acting contrary to the law, to the Decree in question or to the rules of the association as, for example, if the latter supports - or on the contrary disapproves of - official action by the authorities (sections 24, 34, subsections 2 and 3, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of the Decree).
9. B. The Government's reply
10. 58. The Government states in its communication of February 1989 that section 1(2) of Decree No. 26 of 28 March 1988 establishes categorically that "Organisations or associations governed by special laws, such as labour organisations, co-operatives and farming settlements, shall be governed by their own specific provisions". Since trade unions or associations, whether of workers or of employers, are governed by a special law - the Labour Code - they do not come within the scope of Decree No. 26 of 28 March 1988.
11. C. The Committees' conclusions
12. 59. The Committee notes the Government's statements that Decree No. 26 of 28 March 1988 applies neither to trade unions nor to associations of employers, which are governed by the Labour Code (which contains detailed provisions on the subject).
13. 60. The Committee observes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and recommendations, when it examined Decree No. 26 at its meeting in March 1989, confirmed that its scope did not extend to trade unions or to employers' associations. Like the Committee of Experts, the Committee concludes that since Convention No. 87 applies solely to organisations of employers and of workers (and not to other associations or organisations), the case does not call for further examination.
14. The Committee's recommendation
15. 61. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.