Display in: French - Spanish
- 51. The complaint by the Moroccan General Confederation of Labour (Youssoufia) is contained in a telegram dated 6 July 1965 addressed directly to the I.L.O. On being informed of their right to submit additional information in support of their allegations, the complainants did not do so. The complaint was communicated to the Government for its observations and a reply was forwarded on 24 November 1965.
- 52. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
A. A. The complainants' allegations
A. A. The complainants' allegations
- 53. The complainants allege that the Chemaïa District Officer expelled from his office a delegation of the Moroccan General Confederation of Labour (U.G.T.M.) led by the chief delegate for the southern region, and refused to listen to the complaints the delegation had come to make. In the complainants' view this is a breach of freedom of association.
- 54. In its observations the Government gives the following version. The complainants, belonging to the local branch of U.G.T.M, were received at their own request at the Chemaïa District Office on 5 July 1965 at 6 p.m. to discuss complaints concerning the workers in the Ighoud mines. In the course of the hearing the general secretary of the local branch of U.G.T.M insulted the District Officer; " in view of the extremely arrogant attitude of this trade union representative, and after trying unsuccessfully to calm him by persuasion, the official in question was obliged to ask his visitor to leave, after telling him in front of witnesses that he would receive him again when he could behave properly ".
The Committee's recommendations
The Committee's recommendations
- 55. In view of the Government's explanations and the fact that the complainants did not furnish additional information in support of their complaint when given the opportunity, the Committee considers that they have not furnished proof that any infringement of trade union rights took place in this instance and, consequently, recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.
