Definitive Report - Report No 108, 1969

Case No 524 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 02-JUN-67 - Closed

1. 15. This case was considered by the Committee at its meeting in May 1968, when it submitted an interim report thereon, in paragraphs 224 to 245 of its 105th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body. Final conclusions were submitted by the Committee on all the allegations made in the case except that relating to the dismissal of workers from the state-run undertaking " Maroc-Chimie " at Safi. The following paragraphs deal only with the allegations still outstanding.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Dismissal of Workers at the State-Run Undertaking "Maroc-Chimie" at Safe
  16. 16 It was alleged that at Safi, following a warning strike, in which all the workers at the state-run undertaking " Maroc-Chimie " took part, on 25 April 1967 to secure respect for the agreements previously concluded with the management, the Government closed down the undertaking and dismissed a large number of workers, including all the members of the works council; the complainants attached to their communication a list of the workers said to have been dismissed.
  17. 17 Having noted that in its observations the Government did not refer to the allegations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to forward its observations on those particular allegations. This recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body, the request was transmitted to the Government, which replied in a communication dated 5 September 1968.
  18. 18 In its communication, the Government gives the following account of events. In March 1967, the Committee of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.) in the undertaking presented the management of the Maroc-Chimie company with a proposal including the following claims: reinstatement of three employees dismissed, under normal procedure, for repeated faults, one of whom had even been sentenced for a penal offence; special allowance for the purchase of a sheep on the occasion of the Aïd El Kébir; productivity and output bonus, although the staff already receive an annual bonus of up to two months' wages according to results obtained; housing allowance; grading of all ordinary labourers as semi-skilled labourers; substantial loans to the staff; marriage grants.
  19. 19 The Government states that the management of Maroc-Chimie considered these claims clearly excessive, particularly since the staff of the undertaking, which is still at an early stage of operation, already have the benefit of higher wages than those normally paid in this branch of industry, as well as valuable social benefits freely granted by the company.
  20. 20 The Government goes on to state that there was every reason to believe that the true origin of the strike lay less in the hope of obtaining fulfilment of the claims put forward than in the disagreements splitting the members of the executive committee of the union on the eve of internal and provincial elections.
  21. 21 However this might be, after several meetings during which the trade union officials and the management of the undertaking exchanged their points of view, it proved impossible to reach any reasonable agreement. The Government goes on: " the trade union officials remained inflexible, refused to take account of the efforts already made on behalf of the staff and turned a deaf ear to the vital economic requirements of the undertaking ".
  22. 22 The Government states that the trade union officials did, however, agree that the safety teams absolutely essential to safeguard the plant equipment, especially those in the department manufacturing sulphuric acid, should not take part in the strike. However, according to the Government " this promise was not kept, and with utter disregard for professional conscience and indeed for all prudence, the whole equipment was wilfully abandoned".
  23. 23 The Government goes on to say that the safety staff, after being requisitioned in accordance with the law, failed to answer the call addressed to it, and accordingly its members were dismissed for serious offence in accordance with the plant regulations which expressly state:
• The persons appointed after consultation with the staff delegates to ensure the special safety service shall in all circumstances remain at their posts. Any infringement of this disposition shall be regarded as wilful and unjustified dereliction of duty and an action endangering the safety of the other workers or of the work premises or as the cause of serious damage to the machinery, equipment, work in progress or other objects or materials belonging to the establishment. Such an action shall constitute a serious offence resulting in immediate dismissal without pay.
  24. 24 The Government states that thereupon many wage earners and salaried workers spontaneously decided to resume work and " formally dissociated themselves from the strikers ", and the management of Maroc-Chimie also issued an appeal calling for the resumption of work and granted 48 hours' grace to those who had not yet returned to the works.
  25. 25 The Government states that the strikers had placed themselves in a position that could have led to their dismissal. As the Maroc-Chimie company was a public corporation, its staff came under the provisions of the decree of 5 February 1958, laying down certain procedures for the exercise of trade union rights by civil servants and employees of public administrations and establishments, which provided in particular that " any concerted stoppage of work or any serious act of collective indiscipline may entail penalties not provided for in the disciplinary rules ".
  26. 26 The Government goes on to say that the management of the company, in consideration of the fact that the great majority of employees had spontaneously resumed work, thought it pointless to apply the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph, and that out of the 700 workers at the undertaking, only ten, who had refused to return to their posts, had been regarded as having resigned.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 27. It appears from the information available to the Committee, and in particular from the circumstantial explanations furnished by the Government, that the ground for the dismissal of the workers was not their having taken part in a strike in support of a claim but the application of the internal regulations of the undertaking cited in paragraph 23 above, according to which they had committed a serious offence in not maintaining the safety service, in spite of the undertakings given by the trade union leaders and in spite of the management's instructions.
2. 28. Furthermore, as the Government's observations indicate that the strikers could, apparently, have been dismissed as employees of a public undertaking by virtue of the provisions of the decree of 5 February 1958 referred to in paragraph 25 above, the Committee considers it appropriate to recall that, while it might regard the prohibition of a strike as admissible in a genuinely essential service, it must point out that the mere fact of being a public corporation does not necessarily confer upon an undertaking the character of an essential service.
3. 29. With regard to the strike, it would appear that the situation had been resolved of itself, largely by the spontaneous return of the great majority of the strikers to their work, and that only ten out of 700 employed by the undertaking had failed to return to their posts and consequently were deemed to have resigned.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 30. In the circumstances, recalling that it has always held that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, the Committee, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 27 to 29 above and subject to the comments therein contained, is of the opinion that the present case does not constitute a violation of freedom of association as such and recommends the Governing Body to decide that it does not call for further examination.