Interim Report - Report No 103, 1968

Case No 528 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 09-JUL-67 - Closed

1. 250. This matter arises out of a complaint lodged with the I.L.O directly by the Moroccan Federation of Labour and contained in five communications dated 9, 11, 20 and 27 July and 10 October 1967; a complaint lodged with the I.L.O directly by the World Federation of Trade Unions and contained in a communication dated 13 July 1967; a complaint lodged with the I.L.O directly by the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions and contained in a communication dated 9 August 1967; and a complaint lodged with the I.L.O directly by the All-African Trade Union Federation and contained in a communication dated 27 September 1967.
2. 251. The communications dated 9 and 11 July 1967 from the Moroccan Federation of Labour were referred to the Government of Morocco, for its observations, by a letter dated 19 July 1967. The communication dated 13 July 1967 from the World Federation of Trade Unions was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 25 July 1967. The communication of 20 July 1967 from the Moroccan Federation of Labour was transmitted to the Government on 31 July 1967, and that of 27 July 1967 from the same organisation on 7 August 1967. The communication dated 9 August 1967 from the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions was referred to the Government by a letter dated 31 August 1967. The communication of 27 September 1967 from the All-African Trade Union Federation was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 6 October 1967. Lastly, the text of the communication of 10 October 1967 from the Moroccan Federation of Labour was sent to the Government by a letter dated 24 October 1967.
3. 252. By a communication dated 18 August 1967 the Government submitted its observations on the matters raised in the first two communications from the Moroccan Federation of Labour and in the communication dated 13 July 1967 from the World Federation of Trade Unions. This first series of observations was supplemented by the Government in a communication dated 26 October 1967.
4. 253. At its November 1967 session the Committee requested the Director-General to obtain further information from the Government on certain points, and decided in the meantime to adjourn examination of the case to its next session.
5. 254. This decision by the Committee, and the request for information arising out of it, were made known to the Government by a letter dated 24 November 1967, to which no reply has yet been received.
6. 255. By communications dated 20 November 1967 (supplemented on 28 November) and 4 January 1968 the Moroccan Federation of Labour supplied further information in substantiation of its allegations. The World Federation of Trade Unions, for its part, sent additional information by a communication dated 23 November 1967.
7. 256. The communication dated 20 November 1967 from the Moroccan Federation of Labour was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 29 November 1967; that of 23 November 1967 from the World Federation of Trade Unions was referred to the Government by a letter dated 4 December 1967; while the communication dated 4 January 1968 from the Moroccan Federation of Labour was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 16 January 1968. No reply has yet been received to any of these three letters.
8. 257. On the other hand, by a communication dated 30 December 1967, the Government has forwarded its observations on the matters raised in the communication from the Moroccan Federation of Labour dated 10 October 1967 (see paragraph 251 above).
9. 258. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 259. The complaints consist of several series of allegations, which are examined separately below.
   • Allegations relating to the Arrest and Conviction of Mr. Mahjub ben Seddik, General Secretary of the Moroccan Federation of Labour and President of the All-African Trade Union Federation
2. 260. It was alleged that Mr. Mahjub ben Seddik, General Secretary of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.) and President of the All-African Trade Union Federation, had been arbitrarily arrested on 7 July 1967 as he was leaving his office and that on 11 July he had been brought before the court of the Sadad of Rabat, which sentenced him irregularly to 18 months' imprisonment for having sent to the Government on behalf of the U.M.T.; a telegram in which the U.M.T, as a workers' organisation, had given its views on a problem of national importance. The complainants protested against what they considered an arbitrary measure, which in their view seriously threatened the whole of the Moroccan trade union movement.
3. 261. In its observations dated 18 August and 26 October 1967 the Government declared that it had always demonstrated its attachment to democratic principles, among which the principle of freedom of association occupied an essential place. This attachment, it stated, was made clear by the provisions of the Dahir of 16 July 1957 and of the Moroccan Constitution, which guaranteed the right of all citizens to associate and to join any trade union.
4. 262. The Government stated that in practice it did not intervene in any way in the founding, activities or dissolution of trade unions. Unions could be freely created; the only formality to be observed was that they should provide the local authorities with a copy of their rules and a list of their leaders. They could be dissolved only by judicial authority. Furthermore, the Government indicated that the authorities allowed the unions, according to the degree to which they were representative, to have a say in numerous bodies where occupational interests were at stake. The Government added that the workers' representatives were all on an equal footing with regard to the authorities, no matter what the views of their union or their political leanings might be.
5. 263. The Government stated that " the whole body of Moroccan labour legislation: (which is being steadily brought into line with international standards, although this demands sacrifices from a developing country such as Morocco) displays an extremely liberal attitude towards the extension of trade union freedoms. This liberalism is apparent, too, in all other spheres, and particularly as regards the freedom of the Press-a freedom which is widely used, and frequently abused, by the unions ".
6. 264. With regard to the specific case of Mr ben Seddik, the Government stated that he had been convicted not as a trade unionist but merely as a citizen who had broken the laws in force in his country. This contention, it went on to say, was borne out by the fact that Mr ben Seddik's conviction had in no way hampered the U.M.T in its activities, which continued as freely as before, both in Morocco and abroad. No administrative or judicial action had been taken which might render such activities more difficult or limit their scope.
7. 265. The Government went on to provide the following details. Mr. ben Seddik had been arrested on 8 July 1967 by the judicial police and brought before the Royal Prosecutor for having drafted and despatched to the Government a telegram couched in insulting terms and containing defamatory allegations, relating moreover to matters quite outside those with which a trade union is properly concerned. The Government stated that in this telegram the General Secretary of the Moroccan Federation of Labour " vigorously denounces the constant unconditional support given by the Government to a handful of Zionist provocateurs against the O.C.E as a whole. Such an attitude by the Government in the tragic circumstances of the Arab world today is an affront to the Moroccan people and may well have grave repercussions on the working class, which observes with indignation the crushing pressure of imperialism on the country and the domination by Zionism of the nerve centres of the Moroccan State ".
8. 266. The Government declared that such remarks and such accusations against the Government and the country could not go unanswered, since they constituted a breach of the law against actions likely to bring authority into disrepute.
9. 267. Mr ben Seddik, the Government continued, having admitted the facts of which he was accused and briefed his lawyers, had been summoned to appear before the court of the Sadad of Rabat on 11 July 1967. He was assisted by some 40 legal advisers. During his trial he had enjoyed all the guarantees afforded by the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been permitted the normal facilities for his defence. He was sentenced in accordance with the correct procedure to 18 months' imprisonment. Lastly, the Government announced that Mr ben Seddik had appealed against the sentence of the court of the Sadad of Rabat.
10. 268. When it examined this aspect of the case at its November 1967 Session the Committee, noting that an appeal had been lodged by Mr ben Seddik against the sentence pronounced against him, and following its established practice in such cases, considered that it should await the outcome of the appeal before making its final recommendations to the Governing Body.
11. 269. Accordingly, it recommended the Director-General to request the Government to supply the text of the judgment of the appeals court together with the reasons adduced thereto.
12. 270. This request was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 24 November 1967, to which the Government has not yet replied.
13. 271. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the judgment of the appeals court in the case of Mr ben Seddik, together with the reasons adduced thereto, and pending the receipt thereof to adjourn its examination of this aspect of the case.
14. 272. Since the complainants have now alleged that the hearing of the appeal was full of irregularities and that, in particular, the rights of the defence were not respected, the Committee also recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to forward its observations concerning this latter allegation.
    • Allegations relating to the Strike in July 1967
15. 273. The complainants alleged that to break the strike called by the Moroccan Federation of Labour on 8, 10 and 11 July 1967 the Government had taken a series of measures which constituted a breach of the principle of freedom of association.
16. 274. It was alleged that the Government had illegally and forcibly requisitioned workers, basing its action on a law of 1938 relating to the organisation of the country in time of war, and that it had illegally arrested thousands of workers, and had had some scores of trade union leaders sentenced by the courts to terms of imprisonment ranging from one to 14 months; among the persons so condemned were the General Secretary of the Agadir trade unions (six months' imprisonment) and the General Secretary of the El Jadida trade unions (one year's imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 dirhams). It was alleged, too, that the Government had had large numbers of workers dismissed, particularly from the Tangier Telephone Company, including regularly elected shop stewards; encouraged by the Government's attitude, undertakings such as the Sampa Company, the Blita Company and the El Manar Company were alleged by the complainants to have dismissed shop stewards and a number of other workers. In more general terms the complainants alleged that the Government was continually interfering in trade union affairs by the use of blackmail, threats and repression.
17. 275. In its observations the Government declares that it did not intervene in any way to break the strike, which-according to the Government-took place unhindered even though there were no industrial grounds for it and it was viewed by its promoters as a means of exerting pressure with a view to influencing " the sovereign decision of the courts ". The Government adds that by reason of its obviously political character this strike, moreover, met with very little support from the workers, who were " disinclined to stop work for a reason totally unconnected with industrial matters and which had no bearing on their conditions of life and work ". The Government points out that out of 23,622 undertakings only 194, or 0.8 per cent, were affected by the strike, and that, moreover, the strikers, who numbered 13,717, amounted to barely 6 per cent of the 215,283 workers employed in the private sector. Lastly, the Government states that even in the undertakings which were affected by the strike only 50 per cent of the employees stopped work.
18. 276. Having made the general observations set forth above, the Government goes on in its reply to deal with the specific allegations made by the complainants.
19. 277. With regard to requisitioning, the Government declares that it has never contemplated the requisitioning of workers in the private sector. It adds that, nevertheless, in order to keep going certain vital public services affected by the strike and indispensable to the life of the country, a few orders for the requisitioning of employees of public utilities for the supply of water and electricity were issued. These measures, declares the Government, were within the law and in conformity with the provisions of the Dahir of 15 June 1946 and the Dahir of 13 September 1938.
20. 278. The Government then claims that no illegal arrests were made for striking. It states that although certain persons were apprehended by the police after they had been seen clearly interfering with freedom to work-an offence provided for and punishable under the Criminal Code-these persons were immediately arraigned before the competent courts. At El Jadida, for instance, continues the Government, 19 workers, including the General Secretary of the local branch of the Moroccan Federation of Labour, were convicted of interfering with freedom to work, and at Agadir the U.M.T. General Secretary was convicted of the same offence. The Government adds the following details: " It should be pointed out that in the towns of El Jadida and Agadir the strike call met with very little response. At Agadir, in particular - an industrial town, more heavily populated than El Jadida - 29 strikers were counted out of 13,302 workers, or a percentage of 0.2, the strike having affected only one establishment out of 1,209, or 0.08 per cent. The U.M.T leaders, on learning of this rebuff, sought by every possible means, even unlawful, to prevent the workers from entering their workplaces, and this led them to commit the offence of interference with freedom to work."
21. 279. The Government then turns to the complainants' reference " in vague and imprecise terms to mass dismissals which are said to have taken place in certain establishments such as the Tangier Telephone Company ". The Government states that it has been possible to ascertain the following facts with regard to this aspect of the case. The shop stewards at the Telephone Company, acting on their own initiative, sent a telegram (the text of which is given by the Government) to the Minister of Posts, Telephones and Telegraphs begging him to intercede on their behalf with His Majesty the King in order that they might return to " the jobs they had unlawfully abandoned. His Majesty having effectively pardoned these workers, they have all been able to return to work " normally on 20 July 1967.
22. 280. As regards the dismissal of workers and shop stewards, the Government supplies the following information. A few employers in the private sector, taking the view that the strike, called for a purely political purpose without observing the procedure laid down by the Dahir of 19 January 1946 respecting conciliation and arbitration in collective labour disputes, had no connection with industrial matters and was consequently unlawful, " felt that they were justified in dismissing certain employees, including shop stewards, who had not come to work ". The Government goes on to state that, as in some cases it was learnt that workers had taken part in the strike only as a result of pressure from union leaders, " who were seeking by every possible means to ensure its success ", the labour inspectors interceded with the employers who had ordered dismissals with a view to securing the reinstatement of the dismissed workers. This is stated by the Government to have been the case with the Sampa Company, where the strikers, seven in number including four shop stewards, were dismissed and then reinstated, and also with the Blita Company, where three dismissed strikers were re-engaged. " As for the El Manar affair ", declares the Government, " this concerned a collective labour dispute of a strictly industrial nature which arose before the strike of 8 July, since it broke out on 8 June 1967 ".
23. 281. The Committee, recalling that allegations relating to strikes are not outside its competence in so far as the exercise of trade union rights is involved, notes that the Government has given a factual explanation in answer to each of the complainants' allegations as regards this aspect of the case.
24. 282. It would appear from these explanations that the Government took no steps to break the strike of July 1967, which took place unhindered; that the requisition measures taken were few in number and did not concern workers in the private sector, but were applied only to certain employees of public utilities to prevent any interruption in services, essential to the life of the country, and were in conformity with the law; that such arrests as were made and such sentences as were pronounced were on the ground of interference with freedom to work, which is an offence provided for and punishable under the Criminal Code, and that the conviction of the offenders in question took place in the competent courts; and, lastly, that all the persons dismissed as a consequence of the strike-workers and shop stewards-were speedily reinstated.
25. 283. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
    • Allegations relating to Measures Taken against the Newspaper of the Moroccan Federation of Labour
26. 284. It is alleged that, since the arrest and sentencing of Mr ben Seddik, the police, without any legal justification, each week enter the premises of the Moroccan Federation of Labour newspaper, L'Avant-Garde, and, without any explanation, destroy the forms and smash the type of the issue being prepared for publication.
27. 285. As the Government has not submitted its observations on this aspect of the case, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish them.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 286. With regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 281 to 283 above, that the allegations relating to the strike of July 1967 do not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the allegations relating to the conviction of Mr ben Seddik:
   • (i) to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the judgment pronounced on his appeal, together with the reasons adduced thereto;
   • (ii) to request the Government to be good enough to forward its observations with respect to the allegation that the hearing of Mr ben Seddik's appeal was full of irregularities and that, in particular, the rights of the defence were not respected;
   • (c) to request the Government to be good enough to forward its observations in regard to the allegations relating to measures said to have been taken against the newspaper of the Moroccan Federation of Labour, to which reference is made in paragraph 284 above;
   • (d) to take note of the present interim report, on the understanding that the Committee will report further when it is in possession of the information referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) above.