Definitive Report - Report No 202, June 1980

Case No 908 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 23-MAY-78 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

27. Case No. 908 was considered by the Committee in May 1979 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Since then the complainant organisation has sent a communication to the ILO dated 13 February 1980 and the Government has sent a letter dated 31 March 1580.
28. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

29. The General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) alleged that, following a strike of all ground mechanics employed by Royal Air Maroc (RAM), on 21 May 1978, the management recruited foreign technicians in their place, as well as unqualified assistant mechanics, in order to maintain operation of the service. It claimed that the police laid siege on strikers in their union premises for 72 hours, that they forced entry and committed acts of destruction.
30. In its observations the Government stated that during the strike the government authority in that Prefecture gave orders for the requisitioning of 35 strikers. They took refuge in their union headquarters to escape the requisition orders. On 29 May 1978 at 1.00 a.m. the striking workers left the premises of their own free will and peacefully. They were notified of the requisition orders and work began again normally on 30 May 1978. The Government stated that the authorities acted in full conformity with the law and respected trade union rights and premises.
31. In examining the case in May 1979 the Committee drew attention to certain principles concerning the right to strike and the possibilities of abuse involved in the requisitioning of workers as a means of dealing with industrial disputes in these circumstances the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, requested the Government to provide certain additional information, particularly with respect to the law on strikes and requisition of labour.

32. In its letter of 13 February 1980 the UGTM stated that since a compromise had been reached following negotiations between the ground mechanics and Royal Air Maroc and the dispute settled in favour of the workers, it wished to withdraw its complaint.
33. In its letter of 31 March 1980 the Government recalled that the UGTM had decided to withdraw its complaint. It also mentioned that the UGTM had taken that step following negotiations between the leaders of the trade union organisation and the management of Royal Air Maroc.

34. In previous cases in which the Committee has been confronted with a request submitted to it for the withdrawal of a complaint, it has considered that the desire expressed by an organisation which has submitted the complaint to withdraw this complaint constitutes an element of which full account should be taken, but it is not sufficient in itself for the Committee automatically to cease to proceed further with the case.
35. The Committee has also decided that it alone is competent to evaluate in full freedom the reasons put forward to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to endeavour to establish whether these appear to be sufficiently plausible so that it may be concluded that the withdrawal is being made in full independence. In this connection the Committee has noted that there might be cases in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it was the result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the Government against the complainant, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if it did not consent to this withdrawal.

36. In the present case the Committee has taken account of the statement by the General Union of Moroccan workers that negotiations between the ground mechanics and Royal Air Maroc have resulted in an agreement favourable to the workers it therefore appears that the collective dispute that was the subject of the complaint has now been settled. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.