80. In a communication of 5 July 1980, the United Trade Unions of Casablanca, an organisation affiliated to the Moroccan Union of Labour, complained of anti-union discrimination in Morocco (Case No. 992). More recently, the same trade union has presented a new complaint of anti-union discrimination in another case in a communication of 25 December 1980 (Case NO. 1018).
- 80. In a communication of 5 July 1980, the United Trade Unions of Casablanca, an organisation affiliated to the Moroccan Union of Labour, complained of anti-union discrimination in Morocco (Case No. 992). More recently, the same trade union has presented a new complaint of anti-union discrimination in another case in a communication of 25 December 1980 (Case NO. 1018).
- 81. In the absence of the Government's observations on these two cases, the Committee has already had to adjourn its examination of these cases several times and, first in May 1980, and then in November 1981, the Committee requested the Government of Morocco to send its observations urgently. At its November 1981 Session, the Governing Body, warned the Government that the Committee could, at its next session and in conformity with its procedural rules, present a report on the substance of these two cases, even if the Government's observations had not yet arrived. Very shortly before the opening of the Committee's session, the Government communicated certain information on 17 February 1982.
- 82. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1946 (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
- Case No. 992
- 83 In its communication of 5 July 1980, the United Trade Unions of Casablanca reported that the National Federation of Metallurgical Workers is alleging dismissals for trade union affiliation, arrests for striking or other trade union activities and police intervention within certain undertakings.
- 84 More precisely, the complainant organisation explains, the management of the Moroccan Motor Manufacturing Company (SOMACA), which has a monopoly of car assembly in Morocco, proceeded to dismiss 11 workers, including the members of the trade union executive. The personnel of the above establishment responded with a sympathy strike on 3 June 1980 and the dispute lasted two months; the management, however, did not reverse its decision, nor did the public authorities use their influence to re-establish legality.
- Case No. 1018
- 85 In a communication of 25 December 1980, the United Trade Unions of Casablanca pointed out that a labour dispute had broken out at the Moroccan Fertiliser Company (FERTIMA). The management of the undertaking having refused to negotiate on a list of demands which had been pending for two years, the workers called a protest strike on 19 November 1980. After a four-day strike by the firm's 700 workers, the authorities organised a campaign of repression. Thus, on 27 November 1980, the workers of the BERRICHID branch were allegedly attacked by the police. Several workers were, it is alleged, injured and the following are stated to have been sentenced to four months' imprisonment without remission and fined 120 dirhams: Miloudi Bakouch, Kacem Targhaoui, Bouchaib Ben El Korchi, Hamadi Najib, Bouchaib Ennador, Bouchaib Ben Abdelkader and Abdelkader Hamou; concurrently, the management of FERTIMA recruited new workers, which is all the more serious in hat FERTIMA, as a branch of the Sherifian Phosphates Office, is a state enterprise. The complainant organisation therefore requests that the sentences passed on the trade unionists be quashed and that all the workers prosecuted be reinstated.
- The Government's reply
- 86 The Government states that the matter falling under Case No. 992 was examined by the Casablanca Tribunal on 13 February 1982, and it will communicate further information when it is available to it.
- 87 As for Case No. 1018, it indicates that Mr. Miloudi Bakouch was sentenced to one month in prison without remission: those with him were tried by the Settat First Instance Tribunal and convicted for violence to an official in the exercise of his duties, and blows and wounding.
B. B. The Committee's conclusions
B. B. The Committee's conclusions
- The Committee's conclusions
- 88 The Committee notes that these two cases, which have points in common, relate to persecution of trade unionists within the context of labour disputes. More particularly, one of them concerns the alleged dismissal of 11 workers, including all the members of a trade union executive, and the other concerns injuries inflicted by the police on striking workers and sentences of four months' imprisonment without remission allegedly imposed on seven workers and also the recruitment of new workers in order to break a strike.
- 89 Concerning the dismissal of 11 workers of the Moroccan Motor Manufacturing Company, the Committee notes that, without denying the facts, the Government states the matter is being tried by the Tribunal. However, according to the complainants this measure was aimed at all the members of the executive Committee of the trade union in the undertaking. In the absence of other information, the general character of the measure tends to suggest that it was taken for anti-trade union reasons. The Committee has always considered that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal. In this case, the Committee notes that Morocco has in fact ratified Convention No. 98, Article 1 of which stipulates that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. Thus, the Committee notes that the alleged acts constitute precisely the kind of situation that Convention No. 98 seeks to avoid. Consequently, having taken cognisance of the national legislation on the matter, and having noted the lack of provisions specific enough for the application of Article 1 of the Convention, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will be able to adopt all measures which may seem useful to avoid, in general, any repetition in the future of acts of anti-union discrimination such as those forming the subject of this complaint. The Committee considers it useful to bring this question to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
- 90 Concerning the injuries allegedly suffered by the striking workers of the Moroccan Fertiliser Company when struck by the police, the Committee notes the absence of a reply from the Government on this point it also notes that, according to the Government, certain persons have been arrested for violence to an official. The Committee can only draw attention to the importance it attaches to the use of the police force being limited to the maintenance of law and order. In such cases the Committee has always stressed the need to undertake an inquiry in order to determine the justification for the police action, to clarify the facts and to determine, if necessary, police responsibilities.
- 91 Concerning the sentences of imprisonment without remission imposed on four striking workers who are named and the recruitment of new workers to break the strike, the Committee regrets that the Government has not communicated its observations on the question of the recruitment of workers, nor on the prison sentences imposed on Messrs. Targhaoubi, Ben El Korchi, Najib Ennador, Ben Abdelkader and Hamou. The Government has, however, agreed that one of the strikers was sentenced to one month's imprisonment without remission. The Committee recalls that the right to strike constitutes one of the essential means which workers and workers' organisations must have at their disposal in order to promote and defend their occupational interests. The Committee also notes with concern that, according to the complainant organisation, sentences of four months' imprisonment without remission were imposed on the strikers. Further, in a case concerning Morocco examined in this report, the Committee has already pointed out to the Government that, if the strike is legal, the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace strikers entails a risk of derogation from the right to strike which may affect the free exercise of trade union rights.
The Committee's recommendations
The Committee's recommendations
- 92. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the following conclusions:
- (a) Concerning the Government's late reply to the allegations of the complainant organisation, the Committee deplores the fact that the Government communicated its observations, despite repeated requests, only very shortly before its session.
- (b) Regarding the allegations of discriminatory dismissals, in particular of trade union leaders, the Committee, having noted the lack of legislative provisions sufficient for the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 98 ratified by Morocco, expresses the hope that the Government will adopt all measures which may be useful in avoiding any repetition in the future of acts of anti-union discrimination such as those forming the subject of this complaint. The Committee considers it useful to bring this question to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
- (c) Regarding the allegations of the persecution of trade unionists (injuries and sentencing to imprisonment without remission) inflicted on striking workers within the context of a labour dispute, the Committee notes that the Government does not deny the allegations, but states that certain persons have been convicted of violence to an official. As a matter of principle, the Committee recalls that the right to strike constitutes one of the essential means which workers and workers' organisations must have at their disposal in order to promote and defend their occupational interests. The Committee therefore notes with concern that, according to the complainant organisation, the strike at the Moroccan Fertiliser Company was repressed in this way. The Committee recalls, moreover, that, if the strike is legal, recourse to the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace the strikers entails a risk of derogation from the right to strike which may affect the free exercise of trade union rights.
