Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 218, November 1982

Case No 1115 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 09-FEB-82 - Closed

1. 286. The complaint of the local Federation of Trade Unions of Casablanca, affiliated to the Moroccan Federation of Labour, is contained in a communication dated 9 February 1982. The Government forwarded its reply in a letter dated 21 May 1982.
2. 287. 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).

A. Allegations of the complainant organisation

1. 288. In its letter of 9 February 1982, the complainant organisation alleges that, after submitting a statement of demands, the workers of the "Le Plastic" company in Casablanca waited in vain for the management to open negotiations with them. They were eventually obliged to start an initial 24-hour warning strike on 6 January 1982 and another, lasting 48 hours, on 12 and 13 January. The management allegedly retaliated by dismissing the following five trade union delegates: Mohamed Sagi, Ahmed Salimi, M'Hamed Sagi, Maâti Ghazati and Mohamed Berrat.
2. 289. The complainant organisation considers these dismissals to have been unlawful and states that repeated appeals to the authorities by trade union leaders have not yet led them to take action to restore legality. It asks that the unlawfully dismissed trade unionists be reinstated.

B. The Government's reply

1. 290. In its observations of 21 May 1982, the Government supplies the following explanations: After a statement of demands was submitted in December 1981 by the executive of a trade union affiliated to the Moroccan Federation of Labour, conciliation meetings were held at the level of the labour inspectorate between representatives of the workers and of the employer. The latter had agreed in principle to meet the wage demands submitted to him but had asked for more time to study all the aspects involved.
2. 291. The workers of the undertaking were not willing to wait and called an initial 24-hour strike on 6 January. This initial stoppage, continues the Government, resulted in a deterioration of the social climate in the undertaking and the employer complained that production had been deliberately slowed down.
3. 292. The Government adds that on 11 January 1982 the five trade union delegates sought a showdown by breaking into the manager's office in order to make him negotiate their demands immediately. The manager considered this behaviour to be a breach of discipline calling for the immediate dismissal, without notice, of those concerned. These dismissals resulted in a further strike which, according to the Government at the time of its communication, was still going on. The Government maintains that the labour inspectorate is continuing its efforts to bring about a settlement to the dispute.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 293. In this case, the complainant organisation states that trade union leaders have been dismissed merely for taking part in a 24-hour strike on 6 January 1982, and subsequently in another, 48 hour, strike on 12 and 13 January, in the course of a labour dispute. The Government, on the other hand, states that the dismissals were the result of a breach of discipline calling for immediate dismissal without notice. The Government admits, however, that these actions were carried out in the context of a labour dispute.
2. 294. As regards the 24-hour warning strike held on 6 January 1982 at the "Le Plastic" company after a statement of demands was submitted, which led the employer to complain of a decline in production, the Committee has already pointed out in a previous case of a strike in Morocco, that in accordance with the Dahir of 19 January 1946, as amended, all collective labour disputes should be submitted to a conciliation and arbitration procedure. Agreements reached through conciliation, as well as arbitration awards, are binding (sections 1, 18, 21 and 23 of the Dahir). With particular reference to the provisions on compulsory arbitration, the Committee noted at the time that the law appeared to exclude recourse to strike action in industrial disputes.
3. 295. The Committee has always considered that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. It has pointed out in this connection that a general prohibition of strikes, whether imposed directly or indirectly, would not be in conformity with the principle of freedom of association. Although it has also stated that strikes may be subject to restrictions or even prohibited in essential services, provided these limitations were accompanied by certain compensatory guarantees, it has specified that the prohibition of strikes in undertakings which are not performing an essential service in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of all or part of the population would not be in conformity with the principles mentioned above.
4. 296. Accordingly, as regards the dismissal of the five trade union delegates, the Committee firmly hopes that all appropriate steps will be taken by the competent regional authorities with a view to an early settlement of the dispute in question. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this matter.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 297. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the following conclusions: As regards the dismissal of five trade union delegates of the "Le Plastic" company, the Committee firmly hopes that all appropriate steps will be taken by the competent regional authorities with a view to an early settlement of the dispute in question. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this matter,