Definitive Report - Report No 265, June 1989

Case No 1490 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 17-FEB-89 - Closed

1. 210. The International Miners' Organisation (IMO) presented a complaint of
   • violation of freedom of association against the Government of Morocco on
   • behalf of its affiliate, the Miners' Trade Union of the Democratic
   • Confederation of Labour (CDT), in a communication dated 17 February 1989. On
   • the same day, the CDT, having sent several requests to the Director-General of
   • the ILO to take action in this case, in particular in telegrams dated 27
   • December 1988 and 3 and 24 January 1989, decided to file a complaint itself
   • against the infringements of trade union rights perpetrated by the Government.
   • Similarly, in a cable dated 26 January 1989, the World Federation of Trade
   • Unions (WFTU) informed the ILO of its serious concern as regards this case.
   • Lastly, the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) stated in a
   • communication dated 22 March 1989 that it upheld the CDT's complaint.
2. 211. The Government sent a reply on this case in a communication dated 12
   • April 1989.
3. 212. 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. The complainants' allegations

1. 213. On 27 December 1988, the ILO was requested by the CDT to intervene in a
   • serious labour dispute which was developing in the Jerada mines in Morocco.
   • The IMO and the CDT later filed a complaint against the Morocco Coalmining
   • Company in Jerada as a directly involved partner and against the Government of
   • Morocco, which has a legal and moral obligation to ensure compliance with and
   • application of labour laws and international labour standards. The complainant
   • alleged infringement of trade union rights and violation of ILO Conventions
   • during the above-mentioned labour dispute between the miners and the Jerada
   • Mining Company (Oujda Province).
2. 214. More specifically, the IMO considers that the Government of Morocco has
   • violated ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 143 and 155. In its view, it is the
   • inhuman conditions in which miners live and work that led the persons
   • concerned to hold the strike which has lasted since 19 December 1988.
   • According to the IMO, the miners themselves must pay for their helmets,
   • working tools and even their boots. The showers are three kilometres away;
   • miners are transported there in dump trucks, like the coal, without protection
   • and regardless of the weather. They live in unsanitary dwellings. They and
   • their families are hungry and cold, since their coal allowance has been cut
   • off by the management.
3. 215. The CDT has supplied the following additional information on this case:
   • it explains that the Morocco Coalmining Company in Jerada is a limited
   • liability company of which the State holds 98 per cent of shares. It should
   • normally be managed by a board of directors under the supervision of the
   • Ministry of Energy and Mining; in addition, the management takes all decisions
   • unilaterally without consulting workers' representatives and their trade union
   • or hearing their grievances, and systematically refusing to engage in dialogue
   • with CDT leaders in particular. This intransigent attitude, coupled with poor
   • management of the enterprise, is the underlying cause of the labour dispute in
   • this mine. The deterioration of the company in general and of working
   • conditions has drastically affected the situation of the workers who number
   • about 7,000 (5,500 miners plus 1,500 supervisory personnel and technicians).
4. 216. The CDT gives the following explanation of the dispute and its causes.
   • As regards the workers' claims, the Jerada section of the trade union handed
   • in a list of claims to the management as early as 1985, and requested it to
   • embark on a dialogue concerning the workers' living and working conditions,
   • and the following issues in particular:
     • - review of wages and compensation;
     • - normal housing and decent transportation;
     • - the cost of tools and personal equipment now paid for by the miners to be
   • covered by the management;
     • - preventive safety and health measures and curative measures against
   • industrial accidents and silicosis, and more humane occupational medicine;
     • - one litre of milk daily;
     • - fairer compensation in the event of silicosis (workers who are 30 per cent
   • affected by the disease still continue to work);
     • - election of a commission in order for workers' delegates to participate in
   • the administration of social welfare;
     • - review of the retirement pension system;
     • - respect for the dignity of workers, who are subjected to provocation and
   • intimidation by the management and its personnel, especially if they are
   • members of the CDT;
     • - lastly, respect of trade union rights and recognition of the CDT as a
   • social partner.
5. 217. The CDT adds that the management has chosen to adopt an obstinate and
   • intransigent attitude as regards its recognition and initiation of a dialogue
   • and that it has refused to enter into any negotiations with union leaders
   • regarding the above-mentioned claims, arguing that a social dialogue with
   • staff delegates is always open in the joint committees. According to the CDT,
   • however, negotiation of the claims list does not fall within the competence of
   • staff delegates in joint committees as the management asserts, since the terms
   • of reference of the joint committees are defined as: to ensure compliance with
   • the regulations, to examine complaints by the staff within their area of
   • competence concerning recruitment, granting security of employment, promotion,
   • dismissal and disciplinary penalties, and to endeavour to settle collective
   • disputes of all kinds. Thus, in the CDT's view, negotiation of its claims with
   • the management can only fall within the competence of the trade union, which
   • is the only instrument for defending workers' claims.
6. 218. The CDT explains further that, faced with the management's obstinacy,
   • the miners decided to call a three-day strike from 1 to 3 December 1988, which
   • was adhered to by 98 per cent of the workers. The management then resorted to
   • acts of provocation and intimidation and threats against the striking workers.
   • The supervisory ministry, the Ministry of Mining, followed suit by adopting
   • the arbitrary decision to suspend for three months the three CDT safety and
   • health delegates, including the secretary-general of the Jerada section of the
   • CDT. The Ministry referred in its decision to section 32 of the Miners'
   • Regulations in order to penalise the delegates who, in its view, committed
   • gross negligence of their duties by refusing to carry out their prescribed
   • tours of inspection on 1, 2 and 3 December 1988. The dates referred to in the
   • decision were precisely those on which the three-day strike was held by the
   • CDT, the three delegates having joined their fellow strikers. The CDT
   • considers that the Ministry should have had the courage to mention in its
   • decision that the delegates were suspended for striking.
7. 219. The CDT states further that the tension spread in the Jerada mines. The
   • strike was resumed on 19 December 1988 with the aim of initiating a dialogue
   • on the claims and obtaining the reinstatement of the suspended delegates.
   • However, the executive of the CDT decided to approach the supervisory
   • ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, as well as the Ministry of the
   • Interior and of Information and the Oujda police department, requesting them
   • to intervene with the management of the coalmining company to settle the
   • dispute. Following this meeting on 26 December 1988, the CDT decided to resume
   • work to show that it favoured an easing of tensions and in the hope that the
   • management would endeavour likewise to alleviate the situation by initiating
   • dialogue. However, as the workers were going back to work in an orderly way,
   • they were surrounded and even violently assaulted by supervisory personnel
   • mobilised by the mangement. This prevented them from resuming work and caused
   • the miners in the galleries collectively to down tools in protest against the
   • acts of repression and the closure of the pit by order of the management. This
   • left the workers no choice but to continue the strike.
8. 220. On 28 December 1988, the management committed another act of repression
   • with the complicity of the local and provincial authorities: 14 CDT activists
   • were arrested and brought before the court of the first instance of Oujda on
   • unfounded and trumped-up charges. The first four accused were tried on 16
   • January 1989 for distributing tracts likely to disrupt the public order; three
   • of them were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, while the fourth was
   • acquitted. As for the other ten, who were prosecuted for interference with the
   • right to work and unlawful confinement, nine of them were sentenced to three
   • months' imprisonment and a fine of 500 dirhams, and the tenth to two months'
   • imprisonment and a fine of 400 dirhams.
9. 221. As regards the two trials, a text dating back to 1939 concerning
   • subversive tracts served as the basis for the accusation in the case of four
   • strikers whose only crime was to distribute a trade union tract, the contents
   • of which by no means disrupted the public order. This constitutes interference
   • with the exercise of trade union rights. The hearings on 16 January 1989 at
   • the Oujda court showed that the case had been instigated by the Jerada
   • Coalmining Company, which fabricated the story of unlawful confinement and
   • interference with the right to work. One of the alleged victims was found in
   • the room reserved for witnesses. The first witness for the prosecution had
   • written the registration number of one of the accused workers on his hand,
   • although he was supposed to know this number which he allegedly reported to
   • the police. The coalmining company even dared to ask the court for
   • compensation for damages caused by the stoppage of work, as if the strike in
   • itself constituted an offence. Lastly, the record of the proceedings was drawn
   • up in French, a language which none of the accused understand.
10. 222. The CDT states further that, at the date of its communication, the
    • miners were continuing the strike begun on 1 December 1988 in order to obtain
    • observance of their trade union rights and fulfilment of their list of claims.
    • The court of appeal, which was to hand down a verdict on 13 February 1989 in
    • the case of the miners convicted by the court of the first instance, had
    • postponed its verdict to 16 February 1989.
11. 223. According to the CDT, the only official reaction of the competent
    • authorities was a meeting of a Parliamentary Commission on Economic Affairs,
    • Employment, Energy and Mines held on 9 February 1989, at the request of
    • deputies who are members of the CDT and the opposition, in the House of
    • Representatives. This Parliamentary Commission, which devoted one session to
    • the situation in Jerada, decided that a meeting should be held on 16 February
12. 1989 at Oujda, to be chaired by the head of the Department of Mining of the
    • ministry in question, with the participation of representatives of the
    • management of the Jerada coal mines and their union representatives in order
    • to study the list of claims of the Jerada miners.
13. 224. The CDT states in conclusion that during the dispute between miners and
    • the coal mine management, it observed the following violations:
      • - violation of the Workers' Representatives Convention (No. 135) and
    • Recommendation (No. 143) by the suspension of three safety and health
    • delegates;
      • - violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by the refusal to recognise the
    • trade union section of the CDT and engage in dialogue with it, and by the
    • arrest and indictment of union delegates for distributing a legal union tract,
    • and by the surrounding of the CDT premises in Jerada in order to prevent
    • workers from holding their union meetings there;
      • - violation of the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) and
    • Recommendation (No. 85) by making miners pay for their work tools (boots,
    • picks, helmets and lamps);
      • - violation of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
    • (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111) by adopting a discriminatory policy
    • against workers affiliated to the CDT;
      • - violation of Recommendation No. 102, in particular by failing to provide
    • decent transport for miners (miners are transported in dump trucks);
      • - violation of the Workers' Housing Recommendation (No. 115) (most miners'
    • dwellings - 13 square metres for a couple with four children - do not meet
    • minimum housing standards);
      • - violation of Convention No. 155 and Recommendations Nos. 97 and 112 by
    • failing to provide means of protection and safety and health measures for
    • workers, as well as competent occupational health services.
    • B. The Government's reply
14. 225. In its reply dated 12 April 1989, the Government confirms that on 24
    • March 1988 the "Jerada Miners' Trade Union", an affiliate of the CDT, handed
    • in to the Morocco Coal Mines Directorate (DCM) a 23-point list of claims,
    • mainly concerning an increase in pay (20 per cent) and other compensation, the
    • introduction of a new work timetable, the setting up of a committee on social
    • welfare, improvement of medical services and working conditions, etc.
15. 226. According to the Government, the coalmining company felt it necessary
    • to go through the Committee on Staff Regulations and Personnel in order to
    • consider these claims, in accordance with section 3 of Dahir No. 1-60-007 of 5
    • Rejeb 1380 (24 December 1960) to issue the staff regulations of mining
    • enterprises (Miners' Regulations). The CDT was informed of this position
    • through the personnel department, but this trade union, which is not
    • represented on the Committee on Staff Regulations and Personnel, continued to
    • demand direct dialogue with the coalmining company.
16. 227. The Government states that the CDT declared a 72-hour strike in support
    • of its claims, starting on 1 December 1988; this only affected underground
    • workers (about 45 per cent of personnel). During this strike, the chief of the
    • Oujda Regional Mining Board was to carry out safety inspections underground.
    • As usual, he asked the safety delegates to accompany him to the workplace. To
    • his great surprise, the three delegates refused to comply with this
    • instruction, disregarding their professional obligations and their duty to
    • assist the administration, under section 34 of the Miners' Regulations. In
    • view of this attitude, viewed as gross negligence, the persons concerned were
    • penalised in accordance with section 32 of the Miners' Regulations. This
    • section provides in such situations for penalties of which the least severe
    • was applied in this case, i.e. suspension of duties of safety delegates for
    • three months starting on 8 December 1989.
17. 228. The Government states further that, following a brief resumption of
    • work from 5 to 13 December 1988, an incident occurred on 14 December when a
    • group of 150 workers occupied the base of a sloping mine gallery in workings
    • No. V for seven hours and prevented the other miners from going to their
    • workplaces. The situation was brought back to normal, however, following the
    • intervention of the Mining Board and work was resumed until 19 December 1988
    • when a new six-day stoppage was declared. After work was resumed on 26
    • December 1988, the situation appeared to be normal in the north basin and
    • workings No. IV, but at workings No. V, after the workers had been transported
    • down the shaft, a group of them occupied the base of the mining gallery. The
    • same occurred at the other workings on the second shift. Thus, 445 strikers
    • remained at the bottom for 24 hours. All attempts to make them come back up
    • failed. In addition, the persons concerned damaged telephone lines and
    • confined five foremen and machine operators responsible for transporting
    • personnel. The miners continued to occupy the bottom until 27 December 1988 at
18. 5. 30 p.m. In view of the escalation of tension and in order to safeguard the
    • security of the mine and personnel, the provincial authorities advised the
    • coalmining company to suspend transportation of men down the shaft from 28
    • December 1988 to 7 January 1989. When work was resumed, the attendance rate
    • did not exceed 53 per cent of workers. The strike essentially affected cutters
    • and diggers, thus paralysing production.
19. 229. The Government explains further that a dialogue was initiated none the
    • less, enabling the labour dispute to be settled. On 27 December 1988 the
    • Minister of Energy and Mining received the members of the national executive
    • of the CDT. The latter requested him to rescind the decisions to suspend the
    • three trade union delegates. During the meeting, the Minister stressed the
    • need to ease labour relations in Jerada, following which this grievance might
    • be dealt with favourably. The Governor of the province of Oujda, for his part,
    • received the persons concerned on 3 January 1989 and invited them to endeavour
    • to improve labour relations in Jerada. In confirmation of the complainants'
    • statement, the Government explained that in order to examine the trade unions'
    • claims at a higher level, the Commission for Economic Affairs of the House of
    • Representatives met on 9 February 1989 in the presence of the Minister of
    • Energy and Mining. During the discussions, full light was shed on the
    • financial situation of the coal mines and the importance of current investment
    • in the mines, which showed a heavy deficit. Figures were cited showing that
    • the main purpose of maintaining this activity was a social one. However, in
    • order to deal with the workers' grievances and at the Minister's suggestion,
    • the members of the Commission for Economic Affairs of the House of
    • Representatives decided to continue the dialogue in Oujda in a commmission
    • chaired by the director of the mines and comprising representatives of the
    • coal mine management and the various trade unions (the Moroccan Union of
    • Workers, the General Union of Moroccan Workers, the Democratic Confederation
    • of Labour and the National Union of Moroccan Workers) .
20. 230. The discussions in this Commission led to the signature of protocols of
    • agreement between the parties and the resumption of work on 18 February 1989,
    • explains the Government. Under the terms of these agreements, workers are
    • granted a 5 per cent pay rise and increases of 50 per cent in housing
    • allowances, 10 per cent in travelling allowances for leave and 133 per cent in
    • loans for Aód Al Adha. In addition, other decisions were taken regarding
    • workers' participation in the administration of social welfare, an increase in
    • the number of pilgrims (from six to ten), etc. The staff representatives, for
    • their part, assured the management that they would do their utmost to make up
    • for the delay in production by raising output and working harder.
21. 231. The Government also wished to add the following specific information
    • concerning respect of freedom of association and court proceedings. Following
    • individual suits filed by miners who had been confined at the bottom of the
    • mine on 26 December 1988, ten workers were called before the court, which
    • convicted them, then released them conditionally. Four other persons were
    • arrested for interfering with the right to work. One of the persons charged
    • was released, while the other three were sentenced to one month's
    • imprisonment. Lastly, the local secretary-general of the CDT in Jerada was
    • never arrested. He had carried out his activities for the entire duration of
    • the dispute. Moreover, the CDT premises had not been closed down.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 232. The Committee notes that this case concerns anti-trade union reprisals
   • taken by the Morocco Coalmining Company in Jerada and the Government of
   • Morocco during a labour dispute which occurred in this company in December
2. 1988 and January 1989. Essentially, it concerns the refusal by the Morocco
   • Coalmining Company to negotiate with the complainant union, the Miners' Trade
   • Union affiliated to the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT), and
   • repressive measures following a strike held by miners in response to this
   • refusal. The repressive measures were, in particular, the three-month
   • suspension of three safety and health delegates of the CDT, including the
   • secretary-general of the Jerada section of that union; brutal treatment by
   • management which retaliated against the strike by a lock-out, using violence
   • to prevent the workers from resuming work; and the arrest of 14 CDT activists
   • who participated in the strike (four of whom were accused of distributing
   • tracts likely to disrupt the public order, three of them being convicted and
   • sentenced to three months' imprisonment and the fourth acquitted, and the ten
   • others prosecuted for interfering with the right to work and for unlawful
   • confinement, nine of them being sentenced to three months' imprisonment and
   • the tenth to two months). The complainants also denounce the violation of a
   • number of international labour standards not related to respect of freedom of
   • association.
3. 233. The versions given by the complainants and the Government in this case
   • differ in several respects. However, in the light of the available
   • information, it appears that following various requests for ILO intervention
   • and the filing of formal complaints of violation of freedom of association,
   • the Minister of Energy and Mining received the members of the national
   • executive of the CDT on 27 December 1988 and some negotiation took place which
   • did not, however, succeed; on the contrary, 14 striking workers were
   • convicted. Nevertheless, both the complainants and the Government agree that a
   • meeting was held to examine the situation at the Jerada mine, beginning on 9
   • February 1989, in the presence of the Minister of Energy and Mining, by the
   • Commission on Economic Affairs, Employment, Energy and Mining of the House of
   • Representatives. According to the CDT, this Commission met at the request of
   • CDT deputies and the opposition and decided that a meeting should be held on
4. 16 February 1989 at Oujda, to be chaired by the Director of the Department of
   • Mining of the ministry in question, with the participation of representatives
   • of the Jerada Coalmining Company and trade unions, in order to examine the
   • Jerada miners' list of claims. According to the Government, on the other hand,
   • the Commission was appointed at the initiative of the Government itself, with
   • a view to holding the discussions of the unions' claims at a higher level.
   • During the discussions in this Commission, full light was shed on the
   • financial situation of the coal mines and the importance of current investment
   • in this activity, which showed a high deficit. Figures were cited to show that
   • the purpose of maintaining this activity was primarily a social one. The
   • Government admits, however, that in order to deal with the workers' grievances
   • and at the Minister's suggestion, the members of this Parliamentary Commission
   • on Economic Affairs of the House of Representatives decided to continue the
   • dialogue in Oujda in a commission chaired by the director of the mines and
   • comprising representatives of the coal mine management and various trade
   • unions.
5. 234. According to the Government, discussions in this Committee led to the
   • signature of protocols of agreement between the parties and to a resumption of
   • work on 18 February 1989.
6. 235. As regards the anti-trade union reprisals against striking workers and
   • safety delegates, the Government claims that following individual suits filed
   • by workers who had been confined at the bottom of the mine on 26 December
7. 1988, ten miners were brought before the court, which convicted them and then
   • released them conditionally. It also asserts that four other persons were
   • arrested for interfering with the right to work and that one of the persons
   • charged was released, while the other three were sentenced to one month's
   • imprisonment. Lastly, it categorically denies that the local secretary-general
   • of the CDT of Jerada had ever been arrested. On the contrary, it affirms, he
   • had carried out his activities for the entire duration of the dispute.
   • Moreover, according to the Government, the CDT premises had not been closed
   • down.
8. 236. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls the importance which it
   • attaches to the principle that strike action is one of the legitimate means
   • which should be available to workers to defend their economic and social
   • claims.
9. 237. The Committee notes with concern that in this case trade union
   • delegates were suspended and striking workers were prosecuted, some of them
   • sentenced to a month's imprisonment, while others were accused of distributing
   • tracts likely to disrupt public order. In this respect, the Committee can only
   • stress the fact that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of
   • association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts
   • of discrimination likely to infringe freedom of association in respect of
   • their employment such as dismissal, transfer, demotion or other prejudicial
   • measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of
   • trade union officials because, in order to perform their trade union duties in
   • full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be
   • prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions.
   • The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case
   • of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is
   • given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations shall have the
   • right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
10. 238. As regards the freedom of expression of trade unionists, the Committee
    • recalls that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of
    • information, which may include the distribution of tracts, and that workers
    • and employers, as well as their organisations, should enjoy freedom of opinion
    • and expression in their publications and other trade union activities.
11. 239. As regards the prison sentences imposed on trade unionists for
    • striking, the Committee recalls that the development of harmonious labour
    • relations could be impaired by an inflexible attitude being adopted in the
    • application of severe sanctions, especially penal sanctions, to workers who
    • participate in strike action. Therefore, all penalties in respect of
    • illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence
    • committed. Moreover, as the arrest of strikers involves a serious risk of
    • abuse and places freedom of association in grave jeopardy, the competent
    • authorities should be given appropriate instructions so as to obviate the
    • dangers to freedom of association that such arrests involve. The authorities
    • should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of
    • organising or participating in a peaceful strike.
12. 240. The Committee welcomes the fact that this labour dispute appears to
    • have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 241. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • a) The Committee recalls the importance which it attaches to the principle that strike action is one of the legitimate means which should be available to workers to defend their economic and social interests.
   • b) The Committee also recalls that all penalties in respect of illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence committed and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organising or participating in a peaceful strike.