Interim Report - Report No 283, June 1992

Case No 1589 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 12-JUN-91 - Closed

1. 296. On 12 June 1991 the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) lodged a complaint against the Government of Morocco for infringement of trade union rights.
2. 297. The Government furnished its observations in a communication dated 28 February 1992.
3. 298. 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 complainant's allegations

1. 299. The CDT, in its complaint, alleges that a series of acts of anti-union discrimination were perpetrated by the management of the Moulitex and Sicob factories in Casablanca which employ 370 and 80 workers respectively, and that acts of violence were committed by the authorities and the forces of law and order against the workers, who included trade union members and leaders from the two factories.
2. 300. The CDT states that following the establishment, on 16 April 1991, of a trade union executive affiliated to the complainant organisation within the Moulitex factory, 20 trade unionists (including five members of the executive committee) were dismissed. Following a meeting on 24 April 1991 with the labour inspectorate, ten workers were reinstated and negotiations continued in respect of the other persons who had been dismissed. However the employer, Mr. Sekkat, who owned both the factories, sent away the persons who sought to resume their work as agreed, humiliating and insulting them.
3. 301. Following these events the workers decided, at a general meeting on 25 April 1991, to hold a two-hour strike to protest against the dismissal of their workmates. On 26 April, the actual day of the strike, the management closed the factory and the labour inspectorate drew up a report on this closure which, in the opinion of the complainant organisation, was illegal. The workers then occupied the premises, claiming their right to work. The management continued, despite the lockout, to dismiss trade unionists.
4. 302. In its communication, the complainant refers to similar events said to have taken place in the neighbouring factory, Sicob. Following the establishment within this factory of a trade union executive on 11 February 1991, a plot was apparently organised against one of the members of this executive who is said to have been arrested by the police and subsequently released on orders from the Public Prosecutor's Office.
5. 303. The owner of the factory then decided to close down the works, without following any legal procedure, and not to open again until 21 February 1991. The following day the management decided to shorten working hours from eight to four per day, and then to 16 per week. This measure affected most of the workers. On the same day the management also suspended two trade unionists.
6. 304. The CDT states that the management then requested the workers to hand over their union membership cards in exchange for meeting their claims and increasing hours of work; they were invited to sign an undertaking not to exercise any trade union activity. Since the workers did not accept these proposals, the management once again closed the factory. This was followed by the occupation of the premises by the workers, claiming their right to work.
7. 305. The CDT then relates how the two disputes degenerated. It states that first of all the occupation of the factory premises was orderly and peaceful, despite the provocation and intimidation on the part of the management and the authorities, and that it took place away from the public thoroughfare. On 31 May 1991, on the occasion of a meeting at the level of the local authorities, Superintendent Tahit, the head of the general information service, is said to have threatened members of the union executive; this, according to the complainant, led them to boycott a second meeting so as not to have to negotiate under duress. On the evening of the same day the head of the prefectorial police, Mr. Bakkali, arrived at the Sicob factory accompanied by several superintendents and asked the workers why they were occupying the premises. After they had been told that the workers were claiming their right to work and wanted to see the dispute settled in accordance with the law and the principles of freedom of association, Mr. Bakkali promised the strikers that the dispute would indeed be settled.
8. 306. On the evening of 2 June 1991, however, six motorised police officers arrived on the scene. The police are said to have beaten the workers, ransacked their belongings and motor bikes and to have taken 31 workers to the central police station at Roches Noires. The workers were released three hours later after having been insulted, struck and beaten. At midnight the forces of law and order returned with reinforcements and took 84 persons to the police station, where they were shut up in a small cell. As a result of this treatment, two workers fainted and were thrown into the courtyard of the police station to recover. The following morning the police again returned (over 60 motorised officers, according to the CDT) accompanied by several senior members of the criminal investigation department and several representatives of the authorities as well as plain-clothes police inspectors. After completely encircling the two factories and setting up roadblocks, the superintendent ordered the factories to be opened and the workers to start work under compulsion and without their trade union. Since the workers refused to follow these orders, the superintendent called upon the police to intervene. According to the CDT the workers were then clubbed and beaten for 15 minutes with the result that 104 persons were injured and some 20 workers were imprisoned, where they were again beaten and then released. The organisation appends to its complaint a list of the persons who were injured as well as copies of some medical certificates. The 200 other workers were pursued, some as far as their homes, and were ill-treated in public.
9. 307. The complainant organisation states that following these events the management reopened the two factories and recruited new workers who were guarded by the authorities. The CDT reports that 400 workers and their families are still without work and that the employer categorically refuses to allow the union into his factories.

B. The Government's reply

1. 308. The Government, in its letter of 28 February 1992, first describes the events which took place in the Moulitex firm. According to the Government, the administration dismissed several workers on 15 April 1991, accusing them of having committed acts of sabotage that had damaged substances and machinery belonging to the factory, as was testified on oath by the expert who undertook an examination concerning the stoppage of the machinery (a copy of the expert's report is attached).
2. 309. The labour inspectorate then intervened to find a solution to the dispute. According to the Government, an initial agreement was reached providing for several workers to be reinstated in their job. Subsequent developments, however, prevented this agreement from being implemented. As certain strikers had formed groups in the road opposite the factory, the police intervened to disperse them in accordance with the legal procedure in force. According to the Government this took place without disturbances, contrary to the allegations of the complainant organisation.
3. 310. The labour inspectorate continued its efforts to settle the dispute by organising several meetings attended by directors of the firm, shop stewards and CDT representatives. The Government states that these meetings resulted in an agreement providing for the reinstatement of all workers with the exception of those who had been dismissed at the beginning of the dispute; the dismissed workers also received the statutory severance benefits as well as a sum of 2,000 dirhams, in addition to the annual production, housing and transport allowances.
4. 311. As regards the events which took place at the Sicob factory, the Government states that the administration of this firm closed down the establishment on 19 May 1991, accusing the workers of causing production to drop. Since the law provides that lockouts are subject to prior approval by the competent authority, the labour inspectorate drew up a report in which the administration of the firm was accused of failing to respect this legal provision.
5. 312. The Government also states that following the successive meetings which were held at the headquarters of the competent labour department, it was agreed that the workers should resume work in the factory. All the workers did in fact return to work with the exception of 12, five of whom preferred to leave and receive the statutory severance benefit, plus a lump sum of 4,000 dirhams, while the other seven wished to bring their case before the competent court.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 313. The case concerns acts of anti-union discrimination said to have been committed by the management of the Moulitex and Sicob factories against trade union members and leaders, as well as acts of violence by the police against workers of these two factories.
2. 314. As regards the dismissal on 16 April of a number of workers from the Moulitex factory, including trade unionists and members of the union executive committee, the Committee observes that according to the complainant these dismissals were connected with the establishment of a trade union executive committee within the factory, whereas the Government maintains that a number of Moulitex workers were dismissed for having sabotaged machinery. The Committee notes, first of all, that the report (of which the Government encloses a copy) of the expert who testified on the matter under oath is dated 3 May 1991, that is to say 18 days after the dismissals on 16 April 1991. It also observes that the report in question merely states that the sudden stoppage of the machines, without first removing the raw materials they contained, was the main cause of their breakdown. The Committee is thus unable to appreciate the circumstances surrounding this breakdown and to express an opinion as to whether the dismissals in question were motivated by trade union reasons. While recalling the principles according to which workers should be able to form and join organisations of their own choosing in full freedom, and that no one should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, paras. 222 and 538), the Committee calls on the Government to undertake an inquiry to establish the real reasons for the dismissal of a large number of persons on 16 April 1991.
3. 315. As regards the other dismissals, the Committee observes the Government's statement that the agreements reached between the parties provide for the reinstatement of the dismissed workers and the payment of severance benefits and that all the Sicob workers did in fact return to work, with the exception of five who preferred to leave and receive the statutory severance benefit, and seven others who wished to submit their case to a competent court. According to the complainant organisation, the dismissals were motivated by trade union activities and the strike. The Committee notes that the complainant also alleges that 400 workers have still not been reinstated following the events of 2 June 1991 and that the management, following the reopening of the two factories, has even taken on new workers. The Committee recalls the principle according to which recourse to extremely serious measures, such as the dismissal of workers for having participated in a strike, implies a serious risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association (Digest, para. 444), and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to implement the agreements providing for the reinstatement of the persons dismissed or suspended and to keep it informed of any decision taken in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings instituted by the seven dismissed workers who wished to bring their case before a court.
4. 316. More generally, the Committee must remind the Government that the law should make express provision for the possibility to appeal against acts of anti-union discrimination, as well as for penalties in this respect, by employers against workers and their organisations in order to ensure the effectiveness in practice of Article 1 of Convention No. 98. Observing that it has already drawn this principle to the Government's attention on several occasions (see, inter alia, 279th Report, Case No. 1499, para. 203, and 281st Report, Case No. 1574, para. 222), the Committee once again urges the Government to adopt legislative or other measures in the near future to ensure the application of the Convention.
5. 317. As regards the allegations concerning the closure of the two factories, the Committee notes the Government's reply according to which the Sicob management closed the factory on 19 May 1991, accusing its workers of having caused a drop in production, and according to which the labour inspectorate drew up a report stating that the administration of the firm had failed to respect the law which provides that such closures are subject to prior approval by the competent authority.
6. 318. As regards the intervention of the police on 2 and 3 June 1991, when workers who were occupying the premises to secure the reopening of the factories and who were claiming their right to work were taken to the police station and beaten or insulted, the Committee notes that the Government states that since a number of strikers had formed groups on the road outside the factory, the police intervened to disperse them in accordance with the legal procedures in force and that this took place without disturbances. The Committee emphasises once again that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are fully respected (Digest, para. 68), and recalls that the authorities should only call on the police during strikes in situations of a serious nature where law and order are seriously threatened. The Committee consequently requests the Government to open an impartial and in-depth inquiry into the circumstances to determine the nature of and justification for the police action and to determine responsibilities. The Committee asks it to keep it informed of the outcome of this inquiry.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 319. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) As regards the dismissals on 16 April of a number of workers of the Moulitex factory, including trade unionists and members of the union executive committee, the Committee calls on the Government to undertake an inquiry to determine the real reasons for these dismissals, and keep it informed of the outcome of such inquiry.
   • (b) As regards the allegations of other dismissals in the Moulitex and Sicob factories, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to implement the agreements providing for the reinstatement of the persons dismissed or suspended and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect. It also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings instituted by the seven dismissed workers who wished to bring their case before a court.
   • (c) Recalling the need to ensure, by means of specific provisions and sufficiently dissuasive penalties, that workers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination by their employer, in accordance with Article 1 of Convention No. 98, and in the absence of provisions to this effect, the Committee once again urges the Government to adopt legislative or other measures in the near future to ensure the application of this provision of Convention No. 98 and to inform it of all developments in this respect.
   • (d) As regards the allegations relating to several incidents of violent intervention by the police on 2 and 3 June 1991 to disperse the workers from the Moulitex and Sicob factories who were occupying the premises, the Committee requests the Government to open an impartial and in-depth inquiry into the circumstances so as to determine the nature of and justification for the police action and to ascertain responsibilities, and to keep it informed of the outcome of this inquiry.