Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 340, March 2006

Case No 2416 (Morocco) - Complaint date: 20-APR-05 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant alleges that the local authorities in the town of Bouznika used force to intervene following a protest strike held by a local trade union protesting against the suspension of its general secretary, without prior notice and in violation of existing procedure, shortly after the union had been established. Armed with a pistol, the town governor led the police intervention, which resulted in several people being injured and the arrest of nine union officials

1000. The complaint is contained in communications from the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) dated 20 April and 23 May 2005.

1. 1001. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 24 June and 20 July 2005.
2. 1002. Morocco has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as well as the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). It has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1003. In its communications of 20 April and 23 May 2005, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) explains that its complaint concerns a collective labour dispute at Valeo (a car parts manufacturer in Ben Slimane province), located in the town of Bouznika. The complainant alleges failure to recognize the UMT’s primary organization at the enterprise and the discriminatory dismissal of the general secretary of the trade union committee, which resulted in a general show of solidarity from all the workers at the factory, and led to brutal police intervention and to the arrest of nine members of the factory’s trade union committee.
2. 1004. On 30 March 2005, elections were held for nine workers’ representatives after the workers at the factory decided to join the UMT. On 12 April 2005, the national secretary of the UMT sent a message to the factory management, assuring them that the union would work towards labour relations based on mutual respect and social dialogue.
3. 1005. On the evening of 19 April 2005, the general secretary of the factory union, Mr. Essemlali Abdelghafour, was unable to go to work, the management having informed him at the factory door that he had been suspended. The UMT alleges that this suspension took place without any prior notice and was contrary to all regulations. Following this suspension, the night team decided to hold a work stoppage from 10 p.m. in protest.
4. 1006. On 19 April, at 11 p.m., the town governor of Bouznika arrived at the factory site in person at the head of the police officers called by the factory management in response to the work stoppage. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that, according to numerous witnesses, the town governor was clearly in a state of inebriation, brandishing a weapon at the workers. In the complainants’ view, this intervention was brutal, leaving several workers injured and hospitalized. In addition, the UMT stresses that the personal support of the governor of Bouznika for these events was extremely serious and involves the direct responsibility of the Moroccan Government.
5. 1007. This intervention also led to the arrest of nine members of the trade union committee at the factory: Ms. Nadia Raihan, Mr. Jawad Gennoni, Mr. Khairat Hassan, Mr. Hassan Elkafi, Mr. Aziz Rzouzi, Mr. Jilali Fawdsi, Mr. Wardi Echouali, Mr. Abdellah Zarouf and Mr. Saïd Janati. On 25 April 2005, these individuals were brought before the court of first instance of Ben Slimane and charged with obstructing the freedom to work, an offence punishable under section 288 of the Moroccan Penal Code by one month to two years’ imprisonment and a fine. According to the complainant, such charges are often fabricated in order to prosecute and incarcerate trade unionists; which is why the UMT consistently denounces this section of the Penal Code, considering that it contravenes Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Finally, in view of the flimsiness of the charges and the weight of the evidence submitted by the lawyers defending the trade unionists, the court postponed the hearing until 2 June 2005.
6. 1008. At the time of the complainant’s last communication (23 May 2005), the delegate of the Ministry of Labour to Ben Slimane province had issued a advisory notice in which he recognized the illegality of the suspension of the union official. The complainant had also informed the company’s head office (situated in Paris) of the events, negotiation meetings between the two parties had been organized and a solution to the social issues had been reached, with the signature of a draft agreement (copy enclosed in the communication). The complainant stresses that the legal charges brought against the nine trade unionists are still pending and are in the hands of the authorities.
7. 1009. In more general terms, the complainant alleges that the use of the police forces in reprisals against the workers at the site, during the solidarity strike which followed the suspension of the general secretary of the UMT at the factory, constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental Conventions of the ILO on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
8. B. The Government’s reply
9. 1010. In a communication dated 24 June 2005, the Government enclosed a letter of 6 June 2005 signed by the provincial employment delegate for Ben Slimane and addressed to the Minister of Employment and Vocational Training; the letter contains a report on the collective labour dispute arising at the Valeo factory in Bouznika. The factory has a staff of 1,800, of whom 60 per cent are women.
10. Use of force and arrests during the events
11. of 19 April 2005
12. 1011. The provincial delegate explains that, on 19 April 2005, after midnight, the town governor requested him by telephone to come to the company’s site. There, he informed him that the 600 workers on the third shift, working from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m., had stopped work in protest at the decision, announced that evening, to suspend Mr. Essemlali Abdelghafour, the general secretary of the primary organization of the UMT at the factory. The strikers were chanting slogans demanding the reinstatement of the dismissed union official and refusing any dialogue until this demand had been met. Faced with this situation, and in order to guarantee freedom to work, the governor ordered the police to intervene to evacuate the premises. As a result, nine workers were arrested by the police and then released on 20 April 2005; nine workers have been charged with obstructing the freedom to work.
13. 1012. On 21 April, at 10 p.m., the night shift finally resumed work. In his report, the provincial delegate points out that this stoppage occasioned the loss of 7,488 work hours, i.e. 936 workdays.
14. Inquiry and conciliation between the parties organized
15. by the Ben Slimane employment delegation
16. 1013. In order to find a solution to the dispute, the Ben Slimane employment delegation organized meetings within the framework of a provincial commission of enquiry and conciliation. During a meeting on 25 April 2005, chaired by the governor of the province, in the presence of the provincial employment delegation, officials from Valeo, UMT officials and representatives of the trade and industry delegation, the parties expressed their points of view with regard to the collective labour dispute.
17. 1014. According to the provincial employment delegate, the governor confirmed that intervention by the authorities was essential to protect the freedom to work, which had been seriously jeopardized by the events of 19 April 2005, notably because the strikers categorically refused to enter into discussions on the premises where they were striking. The enterprises’ management emphasized the unacceptable behaviour of the chief secretary of the union, who had received several warnings during the period when he led a primary trade union organization affiliated to the General Union of Workers of Morocco (UGTM); his suspension would only have been a matter of time, and was not intended to infringe the right to freedom of association or target the UMT as a trade union.
18. 1015. The representatives of the UMT pointed out that the founding documents of the staff trade union of the factory had been submitted on 30 March 2005 to the Bouznika local labour authority, which had attempted to evade its obligation to provide a receipt or make a certified copy of the documents. Furthermore, they vehemently denounced the intervention of the authorities and the aggressive attitude of the employer, which had led to an infringement of trade union rights, the right to freedom of association and the legitimate right of workers to strike. Lastly, they demanded the reinstatement of the dismissed union official and the respect for freedom of association as sine qua non conditions for improving the labour relations climate within the factory.
19. 1016. For its part, the provincial employment delegation recounted the various stages of the dispute to the parties, and pointed out that it considered that the decision to dismiss the general secretary of the trade union committee was irregular in that it had not been taken in accordance with the procedure specified in section 62 (the right to defend oneself) and section 65 (time limit for bringing an action for dismissal before the courts) of the Labour Code. Furthermore, the provincial delegation drew the employer’s attention to its obligation to act in accordance with Article 1 of Convention No. 135, on protection for workers’ representatives against any act prejudicial to them.
20. Recognition of the primary organization
21. of the UMT at Valeo
22. 1017. With regard to the legitimacy of the primary organization in question, the provincial delegation recognizes that it did indeed receive, on 1 April 2005, a copy of the founding documents of the primary organization, submitted to the offices of the Bouznika local authority on 30 March 2005, in accordance with sections 414 and 415 of the Labour Code. Acting on the recommendations of the meeting held on 25 April 2005, the provincial commission held a second meeting on 3 May at the Ben Slimane provincial head office, chaired by the governor of the province. At the end of this meeting, a draft agreement on labour relations, mechanisms of dialogue and consultation between the primary organization of the UMT at Valeo and the enterprise management was concluded between the parties. This agreement, which came into effect on 5 May 2005, guarantees that workers shall be able to exercise the right to freedom of association, and deals in particular with the facilities provided to workers’ representatives to enable them to carry out their functions.
23. Dismissal of the general secretary of
24. the trade union at the Valeo factory
25. 1018. At the end of the meeting of 25 April 2005, the provincial commission of enquiry and conciliation assigned the provincial employment delegation the task of issuing a notice concerning the dismissal of the union official. On 2 May 2005, the delegation issued the requested notice, according to which the decision to dismiss the general secretary of the trade union at the factory on 19 April 2005 had not been made in accordance with the procedure applicable to the case. Consequently, on 3 May 2005, during the second meeting with the provincial commission, an agreement allowing his reinstatement as of 6 May 2005, was concluded between the parties. In addition, the official himself signed a document setting out his obligations as a worker and his rights as a union official.
26. Charges against the union officials arrested on
27. 19 April 2005 during the dispute at the Valeo factory
28. 1019. In a communication of 20 July 2005, the Government sent a letter of 2 July 2005 from the provincial employment delegate, addressed to the Minister of Employment, concerning the verdicts given on the nine workers charged with obstructing the freedom to work (Cases Nos. 876 and 877, Ben Slimane Court). This letter states that, on 16 June 2005, the court of first instance of Ben Slimane gave two verdicts in respect of the nine workers at Valeo charged by the office of the public prosecutor with obstructing the freedom to work.
29. 1020. The first verdict (Case No. 877) acquitted eight of the workers charged with obstructing the freedom to work. With regard to the second verdict (Case No. 876), given the same day, Mr. Hassan Elkafi was also acquitted of the charge of obstructing the freedom to work, but was given a one-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 200 dirhams for stealing adhesive tape belonging to his employer, which was found at his home and in his pockets. On 21 June, the King’s Prosecutor appealed against these two rulings; for its part, the defence lodged an appeal against the guilty verdict given in respect of Mr. Elkafi.

The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1021. The Committee notes that the allegations in this complaint concern the failure to recognize the primary organization of the UMT at the Valeo factory and acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular the dismissal of the general secretary of the UMT trade union at the factory, shortly after the union was established, without prior notice and in violation of existing procedure, which led to a protest strike by the local union. The complainant further alleges that the town governor, armed with a pistol, led the police intervention, which left several people injured and resulted in the arrest of nine members of the trade union committee at the Valeo factory. The Government, for its part, acknowledges the intervention by the police on 19 April 2005 and points out that it has taken measures aimed at drawing the parties closer, bringing them to the bargaining table and improving the labour relations climate within the factory.
2. Failure by the factory management to recognize
3. the primary organization of the UMT
4. 1022. With regard to recognition of the primary organization of the UMT at the factory, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant’s allegations, despite the founding documents having been submitted to the local labour authority and a communication from the national secretary of the UMT seeking to initiate dialogue, the union has encountered many difficulties in obtaining recognition from and engaging in discussions with the employer. While noting that the provincial employment delegation intervened to enable dialogue between the parties and to guarantee recognition of the UMT organization at the factory, in particular through the conclusion of a draft agreement on labour relations, mechanisms for dialogue and consultation between the UMT trade union committee at the factory and the enterprises’ management, the Committee recalls that employers should recognize for collective bargaining purposes the organization’s representative of the workers employed by them, since this recognition is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, paras. 821 and 822]. The Committee trusts that the primary organization of the UMT at the Valeo factory will be able to continue to carry out its trade union activities unhindered.
5. Dismissal of the general secretary of the UMT
6. union at the factory
7. 1023. With regard to the dismissal of the general secretary of the UMT at the factory, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the action in question was discriminatory, since it took place shortly after the election and establishment of the trade union committee at the factory. The Committee further notes that the Government has not denied the link between the election of the trade union organization at the factory and the dismissal of its general secretary, nor that this decision was related to the trade union activities of the official in question. While noting that Mr. Essemlali Abdelghafour was reinstated in his post as of 6 May 2005, particularly thanks to the intervention of the provincial delegation, the Committee recalls that no person shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 690], and that adequate protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [see Digest, op. cit., para. 724]. The Committee trusts that these principles will be respected in the future.
8. Intervention by the police on the evening
9. of 19 April 2005
10. 1024. With regard to the allegations of excessive use of force by the police, the Committee notes from the provincial delegates’ report that, the governor of the province considered this intervention by the authorities to be essential to the protection of the freedom to work, which he considered was seriously jeopardized by the events of 19 April 2005. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the strikers simply chanted slogans demanding the reinstatement of the dismissed union official and refusing to resume work or to initiate any dialogue until this demand had been met. The Committee recalls that, in cases of strike movements, the authorities should only resort to the use of force in situations where law and order is seriously threatened [see Digest, op. cit., para. 580], and that the intervention of the police should be in proportion to the threat to public order [see Digest, op. cit., para. 582]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that these principles are respected in the future.
11. 1025. The Committee observes that the Government has not responded to the complainant’s allegations that several people were injured during the events of 19 April 2005, some of whom had to be hospitalized. Recalling that governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations that might undermine public order [see Digest, op. cit., para. 582], the Committee requests the Government to carry out an independent inquiry into these incidents promptly and to keep it informed of the outcome.
12. The protest strike of 19 April 2005
13. 1026. As regards the legality of the strike held by the workers at the Valeo factory on the evening of 19 April 2005, the Committee recalls that it has always regarded the right to strike as constituting a fundamental right of workers and of their organizations, in so far as it is utilized as a means of defending the social and economic interests of their members. In this case, the work stoppage carried out by workers at the Valeo factory in protest at discriminatory measures against the principal secretary of the UMT union at the factory constituted a legitimate union action. The Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the complainant and the Government, both the police intervention and the arrests and proceedings that followed were based on section 288 of the Penal Code on “obstructing the freedom to work”. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 288 of the Penal Code, “any person who, by violence, assault, threats or fraudulent activity, instigates or prolongs, or attempts to instigate or prolong, a stoppage of work, with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in salaries or to obstruct the free exercise of labour or industry, shall be liable to a prison sentence of between one month and two years or a fine of between 120 and 5,000 dirhams, or both”. Noting that, in practice, this provision could be applied in such a way as to restrict freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that section 288 of the Penal Code is not used in the future in a manner incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
14. Arrest of nine members of the trade
15. union committee at the factory
16. 1027. With regard to the arrest of trade unionists during the events of 19 April 2005, the Committee stresses that the arrest, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 70]. Emphasizing that such measures entail serious risks of abuse and a grave danger to freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that in future the authorities do not use arrest and imprisonment in the case of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike.
17. 1028. The Committee notes that the trade unionists arrested were charged with “obstructing the freedom to work” and acquitted on 16 June 2005. It further notes that, on that occasion, Mr. Elkafi was convicted of simple theft and given a one-month suspended prison sentence and fined 200 dirhams. Noting that the King’s Prosecutor has appealed against these two verdicts, and that the defence has lodged an appeal in respect of the guilty verdict against Mr. Elkafi, the Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the appeal verdicts as soon as they are given.
18. 1029. The Committee notes that, according to the information sent, it seems that there has been a problem as regards labour relations within Valeo, but that the climate at the factory has now improved, mainly as a result of government intervention enabling a draft agreement to be concluded between the parties and the general secretary of the primary organization of the UMT at the factory to be reinstated. The Committee hopes that, in the future, officials and members of the primary organization in question will be able to carry out their legitimate trade union functions in full respect for the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 1030. In light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to promptly carry out an independent inquiry to determine whether, during the police intervention on 19 April 2005, there were any casualties, including any requiring hospitalization, and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that section 288 of the Penal Code, on the offence of “obstructing the freedom to work”, will not be used in the future in a manner incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the appeal verdicts given by the relevant courts in respect of the nine members of the trade union committee charged with “obstructing the freedom to work”, as well as the appeal verdict in respect of the verdict finding Mr. Elkafi guilty of simple theft.