Informe provisional - Informe núm. 105, 1968

Caso núm. 524 (Marruecos) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 02-JUN-67 - Cerrado

1. 224. This case arises out of two complaints, one from the World Federation of Trade Unions dated 2 June 1967 and the other from the National Federation of Underground Workers, affiliated to the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.), dated 16 June 1967. These communications were brought to the attention of the Government by two letters dated respectively 21 and 26 June 1967. The Government forwarded its observations on the matters raised by the complaining organisations in a communication dated 10 February 1968.
2. 225. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Arrests and Dismissals Ordered - by the Authorities Following Strikes
  226. 226 The complainants allege that, following various strikes called during the months of April and May 1967, the Government ordered the arrest of workers and union leaders and arranged for mass dismissals.
  227. 227 The complainants allege, for instance, that following a 48-hour strike called for 19 May 1967 by the staff of the regional office of the agricultural development agency for the Doukkala area, a number of union leaders were arrested.
  228. 228 In answer to this allegation the Government states in its observations that an inquiry carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture has established that no union leaders were arrested following the 48-hour strike mentioned above.
  229. 229 The Committee notes that the Government categorically denies the complainants' allegations, which are couched in rather vague terms and, unlike some of the other allegations in this case, give no details such as, for instance, the names of the persons said to have been arrested.
  230. 230 In these circumstances, having taken note of the Government's statement, and considering that the allegations made by the complainants in this respect are too imprecise, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
  231. 231 The complainants allege that at Aouli, following a strike called for 25 May 1967 in the zinc and lead mines, 600 soldiers occupied the premises and the police arrested 216 miners, 20 of whom were badly wounded; the arrested miners are said to have been brought to trial all together on a charge of threatening the security of the State, and 44 of them were sentenced " to more than a century of imprisonment ".
  232. 232 In regard to the events which marked the strike in the mines at Aouli, the Government states that the inquiry carried out by the Ministry for Internal. Affairs has revealed that on 25 May 1967, 217 workers were arrested for interfering with freedom to work and assault of police officers. Those responsible for these felonious acts, continues the Government, were arraigned before the courts on 26 May 1967; 36 of them were found guilty and sentenced by the competent court to terms of imprisonment not exceeding one month, and all had been released by 20 June 1967.
  233. 233 It would appear from the explanations furnished by the Government that the arrests on the occasion of the strike at the Aouli mines arose out of the fact that the strike had degenerated into a brawl and that acts of violence, mainly against police officers, had been committed. It would seem, moreover, that the persons taken into custody were brought before the competent courts and tried in a proper manner for felonious acts such as interference with freedom to work and assault of police officers, and not for having taken part in a strike as such.
  234. 234 In these circumstances, bearing in mind that all those concerned have been released by now, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
  235. 235 The complainants allege that at Safi, following a warning strike in which all the employees took part on 25 April 1967 at the state-run undertaking " Maroc-Chimie " to secure respect for the agreements previously concluded with the management, the Government closed down the undertaking and dismissed large numbers of workers, including all the members of the works council; the National Federation of Underground Workers appends to its complaint a list of the workers said to have been thus dismissed.
  236. 236 In its observations the Government does not refer to the allegations mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
  237. 237 The Committee consequently recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to forward its observations on these particular allegations.
• Allegations relating to Attacks on Workers by Agents Provocateurs Protected by the Police
  238. 238 The complainants allege that for some time agents provocateurs, protected by the police, have committed acts of aggression against workers who in the past were actively engaged in trade union work within undertakings.
  239. 239 More specifically, the complainants allege that on 13 May 1967, just after leaving their work, Messrs. Kouch Mohamed, Abdeslam ben Messaoud and Bichra Mohamed, employees of the R.A.C.P. (Port of Casablanca), were badly wounded by agents provocateurs; after being given first aid these workers went to the port police station " to report the criminal act committed by these agents ", and there they were arrested and imprisoned, not to be released until three days later. Two days later, the complainants allege, on 15 May 1967, another worker in the Port of Casablanca, Mr. Smail Laasouli, was attacked and wounded so severely that he had to go into hospital.
  240. 240 In answer to the above allegations the Government supplies the following information as furnished by the Ministry for Internal Affairs: on 13 May 1967 an incident occurred at the recruiting office for the Port of Casablanca between dockers supporting the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.) and others supporting the General Confederation of Moroccan Workers (U.G.T.M.); this dispute, which resulted in the wounding of five dockers, three on the U.M.T side and two on the U.G.T.M side, arose out of the promotion to the rank of " corporal " of a U.M.T docker, to which the U.G.T.M leaders objected. The Government states that the antagonists, arrested by the police, were charged in the competent court with assault and causing bodily harm to one another.
  241. 241 As regards the case of Mr. Smail Laasouli, the Government states that during a strike called for 15 May 1967 by the U.M.T as a sign of protest against the abovementioned arrests Mr. Laasouli was wounded by members of the U.G.T.M. The Government adds that those responsible for this fresh attack have been brought before the courts in their turn.
  242. 242 It emerges from the explanations furnished by the Government that the events described in the preceding paragraphs arose out of brawls between workers belonging to rival trade union factions and had nothing to do with the exercise of trade union rights as such.
  243. 243 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Other Allegations
  244. 244 The complainants allege that L'Avant-Garde, the organ of the U.M.T, has been banned. This aspect of the case, however, is being dealt with in connection with another case concerning Morocco which the Committee is being called upon to examine at this session.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 245. As regards the case as a whole the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, for the reasons stated in paragraph 243 above, that the allegations relating to attacks on workers do not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the allegations relating to arrests and dismissals following strikes, while bearing in mind that allegations concerning the right to strike are not outside the Committee's competence in so far as they involve the exercise of trade union rights:
   • (i) to decide, for the reasons stated respectively in paragraphs 229 and 230 and 233 and 234 above, that the allegations relating to the arrest of trade union leaders in the Doukkala area, and to the arrest of workers in the mines at Aouli, do not call for further examination;
   • (ii) to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations in respect of the allegations relating to dismissals said to have taken place at Safi, and to which reference is made in paragraph 235 above;
   • (c) to take note of this interim report, on the understanding that the Committee will report again as soon as it is in possession of the additional information the nature of which is specified in clause (b) (ii) above.