Definitive Report - REPORT_NO95, 1967

1. 34. The Committee examined this case at its 44th Session (November 1966) and on that occasion submitted an interim report contained in paragraphs 299 to 327 of the 93rd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 167th Session (November 1966).
2. 35. The complaint contains four series of allegations, concerning respectively trade union elections at the National Electricity Board at Oujda, the arrest and sentencing of Mr. Drissi Laghnimi, General Secretary of the Moroccan General Federation of Labour (U.G.T.M.) at Sidi Slimane, dismissal of wage-earning and salaried employees by the Moroccan Automobile Manufacturing Company of Casablanca (SOMACA), and staff elections among employees of the port of Casablanca.
3. 36. Concerning the first two series of allegations the Committee has already presented its final recommendations to the Governing Body, which has approved them. The following paragraphs are therefore devoted to the two series of allegations still pending.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Dismissal of Wage-Earning and Salaried Employees of the Moroccan Automobile Manufacturing Company of Casablanca
  37. 37 When examining this aspect of the case, which is analysed in detail in paragraphs 317 to 320 of its 93rd Report, at its session held in November 1966, the Committee noted that the complainant organisation referred to the dismissal, described by it as arbitrary, of 30 wage earners by SOMACA; a strike in protest against this measure in which the entire staff of the undertaking took part; the mass dismissal, consequent upon the strike, of all the wage-earning and salaried employees of SOMACA; the subsequent recruitment of some of those workers on less favourable terms than they had previously enjoyed; and, finally, the non-reinstatement of 260 workers who, according to the complainants, were all members of U.G.T.M and included all the elected works representatives.
  38. 38 In view of these concrete allegations made by the complainants, the Committee, noting in its observations that the Government referred only to the dismissal for economic reasons of " a certain number of redundant workers " who, it states, were subsequently re-engaged, considered that this reply did not contain sufficiently detailed information to enable it to assess the position. Consequently, it recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to supply more detailed observations on this aspect of the case.
  39. 39 This recommendation of the Committee having been approved by the Governing. Body at its 167th Session, the request was communicated to the Government by a letter dated 22 November 1966 which the Government answered by a communication dated 24 January 1967.
  40. 40 In that communication the Government stated that, in order to comply with the wishes of the Governing Body, it had undertaken a more thorough investigation of this aspect of the case.
  41. 41 The Government stated that the investigation had shown that on 1 April 1966 the total personnel of SOMACA numbered 508, comprising 120 salaried employees and 388 wage earners, the latter category being employed in the following departments: production, general services and the auxiliary workshop set up specially by the company to absorb part of its surplus manpower. On 5 April 1966, according to the Government, the management of SOMACA decided to reduce the hours of work of 30 wage earners in that workshop, who went on strike to protest against that decision. Furthermore, on 6 April 1966, the management of SOMACA decided to dismiss, on grounds of insufficient output, disobedience and abandonment of his post a worker who was not a trade union representative or a personnel delegate.
  42. 42 The Government goes on to state that, out of solidarity and in protest against the two measures described above, 264 out of the 507 employees repeatedly abandoned their posts on 6 and 7 April 1966 and took part in demonstrations inside the plant.
  43. 43 In view of the extent of these demonstrations, says the Government, the management insisted on holding a meeting with the personnel delegates, in the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. As no positive result was achieved by this discussion and as the demonstrations continued in a totally unlawful manner, the management found itself obliged to impose penalties in accordance with the labour legislation in force. That was how 264 wage-earning and salaried employees came to be dismissed.
  44. 44 The Government states that the 264 workers penalised were dismissed only by reason of their misdemeanours and not by reason of their belonging to one trade union or another. The Government adds that two-thirds of the dismissed workers were recently re-engaged and that all of them, without exception, have retained the advantages they enjoyed before their dismissal, particularly as regards wages and length of service.
  45. 45 First of all, the detailed explanations supplied by the Government seem to show on the one hand that the reduction of hours of work of 30 workers employed on auxiliary work was due to economic factors connected with the operation of the undertaking and not in any way connected with the exercise of trade union rights and, on the other hand, that no such connection exists in the case of the dismissal on grounds of disobedience and abandonment of his post of a worker who, according to the Government, was not a personnel delegate or a trade union representative.
  46. 46 The Government's observations also show that, in order to show solidarity with the persons affected by the above measures, a number of workers triggered a protest strike which seems to have degenerated, inside the undertaking itself, into demonstrations " of a totally illegal nature " and which led the management to take disciplinary action, in application of the labour legislation in force, against the workers involved, independently of their trade union status.
  47. 47 In view of the explanations supplied by the Government, the Committee, considering that the complainants have failed to establish that there was any infringement of freedom of association in this instance, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Elections among Employees of the Port of Casablanca
  48. 48 The allegations in question have been analysed in detail in paragraphs 303 to 310 of the 93rd Report of the Committee.
  49. 49 Briefly, the complainants allege that the staff elections at the Port of Casablanca held in October 1965 were rigged and that this was recognised by the Regional Court of Casablanca, which declared them null and void by a ruling given on 23 March 1966. The complainants add that at the time the complaint was lodged with the I.L.O, nearly four months later, the ruling had still not been applied.
  50. 50 Considering that the Government's reply on this point was not sufficiently precise, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to state whether or not it was true that, as the complainants alleged, a court ruling annulling the elections had been made and, if so, what were its terms and what action had been taken upon it.
  51. 51 This recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body, the request for additional information was made to the Government in a letter dated 22 November 1966, which the Government answered by a communication dated 17 January 1967.
  52. 52 In that communication the Government states that, by a ruling handed down on 10 March 1966, copy of which was attached, the Court of the Sadad of Casablanca annulled the elections held on 27 and 28 October 1965 at the Port of Casablanca and ordered new elections to be organised under the supervision of the Moroccan authorities. The ruling became executory on 15 November 1966 after the authorities had ascertained that no opposition or appeal had been made against it.
  53. 53 Noting that the complainants have obtained satisfaction in so far as the elections which they considered irregular were annulled by a court decision and the organisation of new elections ordered, the Committee considers that there would be no purpose in further examining this aspect of the case.