Definitive Report - REPORT_NO135, March 1973

1. 69. The complaint made by the General Workers' Union of Morocco (UGTM) is contained in a telegram dated 16 July 1972, addressed direct to the ILO. The complaint was transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations thereon in a communication dated 17 November 1972.
2. 70. 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

1. 71. The complainants allege that, during a strike called by the Transport Federation of the UGTM, the authorities violated the right to strike by employing drivers from outside, and that trade union leaders were subjected to repressive police measures and were arrested. No other details are given in the complaint and the UGTM has not submitted any further information in support of its complaint although it was given an opportunity of doing so according to the usual practice.
2. 72. In its observations, the Government states that although the telegram from the UGTM gives no information as to the date or place of the incidents reported, it appears from the inquiry that was held that the alleged incidents were connected with a warning 24-hour strike held on 16 July 1972 following the presentation of a set of claims by members of the Transport Company of Morocco (CTM), which is affiliated to the UGTM. The Government states that the strikers numbered 132 out of the 1,263 persons employed by the undertaking.
3. 73. It will be noted, the Government goes on to say, that a second (48-hour) strike confined to the north of the country, was called to start at 9 p.m. on 19 July but that this was finally can celled since those concerned preferred to begin direct negotiations with the management of the CTM.
4. 74. The Government then points out that the telegram from the UGTM contains two quite different allegations: the first concerning the recruitment by the employers, during the strike, of outside drivers, the second concerning the arrest of trade union leaders.
5. 75. As regards the first allegation, the Government states that an inquiry carried out by the labour inspection services revealed that no one from outside the firm was taken on during the strike of 16 July 1972. The Government specifies that this inquiry included a check of the employers' payroll. It was also found, states the Government, that the strike, in view of the insignificant proportion of strikers compared to the total number of the staff, had not disorganised the transport services operated by the CTM, which had sufficient staff to carry on operations as usual.
6. 76. As regards the allegations concerning the arrest of trade union leaders, the Government gives the following explanation, which it received from the Ministry of Justice. The strike call of 16 July 1972 was not obeyed throughout the whole CTM network; there were some incidents at Tetouan, but these were not directly connected with the dispute. An inquiry carried out by the local police there revealed that a group of strikers in two small cars intercepted four buses on the Tetouan-Al Hoceima, Tetouan-Tangier, Tetouan-Chaouen and Tetouan-Casablanca routes.
7. 77. The Government states that the driver of the Tetouan-Al Hoceima bus lodged a complaint, alleging blows, injury and theft, stating that he had been beaten and robbed of his driving licence, personal papers and a sum of 320 dirhams. In support of his complaint he produced a medical certificate stating that he was unfit to work for thirteen days. The Government states that the driver of the Tetouan-Tangier bus was robbed of his driving licence but did not suffer any violence.
8. 78. The Government goes on to say that the inquiry resulted in the arrest of six employees or ex-employees of the CTM and of a taxi driver whom these persons had used to intercept the buses.
9. 79. The Government states that these persons were arrested and, under the procedure applicable in cases where offenders are caught in the act, brought before the Sadad Court of Tetouan on charges of impeding freedom to work, assault and battery, theft of and damage to the property of a third person and aiding and abetting.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 80. From the explanations supplied by the Government, it appears that legal action was taken against the persons in question for punishable offences going beyond the framework of normal trade union activity even though they may have been connected with the strike that was taking place when they were committed.