Interim Report - REPORT_NO208, June 1981

1. 392. The complaint is contained in a communication from the United Trade Unions of Casablanca dated 24 December 1980. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 29 April 1981.
2. 393. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainant

1. 394. The United Trade Unions of Casablanca alleges that the transnational corporation, American Chewing-Gum, has violated the trade union rights of its employees. The complainant organisation explains that on 3 September 1980, the American Chewing-Gum had illegally dismissed four of the officials of the United Trade Unions of Casablanca, including its Secretary-General. It also alleges that there existed no grounds for these dismissals, since the Union had not even presented a list of claims, and thus were arbitrary as well as illegal. As a consequence of these dismissals, the workers of the undertaking had called a solidarity strike, which was in its 15th week at the time of the complaint, and still continuing. The striking workers had opposed the management's attempts to replace the dismissed workers.
2. 395. The complainant further alleges that four of the striking workers had been arrested, namely Mr. Saassaa Salah, Mr. Gharid Mohamed, Mr. Khlikhel Mohamed, and Mr. Zouhir Mohamed. While Mr. Saassaa had received a suspended sentence of two months' imprisonment, Messrs. Gharid and Khlikhel obtained suspended sentences of four months' imprisonment, and Mr. Zouhir's trial was scheduled for 2 January 1981. The United Trade Unions of Casablanca requests that the ILO should intervene in order to ensure that the Government of Morocco respects the principles contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, that it annuls the sentences and judicial proceedings against the strikers in question, and that those who were unjustly dismissed are reinstated.

B. Reply of the Government

1. 396. The Government states in its communication that the workers in question were dismissed for reasons of lack of discipline and for not respecting the right of others to work. It adds that out of a total number of 216 workers, 114 workers participated in the strike called on 17 September 1980. As soon as the conflict erupted, officials of the labour inspectorate had taken the necessary steps to reconcile the conflicting parties, and had reached the following agreement: two of the dismissed workers will be transferred to the Moroccan Labour Union for a period of 6-12 months during which time they will be receiving their salaries. Following this measure they will either be reinstated in their previous positions or compensated, depending on the forthcoming decision of the Arbitration Committee. The other two workers will be dismissed with compensation of 45,000 DH. Lastly, an advance on salaries will be granted to all workers who went on strike.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 397. With regard to the four dismissed trade unionists mentioned by the complainant, the Committee takes note of the Government's statement that two of the four dismissed workers will be transferred to the Moroccan Labour Union and will continue to receive their salaries, but that the two others will not be reinstated.
2. 398. The Committee notes that a contradiction exists between the complainant's allegations and the Government's reply as regards the cause of the dismissals. It does not consider it has sufficient information at its disposal to enable it to decide if any violations of trade union rights took place.
3. 399. However, the Committee would wish, in general, to draw the attention of the Government to the principle concerning protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, according to which workers' representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any acts prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers' representatives, on union membership, or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed agreements.
4. 400. Moreover, the Committee notes that under sections 8 and 10 of the Recommendations of 1958 of the Supreme Council on Collective Agreements the dismissal of a worker cannot take place without prior consultation with the trade union office of the undertaking.
5. 401. In this regard, the Committee has considered that the existence of basic provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not sufficient if these provisions are not accompanied by effective procedures ensuring their application in practice. Thus, for example, it may often be difficult, if not possible, for a worker to furnish proof of an act of anti-union discrimination of which he has been the victim. Hence the importance of Article 3 of Convention No. 98 which provides that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary to ensure respect for the right to organise.
6. 402. As regards the four allegedly detained trade unionists, the Committee notes that the Government's observations do not contain any mention of them whatsoever. In this respect the Committee would request the Government to supply data concerning these allegations, and to provide the texts of the judgements as well as information on the present situation of these people.