Interim Report - REPORT_NO233, March 1984

1. 318. The Committee has examined this case on two previous occasions, the most recent being at its November 1982 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body. [218th Report, paras. 506 to 555, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st Session (November 1982).] Since then, the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) sent additional information on 2 November 1982, 30 April and 3 and 16 November 1983.
2. 319. At its meetings in February and May 1983, the Committee requested the Government to consider accepting that a direct contacts mission be carried out to Morocco by a representative of the Director-General; and in June 1983, during the 69th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Chairman of the Committee, in accordance with the procedure, met with the Government delegates to the Conference to discuss this issue.
3. 320. The Government sent additional observations on this case in communications dated 16 May and 27 October 1983 and, on 4 November 1983, transmitted its acceptance, in principle, of a direct contacts mission. [This latter information was noted by the Committee in paragraph 13 of its 230th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983).] The Government supplied further information on 28 November 1983.
4. 321. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 322. The original complaints related to the death and injuries suffered by several hundred persons during demonstrations surrounding the 24-hour general strike called by the CDT on 20 June 1981; the arrest of trade unionists - in particular of four national trade union leaders who had been in custody without trial for over a year at the time of the last examination of the case; the closure of the CDT premises; and dismissals in various sectors after the strike. New allegations were brought concerning the prohibition of the CDT's May Day 1982 celebrations and the sentencing of a CDT leader to one year's imprisonment for distributing a press release on the trade union situation. The Government's replies on the substance of the case dealt with the dismissals, the closure of trade union premises and the imprisonment of a CDT leader for violating the dissemination of information laws.
2. 323. At its November 1982 meeting, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to approve the following interim conclusions:
   • (a) In view of the time which has elapsed since the first proposal of direct contacts addressed to the Government (August 1981), the Committee deeply deplores the failure of the Government to agree to an on-the-spot mission by a representative of the Director-General to examine the question at issue. The Committee is convinced that such a mission could contribute to a better knowledge of the trade union situation and to a useful examination of possible solutions to the problems at issue. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Director-General to approach the government authorities once again in order that such a mission may take place in the near future.
   • (b) As regards the allegations concerning the death of numerous persons during demonstrations, the Committee deplores that the Government has not supplied the additional observations l which had been requested on this aspect of the case, it would again urge the Government to state whether a judicial inquiry has been held on the circumstances of these deaths, and if so, to inform it of the outcome of this inquiry.
   • (c) As regards the arrest of the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants and, in particular, the four national leaders of the CDT who have been in custody awaiting trial for over a year for having called for a strike, and who, according to the complaints, face sentences of 5 to 20 years' imprisonment, the Committee again requests the Government to supply detailed information on their present situation and on the situation of all the detainees mentioned in the Annex to the 214th Report of the Committee.
   • (d) As regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of trade unionists following the strike of June 1981, the Committee invites the Government to re-examine the situation of workers dismissed for striking with a view to restoring a better climate of industrial relations.
   • (e) As regards the alleged closure of trade union premises of the CDT, the Committee, noting the assurances given by the Government that the authorities have not closed trade union premises, expresses the firm hope that the CDT will now be able to continue to carry out its activities without hindrance throughout the country.
   • (f) As regards the sentence of one year's imprisonment imposed on the national leader of the CDT, Mr. Bouzabaa, for distributing a press release during a meeting organised without previous authorisation, thereby, according to the Government, infringing the "Law on Public Freedoms", the Committee insists on the importance of the right to express opinions through the press as an essential means of exercising trade union rights. Accordingly, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will adopt an attitude of clemency with regard to this trade union leader; it requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.
   • (g) Finally, the Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the allegation, to which it has not replied, concerning the prohibition imposed on the CDT to celebrate May Day 1982.

B. Further information transmitted by the complainants

1. 324. In a communication dated 2 November 1982, the CDT alleges that the Government's campaign of repression continues against it: its four leaders remain detained without trial, those CDT members and leaders who have served their sentences related to the June 1981 strike have not been reinstated in their jobs and four trade union headquarters (at Meknès, Nador, Benguerir and Kelaa-Sraghna) remain closed by the authorities.
2. 325. On 30 April 1983, the CDT informed the ILO that the authorities had arbitrarily prohibited its 1983 May Day celebrations whereas it was allowing other workers' organisations to celebrate May Day.
3. 326. The CDT, in its communication dated 3 November 1983, states that on 5 May 1983 all the detained CDT executive members were released by virtue of a Royal Amnesty, except its Secretary-General who remains detained without trial. In addition, it states that two trade union premises remained closed under the 1981 orders (Bengrir and Kalaat-Sraghna) and that it was refused permission to attend the Sixth ILO African Regional Conference held in Tunis in October 1983. Lastly, the complainant points out that in 1983 trade union elections were held in all sectors, the results of which were favourable to the CDT, but the Government and the employers still refused any dialogue with that union despite several approaches to the authorities to this end.
4. 327. On 16 November 1983, the CDT informed the ILO that although the Government had invited it to participate in an ILO safety and health seminar to be held in Rabat from 16 to 29 November, the employers of the CDT representatives chosen refused to allow them to take part in the seminar.

C. The Government's replies

1. 328. On 16 May 1983, the Government forwarded certain explanations concerning the prohibition of 1 May 1982 celebrations, namely that the splits between extremist and moderate CDT leaders had led to disorder in the organisation's ranks which could have led to public disturbances if May Day marches had been permitted.
2. 329. In its further communication of 27 October 1983, the Government explains that the decision of the local authorities to prohibit the CDT from organising May Day marches in 1983 was not discriminatory since the Moroccan laws concerning trade union activities apply to all Moroccan trade unions without distinction whatsoever. It claims that the decision was taken with a view to maintaining public order, since the splits referred to above could have led to public disturbances. According to the Government, only May Day marches were prohibited, which left the CDT free to hold other celebrations in its headquarters or in the Casablanca Sports Stadium; it was the CDT itself which decided to cancel all activities planned for this occasion.
3. 330. On 28 November 1983, the Government informed the ILO that the Secretary-General of the CDT, as well as all remaining CDT members referred to in this case, were released by virtue of a Royal pardon in November 1983. This decision was taken, states the Government, with a view to reinforcing social peace and to allowing all Moroccan citizens to take part in the legislative elections which will probably take place in the country in early 1984. The Government considers that, since the proposed visit of the representative of the Director-General to the country would coincide with the elections, and in view of the new political situation in the country, it would be appropriate if the Committee were to reconsider its position in this case.

D. The Committee's conclusions

• (a) The outstanding allegations
  331. 331 The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its most recent communication that all CDT leaders have now been released in the interests of social peace and so as to allow them to participate in the legislative elections envisaged for early 1984. The Committee requests the Government to confirm whether all the trade unionists who have been released have been able to resume their trade union activities.
  332. 332 At its last examination of the case the Committee deplored the fact that the Government had not supplied the additional observations requested from it concerning the alleged death of numerous persons during demonstrations on the occasion of the general 24-hour strike on 20 June 1981. The Committee urged the Government to state whether a judicial inquiry had been held into the circumstances of these deaths and, if so, to inform it of the outcome of the inquiry. In the present examination of this aspect of the case, the Committee must once again note with profound regret that the Government has supplied no further information on this grave allegation. It would draw the Government's special attention to the well established principle that a prompt and independent legal investigation should always be carried out into alleged cases of deaths and assault with a view to elucidating the facts in full, to identifying the persons responsible and to taking appropriate legal proceedings against them. [See, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1100 (India), para. 685 and 222nd Report, Case No. 1155 (Colombia), para. 273.] The Committee would, accordingly, repeat its request to the Government concerning a judicial inquiry into this matter.
  333. 333 As regards the prohibition imposed on the CDT to celebrate May Day in 1982 and 1983, the Committee notes the Government's detailed replies to the effect that the prohibition related only to marches - not to activities organised on CDT premises or in the Casablanca Sports Stadium - and that the prohibition was justified by the risk of public disturbances by disorderly factions of the CDT. The Committee would recall in this connection that the right to organise public meetings and processions, particularly on May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. [202nd Report, Case No. 823 (Chile), para. 334, and 204th Report, Case No. 962 (Turkey), para. 253.] However, it would also point out that the organisations which enjoy this right must observe the general provisions relating to public meetings, which are applicable to all citizens [See, for example, 204th Report, Case No. 941 (Guyana), para. 281.] and that the prohibition of marches or demonstrations on the public highway in the busiest parts of a city, when it was feared that disturbances might occur, has been held in the past not to constitute an infringement of trade union rights. [127th Report, Case No. 660 (Mauritius), para. 291.]
  334. 334 As regards the allegations that two trade union headquarters (at Bengrir and Kalaat-Sraghna) remain closed under the 1981 orders, the Committee would recall the general principle that the right to protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures for the reopening of these premises and to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
  335. 335 As regards the trade unionists who participated in the 1981 strike, and who are still refused reinstatement in their jobs, the Committee would generally recall that where trade unionists and trade union leaders are dismissed for striking there is reason to conclude that they have been penalised for their legitimate exercise of trade union activities and are subject to anti-union discrimination contrary to the principles of freedom of association. [See, for example, 214th Report, Cases Nos. 988 and 1003 (Sri Lanka), para. 507.] The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures that may be taken towards their reinstatement.
• (b) New allegations
  336. 336 In its two communications of November 1983, the CDT alleges that it has been refused permission to attend two ILO-organised events, namely the Sixth African Regional Conference held in Tunis in October 1983 and a safety and health seminar held in Rabat in November 1983. The CDT claims that, although invited by the Government to participate in the seminar, the union members chosen could not attend because of employer interference. The Committee notes that the Government makes no comment on these allegations. In view of the fact that the Moroccan workers were represented in the official delegation to the Regional Conference without any complaint being made under the procedure applicable as to the credentials of the Workers' delegates involved, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination. Moreover, the Committee has been informed that a representative of the CDT did attend the safety and health seminar (the official list of participants being available in the ILO). The Committee accordingly considers that this allegation also does not call for further examination.