Definitive Report - REPORT_NO239, June 1985

1. 110. The Committee already examined this case at its meeting in May 1984 and, on that occasion, submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. (See 234th Report, paras. 544 to 554, approved by the Governing Body at its 226th Session (May-June 1984).)
2. 111. Subsequently, the Government sent certain observations in a communication dated 1 November 1984. The Committee however, considered that this information was too limited and requested the Government once again at its meeting in November 1984 to provide detailed observations on the allegations contained in the complaint. (See 236th Report, para. 6, approved by the Governing Body at its 228th Session (November 1984).) The Government sent a further communication on 30 May 1985.
3. 112. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 113. At its May 1984 meeting, the Committee was obliged to examine the case without having received a reply from the Government since, in spite of an urgent appeal made by the Committee, the Government had still not supplied its observations.
2. 114. In its complaint of 13 May 1983, the National Federation of Railways (UMT) had stated that following the refusal of the General Management of the National Railways (ONCF) to open negotiations with it, the union had organised a strike from 3 to 21 May 1983 in order to put forward a list of claims. The trade union organisation protested against the authorities' reaction to this strike, which had involved the use of the military to break it up and the arrest of nine railwaymen in Taza on 5 May 1983 for having taken part in the strike. Those railwaymen arrested were: Benjilali Abdeslam, Layachi Fouad (staff delegate), Meftah Mohamed, Saber Yahia, Ridal Abdellah, Ben Melih Azzedine, Zfizef Mohamed, Chahid Mohamed and Khaldi Mohamed. Furthermore, the complainant organisation pointed out that it had issued instructions to the strikers to maintain order and discipline. As support to the statement, it enclosed a summons to strike which it had sent to all the railwaymen on 30 April 1983.
3. 115. In a supplementary communication of 30 May 1983, the complainant organisation alleged that requisition orders had been issued to the striking railwaymen at their homes by the authorities and it stated that the nine trade unionists mentioned above had been arrested and detained at the civilian prison from 4 to 19 May 1983, but that they had been judged by the Taza Court for having refused to comply with these orders. It mentioned that three of these railwaymen, Ridal Abdellah, Chahid Mohamed and Saber Yahia, had been suspended from their work by decision of the Director of Operations at the ONCF. It also mentioned that following the strike, other trade unionists had been arrested in Marrakesh by the police so that their cases might be prepared and brought before the court, on the grounds that they had taken part in the strike. The complainant organisation pointed out that the railway workers' claims dated from February 1982 and that, since that time, it had approached both the General Management of the ONCF and the competent ministerial authorities on numerous occasions to voice its claims; however, it had never received any response to these claims or to its request for a hearing. Consequently, a 24-hour strike had already been organised on 17 February at the Operations headquarters; as a result of the total lack of response from both the ONCF management and the Government, it had been decided to hold a 24-hour warning strike, which had then been extended, finally leading up to the strike from 3 to 21 May 1983.
4. 116. At its May-June 1984 Session, the Governing Body approved the following conclusions of the Committee:
   • (a) The Committee deeply regrets that, in spite of the time which has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint and the many requests made to the Government, the latter has not communicated its observations on this case.
   • (b) Concerning the measures taken to break up the railwaymen's general strike in May 1983, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the use of the military and requisitioning orders to oblige strikers to return to work are inadmissible actions, in so far as workers are defending their occupational interests, unless these actions aim at maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity. In this case, the Committee points out that rail transport is not considered as an essential service in the strict sense of the term.
   • (c) With respect to the repeated refusals of the National Railways (ONCF) to negotiate with the railwaymen on their list of claims, which prompted the latter to declare the strikes, the Committee would point out that under Article 4 of Convention No. 98 it is up to the member State having ratified this instrument to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers and workers. The Committee therefore draws the Government's attention to the necessity of allowing railwaymen to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment and wages.
   • (d) The Committee expresses its grave concern over the arrest of nine trade unionists for having taken part in the strike and their subsequent trial, for having failed to comply with orders to resume work. The Committee deeply deplores the fact that prison sentences are passed on striking trade unionists and remains extremely concerned that three of them were suspended from work. The Committee considers that this constitutes an act of discrimination in respect of employment against those involved in legitimate trade union activities, contrary to Article 1 of Convention No. 98 and an infringement of freedom of association; it therefore requests the Government to take steps to ensure that these three workers are reinstated in their jobs as soon as possible and to communicate any information in this respect.
   • (e) The Government is urged to supply its comments on the complainant organisation's allegations.

B. The Government's reply

1. 117. In its communication of 1 November 1984, the Government stated that after a series of meetings attended by representatives from the Ministry of Transport and the Moroccan Union of Labour, it was decided to grant a special monthly bonus of 89 dirhams to the railwaymen as from 1 May 1983. According to the Government, the case in question has therefore been finally settled. In a further communication dated 30 May 1985, the Government indicated that all the workers mentioned in the complaint had been reinstated.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 118. This case concerns a strike in the railways sector organised from 3 to 21 May 1983 with a view to obtaining satisfaction of occupational demands. The Committee notes with deep regret that, although the complaint was presented on 13 May 1983, the Government only sent an extremely brief communication on 1 November 1984 following several urgent appeals from the Committee and further information during its present meeting.
2. 119. In the present case, the Government, while acknowledging that a labour dispute took place in the railways sector in May 1983, limits itself to stating that after a series of meetings between representatives of the Ministry of Transport and the Moroccan Union of Labour it was decided to grant a bonus to the railwaymen as from 1 May 1983.
3. 120. In these circumstances, the Committee must recall the conclusions it reached previously, namely that the use of the military and requisitioning orders to break a strike over occupational claims, unless these actions aim at maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity, constitute a serious violation of freedom of association.
4. 121. The Committee considers that the arrest on 5 May 1983 of nine named railwaymen who took part in the strike and the prison sentences handed down against them by a court for having failed to comply with orders to resume work, as well as the dismissal of three of them, constitute serious discrimination in employment contrary to Convention No. 98 which has been ratified by Morocco.
5. 122. The Committee notes that the Government has not denied these allegations. It observes, however, that the Government now states that all the workers concerned have been reinstated in their jobs.