Definitive Report - REPORT_NO236, November 1984

1. 205. The United Trade Unions of Casablanca, an organisation affiliated to the Moroccan Union of Labour, submitted a complaint of anti-union discrimination in Morocco in a communication dated 13 December 1983. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 28 May 1984.
2. 206. 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. Allegations of the complainant organisation

1. 207. In its communication of 13 December 1983, the complainant organisation claimed that several measures of anti-union discrimination had been taken by employers in the town of Mohammedia, an outer harbour situated 30 kilometers from Casablanca. The failure to respect trade union rights and to adhere to labour legislation had allegedly resulted in labour disputes in several undertakings. For example, two trade union delegates, Mr. Taïebi Rekkaz and Ammi Aït, had been dismissed from the Linge-service undertaking; furthermore, a staff delegate, Mr. Mohamed Hamraoui, had been laid off at the Samir Hotel. The management of the SOMEPI undertaking had allegedly recruited new workers to break a strike and dismissed the strikers and the multinational enterprise Firestone had refused authorisation to organise elections of staff delegates. Moreover, in the COSEB and STRAFOR-MAROC firms, the management did not respect the labour legislation. the first of these firms had recruited workers who neither had a labour card nor belonged to the social security system, at wages lower than the minimum guaranteed wage; the second had recruited temporary workers, whilst the permanent employees themselves do not work a full 48-hour week, which resulted in the reduction of the wages - already low - of the permanent employees. In concluding, the complainant organisation criticises the slackness of the Moroccan police and the employment delegate in the town.

B. The Government's reply

1. 208. The Government, in its communication of 28 May 1984, replies to the allegation concerning the dispute at the Fadola Linge-service firm. It states that after reorganisation measures had been taken in the undertaking in May 1983, an agreement had been signed between the two parties in the presence of the labour inspectorate; this agreement provided for the reinstatement of the workers without any preconditions and the payment of compensation to the two trade union delegates; it also stipulated that the employer should respect the workers' established rights and arranged for the head of production to be brought before the courts for trial.
2. 209. With respect to the dispute at the Samir Hotel caused by the laying off of an employee for three days for having refused to carry out his superior's orders, this refusal had prompted the management to turn to the staff delegate for assistance in replacing the laid-off worker. As this staff delegate refused to replace his colleague, he himself was laid off for eight days. According to the Government, this matter merely concerns the taking of a disciplinary measure against two workers who deliberately refused to carry out their superiors' orders.
3. 210. As far as the dispute at the SOMEPI firm is concerned, the Government explains that a strike had been declared on 21 April 1982 to protest against the transfer of two workers, which had been decided upon for reorganisation reasons. The employer had reacted by the collective dismissal of all the workers. However, the labour inspectorate intervened and the employer reversed his decision, accepting to reinstate all the workers except for the two persons who had been transferred. According to the Government, negotiations were to take place on the future of these two persons but the workers had maintained their refusal to return to work; the agreement reached in the presence of the labour inspectorate was therefore the following. the collective dismissal of the 11 workers in the undertaking and the obligation for the employer to pay a lump-sum payment to each dismissed worker. The agreement in question is annexed to the Government's reply.
4. 211. With respect to the Firestone firm in which, according to the complainant organisation, the management had refused authorisation to organise elections of staff delegates, the Government confirms that this undertaking had failed to organise elections in view of the absence of candidates from amongst the workers. Yet the workers in question had been informed of the deadline for presenting a list of candidates and of the date upon which the elections were to be held. The copy of the report drawn up by the management of the undertaking on this issue stipulates that "the workers did not come to an agreement between themselves on the elections of their delegates" and, as a result, the registration list remained unfilled.
5. 212. The Government also provides information on the questions concerning some breaches of labour legislation which had allegedly occurred at the canning factory COSEB and at the STRAFOR-MAROC undertaking. The Government explains that at the canning factory, the manpower employed is seasonal and mostly female. The women workers are entitled to benefits provided for by the legislation in the field of wages, paid holidays, social security and working hours. The fact that these workers do not belong to the Moroccan pension fund is not an infringement of labour legislation in so far as membership of the pension fund is not compulsory by law. With respect to the STRAFOR-MAROC undertaking, working hours had indeed been reduced by three hours per week as a result of a cut in operations. However, since 1 February 1984, the boost in the undertaking's activities had enabled it to go back on its decision.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 213. The present case concerns anti-union discriminatory measures allegedly taken against workers and inadequate implementation of the labour legislation.
2. 214. The Committee notes with regret that workers had indeed been dismissed in some undertakings following labour disputes. It also notes that trade union elections did not take place in an undertaking because of a lack of candidates.
3. 215. The Committee recalls generally the importance which it attaches to the right to strike which is one of the essential means which workers and workers' organisations must have at their disposal in order to promote and defend their occupational interests. Furthermore, the Committee feels bound to point out, as it has done in previous cases concerning Morocco [see 214th Report, Case Nos. 992 and 1018, para. 91 and Case No. 1017, para. 104] that the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace strikers entails the risk of impeding the right to strike which may, in turn, affect the free exercise of trade union rights.
4. 216. With respect to the various matters raised in the present case, the Committee takes note of the Government's explanations on the way in which the authorities contributed towards settling several labour disputes that had broken out in various undertakings in the town of Mohammedia. It especially notes that, thanks to the intervention of the labour inspectorate, severance pay was paid to two trade union delegates in one undertaking and to 11 workers dismissed for strike action in another undertaking. It also notes that two workers were laid off for having refused to carry out their tasks and not for trade union reasons and that, according to the Government, labour legislation is applied in the undertakings against which the complainant has brought its case. The Committee points out in this regard that it is only competent to deal with allegations concerning violations of freedom of association.
5. 217. Consequently, the Committee observes that the authorities contributed towards finding a solution acceptable to both parties involved in the disputes at the Linge-service firm and at the SOMEPI firm and considers that these aspects of the case does not call for further examination.
6. 218. With respect to the holding of elections of staff representatives in the multinational enterprise Firestone, the Committee recalls that under Dahir No. 1 61-116 of 29 October 1962 (29 joumada I 1382), staff representation in undertakings is entrusted to the staff delegates who have the task of submitting any individual and collective claims to the head of the undertaking and, in a case of disagreement, to bring the matter before the labour inspectorate. Whilst noting that, according to the report drawn up for the authorities by the Moroccan tyre firm Firestone, the elections had not been held because of a failure on the workers' part to come to an agreement on the election of their delegates, the Committee considers that it must nevertheless insist on the importance it attaches to the principle that workers and workers' organisations should be able to elect their representatives within the undertakings, a prerequisite for the normal functioning of trade union activities within the undertaking and for the protection of workers.
7. 219. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that elections of staff representatives will take place in the very near future, thus guaranteeing the application of principles contained in the Workers' Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143) and the application of the relevant national legislation.