Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO287, June 1993

1. 159. In communications dated 15 April and 17 June 1992 respectively, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) submitted complaints of violation of trade union rights in Morocco. The ICFTU submitted new allegations on 4 May and 25 June 1992 and the UMT on 19 June 1992.
2. 160. The Government sent its observations on this case in a communication dated 9 February 1993.
3. 161. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87); however, it has ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant organization's allegations

1. 162. According to the ICFTU's complaint of 15 April 1992, members of the UMT have been the victims of an anti-union discrimination campaign. The ICFTU explains that workers have been persecuted for their activities linked to purely trade union activities in the Nemtav, Cabelec and Youssoufia companies of the Office chérifien des phosphates (Moroccan Phosphates Office).
2. 163. The dispute in the Nemtav company broke out, according to the ICFTU, following the setting up of a UMT first-level union on 31 October 1990. The nine members of the executive committee of the trade union in question were dismissed five days after it was set up. The ICFTU considers that this act constitutes a deliberate attempt on the part of the management to intimidate members of the trade union and to stifle trade union claims. The employer was subsequently obliged to recognize the trade union, reinstate the nine dismissed officials and to improve working conditions. He nevertheless continued to act in bad faith because, until now, he has still refused to implement most of the provisions of the agreement to which he gave his approval. The trade union has been forced to resort to several strike actions in order to oblige the management to carry out the terms for which it negotiated. On 12 October 1991, in another attempt to intimidate workers, the management dismissed Mohammed Abalagh, Deputy Secretary-General of the trade union, for having actively put forward trade union claims. After pressure had been placed on the management, the latter reinstated Mr. Abalagh on 21 October; but it dismissed him once again on 30 October 1991.
3. 164. The ICFTU adds that, in order to express their sympathy with Mr. Abalagh, workers went on strike on 11 December 1991. The management took reprisals by calling in a number of strike breakers and agitators who beat up the strikers. The police, called by the management, also chased the strikers, using methods of force out of proportion to the circumstances. Four strikers were arrested: Ali Menana Mustapha; Gounine Mohammed; Haddou Ait Ahmed and Mukhliss Redouane. On 20 December 1991, El Hani Abdelhafid, Secretary-General of the Union, was arrested in turn. The police also tried to arrest ten other strikers in order to have them tried on the sole grounds that they had legally taken part in a strike.
4. 165. To date, according to the ICFTU, 58 workers dismissed for strike action have not been reinstated. Three of the five workers arrested (Ali Menana Mustapha, Gounine Mohammed and El Hani Abdelhafid) were condemned to prison sentences ranging from five to ten months. The management of the Nemtav company is continuing to call in bullies and agitators who harass, threaten and beat up trade unionists. One of the recent victims, Hitla Abderrazak, was unable to work for 20 days following an attack which occurred on 22 December 1991. The UMT submitted complaints to the authorities and management, but they came to nothing.
5. 166. On 4 February 1992, the management of the company categorically refused to reinstate the 58 workers concerned and to implement the agreement previously signed. Despite the violations of basic work practices carried out by the Nemtav management, the government authorities have continued to grant public contracts to the company.
6. 167. In its communication of 19 June 1992, the UMT points out that Mr. Zaghouri Mohamed, UMT trade unionist at the Nemtav company, was arrested on 16 June 1992 by the police of Hay Mohamadi-Ain Sebaa of Casablanca for having taken part in the strike of 11 December 1991. Eight trade unionists in this company are still being sought by the police on the grounds of infringing the freedom to work in connection with the Nemtav workers' strike.
7. 168. As concerns the Cabelec company the ICFTU points out that the "Great Wilaya" of Casablanca concluded, at its meeting on 31 December 1991, that the ruling of the management to dismiss Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba in November 1991 was illegal; it consequently informed the management that the person in question should be reinstated. After the management refused to comply with this decision, the 260 workers in the Cabelec company called a strike. According to the ICFTU, Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba was harassed by her head of section on 23 October 1991 for her trade union activities. At the time, she was six months' pregnant. She was transported urgently to hospital, in a coma, and was issued medical certificates granting her sick leave for 50 days. However, 15 days after starting work once again, she was dismissed, whereas her aggressor was released after having been detained for three days; furthermore the management took no disciplinary measures against this person.
8. 169. For its part, the semi-state company OCP, has, until now, refused to comply with the ruling of 28 May 1987 which had ordered it to: (i) reinstate the 23 workers dismissed illegally; and (ii) if it failed to comply with this decision, to pay the compensation provided for under labour legislation. The management is also occupying illegally - and in violation of national legislation - the trade union premises in the company. The authorities would seem to support the anti-trade union attitude long adopted by this semi-state company.
9. 170. In its communication of 4 May 1992, the ICFTU refers to the situation prevailing within the Lassif company in Tangiers. It explains that, on 21 April 1992, the Moroccan police resorted to force to put down a strike carried out by 290 workers in this company, who were calling for the reinstatement of seven workers dismissed for strike action. Furthermore, on 28 April 1992, workers in this company were surrounded in front of the headquarters of their trade union in Tangiers by the police and beaten up; several of them had fractured bones and others were so seriously wounded that they were in a coma. The authorities of the city of Tangiers then ordered the arrest and trial of four trade unionists (Mechaouri Mohamed, Salah Zmalmir, Abdellatif Taimoussi, Allami Ambouri).
10. 171. In its complaint of 17 June 1992, the UMT states that on 4 June 1992 the police of the Ain Sebaa prefecture in Casablanca arbitrarily arrested two of its trade union officials employed by the Fassia flour mill of Casablanca. Next day, 5 June 1992, these two trade unionists, Ghasali Mohamed and Batte Mohamed, appeared before the magistrates court of the first instance in Casablanca which, in the absence of any defence and without any procedural guarantees sentenced them to five months' imprisonment for having infringed freedom to work. The UMT stipulates that this is evidence of mounting anti-union repression and a new example of violation of freedom of association. In the case in question, the UMT office of the Fassia mill had, on 8 January 1992, submitted its claims in writing to the management who had refused any discussion and even contact with the trade union representatives.
11. 172. The UMT explains that after having exhausted all possible channels of appeal, the workers in the mill downed tools, from 21 April 1992 onwards, to put forward their lawful material and occupational claims. The action of workers in this mill was supported by all workers in Casablanca mills, who called a general strike on 21 May 1992. Instead of opening negotiations in good faith on the workers' claims, the management of this establishment and the public authorities resorted, in a typical gesture of collusion, to repression and put forward fictitious grounds for arresting and sentencing these two militants in a hasty trial. According to the UMT, the pretext of infringing freedom to work has once again been used to undermine trade unionists; indeed, any initiative they might take may thus be qualified as being contrary to freedom to work.
12. 173. In its communication of 19 June 1992, the UMT quotes other examples of companies in which its militants have been subjected to campaigns of repression and discrimination. For instance, in the Super Rifle company, the Moroccan branch of a multinational textile company, the reaction of the management to the first list of claims submitted by the UMT trade union was to dismiss 12 workers - including four trade union delegates. Consequently, the workers in this establishment were forced to take strike action from 13 February to 14 April 1992, at which time the management accepted to sign a protocol agreement providing for the reinstatement of the dismissed workers and partial compliance with the trade union's claims.
13. 174. However, the management failed to apply any of the provisions of the agreement. On the contrary, Super Rifle recruited a squad of 30 individuals to intimidate and physically attack the workers, particularly the trade union executive. The Secretary-General of the UMT union at the factory, Andam Ahmed, who has personally, on several occasions been attacked by this squad, informed the public authorities in writing of this intervention; above all, he informed the governor of the prefecture of Ain Sebaa, Hay Moahamadi (21 April 1992) and the Royal Attorney (13 May 1992). On 17 May 1992 the single UMT textiles trade union organized a protest meeting in Casablanca and sent a delegation to the governor.
14. 175. In spite of these protests, the Secretary-General of the UMT union at the Super Rifle Morocco factory, Andam Ahmed, was arrested on 25 May 1992 and sentenced on 16 June to three months' imprisonment. He is accused, as in the previous cases mentioned in the complaint, of infringing the freedom to work; in addition, he is falsely accused of striking blows and inflicting wounds, on the basis of false medical certificates drawn up for one of the members of the squad recruited by the company.
15. 176. In the case of Fertima, a fertilizer company - a branch of the Moroccan Phosphates Office (OCP) (public organization at Kenitra) - the workers merely put forward claims for the application of the labour legislation. They called for the statutory minimum wage, adequate occupational safety and health conditions - or, at least, conditions in accordance with legislation, a compensation scheme, the payment of family allowances unpaid for three years and an end to the abuse of temporary work. All the claims made in writing by the trade union in the company came to nothing because neither the management nor the authorities in the town took any action, in spite of the fact that this issue had been raised on several occasions by the local UMT union in Kenitra. On 15 June 1992, while the workers of Fertima were at the entrance to the factory, the police arrived and brutally arrested ten trade unionists who are still in prison. Criminal proceedings have been initiated against them on the grounds, once again, of infringement of the freedom to work.
16. 177. In concluding, the complainant organization, quoting examples of public undertakings where it would not be tolerated, states that the absence of protection against anti-union discrimination does not appear in any way to be a source of concern to the public authorities. Their only response has been to refer to a draft labour code which, according to the UMT, provides no guarantees and has not even been discussed by the social partners. It is for this reason that the UMT stated its surprise and total disapproval when, in May 1992, the Government undertook to have the first part of the above-mentioned legislation adopted by a parliamentary committee, although neither the employers nor the workers had been previously informed of its contents.
17. 178. In its communication of 15 June 1992, the ICFTU states that the events which occurred in the Super Rifle, Fertima, Nemtav and El Fassia companies, mentioned in the communications from the UMT, constitute serious violations of trade union rights in Morocco.

B. The Government's reply

1. 179. In its communication of 9 February 1993, the Government explains that as regards the events which occurred in the Nemtav company, the dispute arose in this company because of the dismissal of Mohamed Abalagh who, according to statements made by his employer, committed serious offences by being repeatedly absent from work and inflicting blows on and insulting the management. After the labour inspectorate had intervened, the person concerned was reinstated; however, as he once again had an argument with his immediate superior, he was dismissed for good.
2. 180. A number of workers then decided to call a strike in sympathy with Mr. Abalagh which, according to the Government, was not followed by all the workers in the company; indeed, it gave rise to incidents which resulted in damage to equipment at the workplace and the company's cars and to clashes between workers. Consequently, the police had had to be called in to prevent the clashes from spreading and to ensure that the freedom to work was respected. After an agreement on the resumption of work, which met a number of the workers' claims - including the granting of tenure to many temporary workers, the strike ended at the beginning of January 1992. The Government adds that, subsequently, 50 temporary workers left their work after having been paid the compensation provided for under the legislation in force and that the case of Mr. Abalagh, who is at present working in another company in the same sector, is still pending after he refused to accept the compensation the company's management agreed to pay him.
3. 181. As regards the Cabelec company, the Government points out that following the employer's decision to dismiss Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba because of an argument which she had had with her immediate superior, the workers in this company called a sympathy strike. After the labour inspectorate had intervened, the management was convinced of the need to pay a lump-sum payment to Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba. The workers' representatives nevertheless decided to continue the strike until the company took disciplinary measures against this worker's immediate superior. On 7 February 1992, the management, the workers' representatives and a UMT representative signed a draft agreement which, according to the Government's statement, did not touch upon the reasons for the dispute - i.e. Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba's dismissal. The latter later asked the labour inspectorate to bring her case before the court. The labour inspectorate gave her the notice of referral of her case to the court, containing all her claims, as well as a copy of the agreement in question.
4. 182. As regards the Lassif company in Tangiers, the Government explains that, following the dismissal of three workers accused of committing serious offences by the employer, the workers in this company called a strike to protest against this decision. The Government states that the reasons for this strike, which was followed by 219 out of the total 328 workers in the company - all members of the trade union belonging to the UMT - are in no way connected with the exercise of trade union rights within the company. It also points out that work was resumed after 24 hours of strike.
5. 183. The Government describes how, following this event, a group of workers elected a trade union committee dependent upon the UMT, which sparked off a dispute between the members of this committee and the workers' representatives elected according to the decree of 1962 and belonging to the same trade union. The new trade union committee then called a second strike. As the several workers who called this strike blocked the entrance to the company to prevent non-strikers from working and consequently caused a clash between strikers and non-strikers, the police arrived to guarantee freedom to work. Three workers were referred to the competent court for having infringed freedom to work and committed acts of violence against the policemen. The Government adds that the dispute was settled by reinstating the three workers, paying legal compensation to one worker and upholding the decision to dismiss three other workers.
6. 184. It explains that, during discussions between the management and workers, the latter submitted a list of claims concerning wage increases and the improvement of certain social benefits. The management accepted to meet some of these claims but the UMT, which considered the agreed increase inadequate, called an indefinite strike which was followed by 48 of the 67 workers. To guarantee the success of this strike, the strikers blocked the road to goods vehicles entering or leaving the company, which resulted in clashes between workers. The police were therefore called in to maintain order and to impose respect of the freedom to work.
7. 185. After the labour inspectorate had intervened, an agreement was reached that work would be resumed, provided that the Secretary-General of the trade union committee, Andam Ahmed, was reinstated and a number of demands met. The management was nevertheless obliged to dismiss Mr. Andam once again because he caused disturbances and encouraged workers to cut down on production. He was sentenced by the competent court to three months' imprisonment for inflicting blows and injuries and using a knife. In spite of the employment service's efforts at conciliation to put an end to this dispute, the contradictory positions of the parties concerned prevented any solution from being reached. It is for this reason that a group of workers preferred to leave the company instead of receiving compensation provided for under the legislation.
8. 186. In this context, the Government explains that the labour inspectorate intervenes, when necessary, to ensure that workers have minimum social protection, as laid down under the labour legislation. Consequently, the workers concerned receive at least the minimum statutory wage and compensation, such as a seniority bonus, provided for under the legislation. As regards occupational safety and health protection, the company provides its workers with the necessary safety equipment and devices to prevent them from the dangers inherent in their work and ensure that they have an occupational health service. As regards the claims concerning the abolition of seasonal work in this company, the Government explains that these demands cannot be met because the company's activity is linked to agriculture. However, measures have been taken to protect the workers concerned, the most important being to give them priority when being recruited each season and to guarantee all the rights of seasonal workers provided for under the legislation.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 187. In the Committee's opinion, the allegations put forward in this case are of a serious nature. They concern the dismissals of workers and trade union officials following strikes in companies (themselves often called to protest against anti-union dismissals), the failure to reinstate - in violation of administrative or judicial rulings - dismissed workers, the repression of demonstrations and strike movements and the arrest and sentencing of trade union officials.
2. 188. The Committee can only note with concern that the allegations, which refer to several companies, are not isolated events but follow on from many complaints dealing with similar issues. The Committee can only conclude that the protection against anti-union discrimination is not guaranteed in a satisfactory way. It reminds the Government of the need for the legislation to protect workers efficiently against such actions, in accordance with Article 1 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Morocco. Noting that it has already recalled this principle to the Government on several occasions (see, amongst others, 279th Report, Case No. 1499, para. 203; 281st Report, Case No. 1574, para. 222; 283rd Report, Case No. 1589, para. 316; 286th Report, Case No. 1646, para. 673), the Committee urges the Government to adopt legislative or other measures in the near future to give effect to the Convention.
3. 189. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government submitted in 1988 to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations a draft labour code which contained provisions which were in conformity with Article 1 of Convention No. 98. The Committee expresses the firm hope that these provisions will be adopted in the very near future so that workers can exercise trade union rights without fear of anti-union reprisals.
4. 190. While stressing the importance of the adoption of such provisions, the Committee nevertheless feels bound to recall that the existence of basic legislative 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 impossible, for a worker to furnish proof of an act of anti-union discrimination of which he has been the victim. This shows the full importance of Article 3 of Convention No. 98 which provides that machinery appropriate to national conditions should be established, where necessary, to ensure respect for the right to organize. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 567.)
5. 191. The Committee therefore requests that the Government should, alongside the adoption of protective measures against acts of anti-union discrimination, examine, in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, procedures which are not only speedy and impartial but also seen to be such by the parties concerned, so that those workers who are victims of such acts may have their grievances redressed as quickly as possible.
6. 192. As concerns the specific allegations of anti-union discrimination mentioned in this case, the Committee notes that the Government did not reply to the allegations that the management of the Cabelec and OCP companies failed to comply with the administrative or judicial decisions handed down, which ruled that the dismissals of workers were illegal and requested the reinstatement of the dismissed persons. Similarly, it did not reply to the allegations that the Super Rifle company is failing to apply the protocol agreement to reinstate workers which it signed. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the application of the decisions or agreements in question and to keep it informed of developments in this case.
7. 193. As concerns the allegations that many workers were dismissed, most of them for having taken part in a strike, the Committee notes that they concern the following cases: (i) in the Nemtav company: nine members of the executive committee of the company's trade union, reinstated later; Mohammed Abalagh, Deputy Secretary-General of the company's trade union: 58 workers; (ii) in the Cabelec company: Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba; (iii) in the parastate company OCP: 23 workers; (iv) in the Lassif company in Tangiers: seven workers; and (v) in the Super Rifle company: 12 workers, including four trade union officials. The Committee also notes that the Government supplied the following information: (i) in the Nemtav company: Mohammed Abalagh - who is at present working in another company and whose case is pending after his refusal to accept compensation proposed by the management of the company - was dismissed for having committed serious offences, then reinstated, only to be dismissed once again for having argued with his immediate superior; 50 temporary workers left their jobs after having been paid the compensation provided for under the legislation; (ii) in the Cabelec company: following Mrs. Hajji Mahjouba's request to bring her case before the court, the labour inspectorate gave her the notice that her case had been referred to the court; (iii) in the Lassif company: three workers dismissed for having committed serious offences were subsequently reinstated and three others were dismissed for having infringed the freedom to work and committed acts of violence; legal compensation was paid to one worker; (iv) in the Super Rifle company: 12 workers were dismissed for serious offences; Andam Ahmed, Secretary-General of the trade union committee, was dismissed for serious offences, then reinstated, then dismissed once again for having caused disturbances and encouraged workers to cut down on production; a group of workers preferred to leave the company rather than be paid the compensation provided for by law.
8. 194. Given the large body of evidence on anti-union discrimination and the inadequate information provided by the Government and the contradictions between the complainant organization's and the Government's account of the events, the Committee feels bound to recall that the use of very serious measures, such as the dismissal of workers for having participated in a strike and refusal to re-employ them, implies a serious risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 444.) Given these concerns, it urges the Government to undertake inquiries on the real grounds of the dismissals and to take the necessary measures to ensure that any acts of anti-union discrimination revealed by these inquiries should immediately be put right by reinstating the persons concerned. It requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this respect.
9. 195. The Committee notes that the complainants mentioned acts of violence against trade union officials or strikers which resulted in the inability to work, or even hospitalization. This is the case in the Nemtav, Cabelec, Lassif, Super Rifle and Fertima companies. These acts of violence were allegedly perpetrated either by the security services within the company itself or by the police. The Committee notes that the Government does not deny that the police intervened during strikes in the Nemtav, Lassif and Fassia factories, but points out that their presence was necessary because of clashes between strikers and non-strikers and to maintain order and ensure the respect of the freedom to work. The Committee also notes that the Government fails to reply to the other allegations concerning violence. In these circumstances and given the seriousness of these issues, the Committee, recalling that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement cannot develop in a climate of violence and uncertainty (see Digest, op. cit., para. 75), requests the Government to initiate inquiries in order to cast light on the circumstances of all these incidents and to punish those responsible, so that the repetition of such acts may be prevented.
10. 196. Finally, the Committee notes with concern that the complaints refer to the arrest and, in some cases, to the sentencing of trade union officials and strikers. They refer in particular to the cases of: Ali Menana Mustapha, Gounine Mohamed, El Hani Abdelhafid, sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from five to ten months; Haddou Ait Ahmed, Mukliss Redouane, Zaghouni Mohamed (from the Nemtav company); Mechaouri Mohamed, Salah Zmalmir, Abdellatif Taimoussi, Allani Ambouri (from the Lassif company); Ghazali Mohamed and Batte Mohamed (from the Fassia flour mill), sentenced to five months' imprisonment; Andam Ahmed (from the Super Rifle company), sentenced to three months' imprisonment and ten trade unionists from the Fertima company. Furthermore, eight workers from the Nemtav company are still being sought by the police. It would seem, from the allegations, that most of these persons were arrested for infringing the freedom to work.
11. 197. The Committee notes that the Government merely mentions that Andam Ahmed (from the Super Rifle company) was sentenced by the competent court for inflicting blows and wounds and using a knife and that three workers from the Lassif company have been referred to the competent court for having infringed the freedom to work and committed acts of violence against the police.
12. 198. The Committee can only regret that it does not have more specific observations from the Government on the grounds for these arrests. The Committee nevertheless feels bound to remind the Government that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests (see Digest, op. cit., para. 363). Furthermore, in the Committee's opinion, the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike (see Digest, op. cit., para. 447). In view of these principles to which it attaches considerable importance, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the trade union officials and workers arrested will be released and reinstated in their jobs, and that the trials of persons sentenced for taking part in a strike will be reviewed. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the situation of trade unionists and strikers mentioned in the previous paragraphs and to transmit to it the texts of any judgements handed down.