Interim Report - REPORT_NO325, June 2001

1. 433. The complaint which is the subject of this case is contained in communications from the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT), dated 31 March, 10 May and 8 December 2000.
2. 434. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 20 July 2000 and 8 January 2001.
3. 435. Morocco has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); however, it has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 436. In its communication dated 31 March 2000, the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) explains the context of the events which occurred at the Oulmes company, a mineral water-bottling enterprise at Tarmilet, a small village in an isolated region of the country. This private enterprise, which has been run for more than 30 years by the same family since the end of the Protectorate, employs 340 workers, of whom 240 are considered temporary – although they have been employed on a permanent basis for several years. According to the CDT, the basic problem is the temporary status of the workers despite their seniority which, for many of them, dates back for more than 20 years, with the following consequences: they were deprived of a seniority bonus, did not have either a work permit or a payslip, until 1998 when the trade union affiliated to the CDT mobilized workers in order to attain these rights. The workers are suspended systematically every three, four or six months, without any legal justification or compensation, with the sole aim of maintaining their temporary status. Furthermore, the management refuses to organize elections of staff representatives and uses all possible means to prevent trade union organization: attempts at bribery, dismissals, lay-offs, ill-founded legal proceedings, etc.
2. 437. Confronted with these repeated violations of basic trade union rights and infringements of a number of existing agreements, the trade union officials referred the matter to all state bodies, from the local authorities up to the Government, but to no avail. The management of the enterprise reacted negatively to the workers’ claims, which concerned primarily the granting of tenure of temporary workers, and adopted a provocative attitude, dismissing six workers and threatening a further 150 with lay-off. The workers declared a 48-hour strike on 11 December 1999, to which the management reacted by closing the factory – the workers then organized a sit-in so that the factory would be reopened and work resumed. Rather than opting for conciliation, the Government sent in police who arrived in force at the end of Ramadan on 16 December 1999, spreading terror throughout the village. On 2 February 2000, 1,200 members of the police force and auxiliary forces, accompanied by four helicopters and approximately ten vehicles, invaded Tarmilet. According to the CDT, the police fired on the population with rubber bullets, used tear gas, broke down the doors of houses, tortured the inhabitants and arrested the men from the village; as a result of these “strong-arm” tactics, a woman had a miscarriage and a young girl was paralysed. Eight workers were arrested and held at the Salé prison: Abdeslam Driouich, Belhand Ghazi Belarbi, Lahoucine Tazi, Marah Bouazza, El Hachimi Saoudi, Jebbari Assou, Saksaou M’Hamed and Ouziane Amar. The CDT executive unsuccessfully tried to calm the situation as the army prevented access to the factory. Subsequently, the management called in foreign labour to the enterprise to take out the existing stocks under the protection of the authorities charged with public order. In its communication dated 10 May 2000, the CDT points out that the eight imprisoned trade unionists were released on 5 May 2000, following an agreement reached on 23 April between the Government, the employers and the CDT and UGTM trade union federations.
3. 438. In its communication of 8 December 2000, the CDT states that the situation has not changed at the Oulmes factory, that 200 workers were expelled in an abusive manner, and that the management still refuses to engage in any dialogue with the union, despite the steps taken by the authorities.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 439. In its communication dated 20 July 2000, the Government points out that six temporary workers had been laid off on 10 December 1999 as a result of a slowing down in activities during the winter. The employees in the enterprise had, on the following day, declared a solidarity strike with the six workers, and 50 employees occupied the premises. As the CDT had called a 48-hour strike, the enterprise continued to produce at 50 per cent of its capacity for the winter season. As the lorries could neither enter nor leave the enterprise, the management lodged a complaint with the authorities based on constraints upon freedom to work. The authorities thus intervened to guarantee the freedom to work, expelling those occupying the factory and allowing the lorries to move. This resulted in clashes with the workers, who threw stones at members of the police force, several of whom were wounded. As a result of these actions, three workers were arrested, charged and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. On 17 December, the CDT declared a strike for an indefinite period and submitted a list of claims: a 30 per cent wage increase; a bonus for the Sacrificial Feast; an ambulance; a cafeteria; establishment of a cooperative; issuing of employment certificates; the setting up of a trade union board; establishment of timetables for security guards.
2. 440. In an attempt to settle the dispute, the labour inspection services and local authorities organized meetings with all the parties concerned in order to ease the tension in the enterprise and guarantee the workers’ rights. During a meeting held on 28 December, the management agreed to put up the trade union board but refused to grant a wage increase, on the ground that wages had already been reviewed in September 1999. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting, the trade union decided to continue the strike and organize a sit-in to prevent lorries from entering or leaving the Oulmes company and other enterprises dealing with the company. Nevertheless, about 50 managers and technicians of the company continued to guarantee production. The National Review and Conciliation Board held two meetings on 20 and 21 January 2000 and submitted proposals for settlement that the parties refused. The director of employment services called two further meetings on 21 and 24 January, during which the management of the enterprise promised to pay six months’ wages to those employees suspended, provided that they did not start work again before a solution had been found concerning their reinstatement. Despite these efforts, the strikers refused to return to work since the management had refused a number of their claims. The prefect and the director of employment services continued their efforts to try and find a solution to the dispute, but to no avail. Given this deadlock, the management of the company lodged a new complaint to guarantee the freedom to work and the free movement of lorries.
3. 441. The police intervened on 2 February 2000 in order to enforce the judicial decision ordering the lifting of pickets and the free movement of lorries and goods. The police tried to convince the strikers to withdraw calmly and return to work; they were then violently attacked by the strikers and their families with stones, clubs and knives, and 40 members of the police force were wounded. Following these violent clashes, eight strikers were arrested and tried. They subsequently benefited from a royal pardon and were released.
4. 442. As regards the enterprise’s alleged infringements of the Labour Code, the visits carried out by the labour inspection services to the enterprise and the auditing of its books showed that the seniority bonus had been paid to all 100 employees and managers. The situation of temporary employees was regularized and they also benefited from the seniority bonus starting from the date upon which it was due. As regards the employment certificates, the inquiry carried out by the labour inspection services revealed that all managers, permanent and temporary workers in the enterprise were bound by contracts, either fixed-term or permanent. The elections of the workers’ representatives had been held as planned; three titular members and three substitute members had been elected. As regards respect for freedom of association, the management of the enterprise regularly held meetings with the trade union executive, attended by the labour inspection services or local authorities, in order to examine various problems. For instance, the enterprise had always provided employees and their families with school transport, childcare, two sections for illiterates and a canteen; furthermore, the management had financed a pilgrimage for some employees to holy shrines. Wages were increased by 5 to 10 per cent annually. As regards the persons arrested and sentenced, they have all been released under a royal pardon and are entirely free. Work has resumed normally at the enterprise and there is no more social tension; the village is now calm.
5. 443. As regards the miscarriage and paralysis allegedly caused by the police intervention, information provided by the labour inspection services shows that these facts are unrelated as the miscarriage had occurred three days before the intervention and the young girl had been paralysed from a very young age.
6. 444. In its communication of 8 January 2001, the Government states that it continues its efforts to find a solution to the dispute and to create a stable social climate at the Oulmes company; many meetings have been held to bring the parties’ views closer and to find a solution to the problem of the dismissed workers. The regional conciliation committee held a meeting on 22 September 2000, with the leaders of the company and the union in attendance; both sides maintained their positions, resulting in the dispute moving to the national level. The National Investigation and Reconciliation Committee held a meeting with the parties on 29 September 2000, under the chairmanship of the Director of the Department of Labour, in an attempt to bring about a solution that would guarantee that the dismissed workers could return to work. The Committee submitted many proposals, and the Ministry continued its efforts to resolve the dispute.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 445. The Committee notes that this case concerns various incidents, in particular a police intervention and the arrests and sentencing of trade unionists during a labour dispute in a private company.
2. 446. The Committee points out in this respect several contradictions between the versions of the complainant and the Government concerning respective responsibilities during this dispute, in particular as concerns the police intervention and the company’s use of labour from outside the enterprise during the strike. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government refers to a judicial decision justifying the police intervention without giving further details about this decision. In these circumstances, the Committee considers itself obliged to request additional information on the allegations, including the matters noted above both from the Government, after consultation with the company concerned, and from the complainant.