Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

The Government has supplied the following information:

According to the terms of article 9 of the Constitution of the Kingdom, "The Constitution guarantees all citizens ... freedom of association and the freedom to join any trade union and political organization of their choice. There can be no limitation on the exercise of these freedoms other than as provided by law."

Legislative and regulatory texts implementing the Convention

-- Dahir of 17 April 1957 concerning collective bargaining agreements;

-- Dahir of 16 July 1957 on professional trade unions;

-- Decree of 5 February 1958 concerning trade union rights of civil servants;

-- Dahir of 29 November 1960 creating a High Council of Collective Bargaining;

-- Dahir of 24 November 1994 creating a High Advisory Council in Charge of Social Dialogue.

-- The right to join a trade union is considered as a fundamental right in keeping with the Constitution which guarantees freedom of association and the freedom to join any trade union and political organization.

This right is further expressed by the legislation in force guaranteeing:

-- the right of workers to form unions of their choice;

-- the right of unions to defend the economic and professional interests of their members;

-- the right of voluntary collective bargaining recognized for employers' and workers' union organizations.

The recognition of these rights both by the Constitution and by legislation implies, ipso jure, the prohibition of any discriminatory act which would limit the exercise of these rights as it is inconceivable to recognize the legality of measures which would deprive rights recognized under law.

The principle of non-discrimination flows equally from the texts of article 3 of the Dahir of 23 October 1948 which specifies that the employer recruits required staff based exclusively on the professional aptitudes of the applicants.

Thus, according to the present state of national legislation, any discriminatory act aimed at workers based on their union activity or their union membership is considered incompatible with the Constitution and the regulations in force, and can thus be appealed before the competent jurisdictions.

It is on the basis of the previously cited principles that the jurisprudence regards trade union rights (in particular the right to strike) as a fundamental right, the use of which cannot constitute a valid reason for dismissal. In order to dispel any doubt which may result from the absence of legal texts expressly forbidding discrimination based on union activity, the draft Labour Code sets forth in article 8 that any discriminatory measure based on the union membership or activity of salaried workers is prohibited.

Infractions of this text can result in fines of 3,000-5,000 dirhams.

Protection against interference of professional organizations against each other

Regarding the protection provided under the legislation in force, no measure concerning the creation of organizations of workers dominated by an organization of employers, or financial or other support of organizations of workers, has been recorded, so as to place these organizations under the control of an employer or an organization of employers.

The absence of legal texts expressly setting forth the principle of non-interference among professional organizations does not constitute a real obstacle to the effective application of this principle.

Two essential factors are at the origin of the application of this principle:

-- the negative effect, contrary to the spirit of the law on trade union freedom, which acts of interference among professional organizations would have;

-- the evidence of this principle flows from the ratification itself of Convention No. 98. In fact, the ratification of the Convention by a legal instrument (Dahir) which has the force of law confers all necessary legal authority to ensure its practical application.

It remains to be underscored that given the request recently formulated by the Committee of Experts, a text along the lines of Article 2 of the Convention will be introduced in the draft Labour Code.

Measures taken or envisaged to ensure the compatibility of national legislation with the Convention

As indicated in preceding reports, and during discussions which took place at the 85th Session of the Conference, a draft Labour Code, taking into account the text of the Convention, has been prepared and submitted to the Parliament which was to examine it during the Extraordinary Session held in July 1997.

Although the draft was examined in depth by the competent parliamentary committee, which spent more than 23 working sessions on this during the year, adoption of this draft was not possible due to a controversy concerning certain questions raised, in particular concerning flexibility in employment and the maintenance of certain rights guaranteed by the current legislation.

It was thus decided to postpone adoption of this draft and to confide its in-depth examination to a tripartite committee set up in the context of the dialogue with the social partners. This committee was only able to hold a single meeting due to the different deadlines which our country had to cope with since last September and which have led to:

-- elections in the representative organizations of workers in private enterprises and in the civil service;

-- a change in the Parliament;

-- the designation of a new Government.

The latter is already examining the ways to adopt the legislative measures required to give full effect to the text of the Convention. If the adoption of the draft Code continues to encounter resistance by any of the concerned parties, a separate text strengthening the provisions already in force in the field of freedom of association will be adopted.

Measures to promote collective bargaining

The Committee of Experts has insisted on the necessity of adopting appropriate measures to encourage and promote the development and utilization of voluntary negotiation procedures for collective bargaining between employers and organizations of workers in order to settle questions of working conditions.

In this respect, it is appropriate to refer to the text of the Dahir of 1957 concerning collective labour agreements, which provides the appropriate legal framework for the promotion of collective bargaining. By recognizing the right to conclude collective labour agreements with employers and organizations of workers, this Dahir effectively eliminates one of the major obstacles to the exercise of this right: the problem of the recognition of qualified interlocutors as concerns collective bargaining. Moreover, this text sets no limit on the right to freely negotiate working conditions and does not exclude any aspects concerning the regulation of relations between employers and workers from the scope of negotiation.

Among the recent measures adopted to promote collective bargaining, the following can be mentioned in particular:

-- the creation within the Department of Employment of a branch in charge of social dialogue and relations among the social partners;

-- sending circulars to all provincial and prefectural delegates of the Department of Employment requesting them to take appropriate measures to encourage employers and organizations of workers to use conventional law;

-- organizing tripartite seminars on social dialogue, thus expanding its principles and culture;

-- the creation of an Advisory Council in charge of social dialogue which takes an active role in promoting social dialogue, and especially in solving certain social conflicts such as the collective conflict between the workers of the enterprise "Jbel Aouam" and the National Railway Office and their respective managements;

-- the setting up of a National Commission on Social Dialogue whose work has been formalized by the signature of a Joint Declaration, which focuses especially on the commitment of the parties to encourage the exercise of freedom of association and to promote collective bargaining.

In addition, a Government representative recalled that a new government had been formed following the legislative elections of October 1997. The process of democratization of Moroccan political life would doubtlessly encourage full respect for the fundamental rights of workers and their individual freedoms. In the Government's statement before Parliament in April 1998, it had confirmed its determination to work towards strengthening human rights, women's rights and children's rights in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and international Conventions. The Government was firmly committed to promoting workers' fundamental rights, to securing respect for freedom of association, to supporting the right to organize and to bargain collectively and to ensuring conformity of the national legislation with the fundamental labour Conventions. Consultation with the social partners -- workers' and employers' organizations -- also figured among the principles which would guide the Government, as was proclaimed by the Minister of Social Development, Solidarity, Employment and Training in his 1998 May Day speech. Moreover, the Government had decided to engage in sincere, constructive and fruitful dialogue with the ILO. The following were some of the activities already undertaken in this regard: the commencement of the procedure for ratifying the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138); the organization of a campaign for information, sensitization and enforcement of child labour; the holding with the Office, in August 1998, of a tripartite seminar on social dialogue as well as regional seminars for the promotion of collective bargaining and collective agreements, and the implementation of the objectives set out in the tripartite declaration adopted in August 1996; the organization, with the union and employer organizations, in May 1998, of a round table on workers' health and safety which, through tripartite negotiation, adopted a draft national strategy on the subject. Again in collaboration with the Office, the Government was planning, in September 1998, a tripartite round table with a view to promoting the ratification of Convention No. 87. These initiatives demonstrated the Government's will to make international law one of its principal working tools. Regarding more particularly the measures taken to ensure the adequate protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, the draft Labour Code which contained provisions on the subject had still not been adopted. So as to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, the Minister had prepared, and transmitted to the general secretariat of the Government, an amendment to the provisions of the Dahir on industrial trade unions of 16 July 1957. Within the shortest possible time, that department would commence the procedure for having the text adopted by the competent authorities. The draft amendment expressly prohibited interference by industrial organizations of employers and of workers in each other's affairs. It also prohibited any discrimination against workers based on their trade union activities. These prohibitions were accompanied by sanctions, which applied likewise to interference in freedom of association. The draft law had already been transmitted to the industrial employers' and workers' organizations and to the Office. Regarding collective bargaining, the provisions of the Dahir of 17 April 1957 respecting collective labour agreements constituted an appropriate framework for the development of labour relations. That text granted workers and employers the right to conclude collective agreements without hindrance and did not exclude from the scope of bargaining any aspect of labour relations. With a view to encouraging the social partners to use the negotiation procedures available in the text, a service had been set up in the Ministry of Labour to stimulate social dialogue and to encourage consultations between industrial organizations of workers and employers. Chiefs of regional services of the Ministry had been sent circulars inviting them to encourage negotiations between the social partners and to give them the necessary assistance and support. The development of a culture of social dialogue using sensitization campaigns and tripartite seminars was also one of the best ways of promoting collective bargaining. The Government would keep the ILO informed regularly of the steps taken both for ratification of further fundamental Conventions and for bringing the legislation into conformity with Conventions that were already ratified. If difficulties were encountered, it would call on the technical assistance of the Office so that the fulfilment of these objectives would be rapidly achieved. That was necessary for the democratization of labour relations. Nevertheless, it had to be recognized that time was needed for the Government to attain these objectives.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information provided, in particular, concerning the more positive attitude of his Government concerning social dialogue and international labour standards. This case had been previously discussed in 1997 by the Committee and mentioned in a special paragraph of its report. It was also discussed at the Conference in 1987, 1988 and 1994. For several years, the Committee of Experts had made observations on three serious gaps in the legislation concerning Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention, in particular: the absence of legal provisions guaranteeing protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, which had meant that, in practice, many union representatives were discriminated against and dismissed -- given the large number of trade unionists concerned, the Committee on Freedom of Association had received several complaints; the absence of legal provisions protecting workers' organizations against interference of employers; an absence which had been admitted by the Government in its reply to the Committee; and the lack of legal provisions promoting free negotiation of collective agreements. In spite of the special paragraph last year, the Government had not sent its report on time. The Government's written response did not contain anything new, other than the reference to a new parliament and the designation of a new government. Concrete elements concerning the new policy announced by the Government were still lacking: it would be necessary to wait for the texts to be provided and examined by the Committee of Experts. As for the other points, the Government referred, in its written reply, to many legislative texts which had existed for a long time and which had never satisfied the Committee of Experts. In 1997, the Government had told the Committee that draft legislation was being prepared in response to the comments of the Committee of Experts. It had made a similar statement in 1994 before the present Committee. The Government representative had just again provided assurances in this regard. Until now, the Workers' members had observed very little progress, and the Committee of Experts had still not received the text enabling it to evaluate whether the draft legislation was in conformity with the Convention. Apparently, following the recent elections, the composition of the new Government and the Parliament had changed, and draft legislation would have a chance to materialize. It appeared once again in the written reply that discussions were under way in this regard. In the meantime, the draft of the new Labour Code had still not been forwarded. Although the Government claimed that freedom of association was considered as a fundamental right under the Constitution, this right had not been translated into fact and remained pure theory. The Committee on Freedom of Association had examined several complaints concerning anti-union practices, and on several occasions had made known its grave concern regarding numerous serious allegations. In this regard, it was appropriate to refer to Cases Nos. 1687, 1691, 1712, 1825 and 1877. Morocco had still not ratified Conventions Nos. 87, 135 and 144, which were closely linked to this Convention. This attitude indicated a lack of genuine will on the part of the Government to create a true climate of social dialogue in the country, and to guarantee freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Given this situation, the Workers' members reiterated their appeal to the Government to request a direct contacts mission. This would be the clearest signal of its firm will to undertake the necessary measures. The Committee should insist that the Government take all necessary measures with a view to ensuring full compliance with the Convention. Moreover, the Government must indicate clearly the timetable set for the adoption of the draft legislation it had mentioned.

The Employers' members agreed with most of the points made by the Workers' members. They stated that the Government representative had announced on previous occasions, in particular in 1994, that new legislation would be elaborated rapidly and that a tripartite committee had been established to this end. However, according to the report of the Committee of Experts, the legal situation had remained unchanged and they continued to raise three points. In contrast, the Government representative restricted himself to political statements. Moreover, written information regarding the national legislation had been submitted to the Conference Committee, but it did not contain any new information. The Constitution provided for regulations but constitutional regulations were not self-executing and needed to be applied by laws. Furthermore, legislation had been drafted and examined by the Committee of Experts on previous occasions; they considered it not to be in compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The Employers' members pointed out that the Government representative had not shown any readiness to cooperate with the supervisory bodies of the ILO and therefore the conclusions of the Conference Committee had been formulated in a rather severe manner. They noted, however, that Bills had been sent to employers'and workers' organizations so that they could make their comments on them; this could be an indicator of the Government's growing readiness to cooperate with the social partners. They stated that the Government should supply a detailed report on all the steps taken or envisaged without referring back to old drafts of legislation which had been considered insufficient to comply with the provisions of the Convention. Furthermore, at this stage a direct contacts mission should be taken into consideration.

The Worker member of Morocco emphasized that after several decades of suppression and violation of trade union rights in his country, there were now grounds for cautious optimism. There was an atmosphere of greater democracy and creativity. The new era had commenced four years earlier with the general strike called in 1994. A further national strike held in 1996 had been peaceful, but had paralysed the country. These strikes had opened the door to the possibility to engage in collective bargaining for the first time in the modern history of the country. This collective bargaining process had resulted in the adoption of a joint declaration which covered freedom of association, collective bargaining, the protection of trade union members, wage increases in the public, semi-public and private sectors, training and the settlement of labour disputes through negotiation. The declaration therefore reflected a new level of awareness and maturity on the part of all the social partners. However, the failure to implement its provisions had resulted in the calling of another general strike in 1997, which had also been peaceful. With the election of the new Government, workers were now represented in Parliament. The trade union movement had increased in confidence and strength and submitted many proposals to the Government. In 1994, an amnesty had been granted by the King for the release of all trade unionists and political detainees, which had resulted in the liberation of over 400 trade union members. Referring to the intervention of the Government representative, who had spoken of the preparation of various draft laws, he emphasized that the principles of consultation and partnership required dialogue to be held on such matters before the texts were referred to Parliament. Although the new Government had expressed a willingness to engage in consultations, it had postponed a number of meetings with the social partners on the question of the implementation of the declaration. While welcoming the priority attached by the current Government to social issues, he urged it to take the necessary action in the near future and hoped that, with the assistance of the ILO, it would be possible to improve the implementation of the Convention in his country.

The Employer member of Morocco noted that the Government representative's statement showed a change in the attitude of the Government in the context of democratic change. The Committee of Experts had noted for quite some time the lack of cooperation on the part of the Government. The priority that it would henceforth give to social issues would enable the problems in the application of the Convention to be seen in another light. All the parties concerned now had an interest in changing the situation and in creating a new climate of social relations. The Committee should take this positive change into consideration and give the Government time to apply the ratified Conventions and to ratify new ones.

The Worker member of France felt that given the longstanding practice of interference and anti-union discrimination in the country, there was doubt as to the ability of the Government to remedy this. The Government had hardly made any effort until now, and the fact that these widespread anti-union discriminatory practices had met with no opposition or sanction presupposed active or passive complicity. In one or the other case, the Government was responsible for violating the Convention. Such a situation engaged the responsibility of the Government, but it also called into question the credibility and efficiency of the ILO. The Government must be requested formally to confirm the commitments that it had undertaken during the last few months and translate them into concrete measures. It had to inform companies publicly that they should remove all obstacles to the right to organize of workers and punish any interference and any abusive dismissal of trade unionists. Only effective measures accompanied by a timetable for their implementation would convince the Committee of the sincerity of the Government's attitude. Welcoming a direct contacts mission would be evidence of this sincerity.

The Government representative specified that everything had been done to activate the procedure for adopting the draft Labour Code. A copy had been addressed to employers' and workers' organizations in order to receive their comments. The scepticism of certain speakers could be understood after so many unkept promises. However, they should recognize the firmness of the Government's commitment and the fact that it had been faced with an arduous task with reduced means. In addition, in this new social climate, it was up to all interested parties to show their good will and patience in pursuing common objectives.

The Committee noted the written information communicated by the Government and the oral statement made by the Government representative, as well as the discussion which took place in the Committee. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions. It took due note of the statement made by the Government representative that draft legislation had been prepared and that some measures had been taken to this effect. The Committee insisted on the need to strengthen the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and the protection of workers' organizations against acts of interferences by employers, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, and on the need to promote voluntary negotiation between workers' organizations and employers with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. It expressed the firm hope that, in the very near future, it would be in a position to register real and substantial progress in the application, both in law and in practice, of this fundamental Convention ratified in 1957. The Committee suggested again, as it had four years ago, that the Government invite a direct contacts mission in order to facilitate the full application of the Convention. It urged the Government to report in detail to the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures which were actually taken within a specific timetable to bring the law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative expressed the wish of his Government to engage in a sincere and constructive dialogue with a view to finding effective solutions to the problems arising in the application, in practice, of the principles of international labour Conventions. Such solutions could only be reached through an understanding and objective assessment of the means used to implement these principles. He provided the Committee with information on measures taken to respond to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention. In his reply to the first observation of the Committee of Experts which emphasized the need to strengthen the legislative provisions of the Dahir of 1957 in order to guarantee in law, and in practice, adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, he stated that section 8 of the draft Labour Code expressly prohibited any discriminatory measure based on trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. He then described the different stages in the preparation of a draft Labour Code and the consultations held with the social partners to obtain their comments and emphasized that its adoption was a Government priority.

He noted, in particular, that Parliament had held an extraordinary sitting in order to review certain draft legislation, including the Labour Code. The Parliament was not able to adopt the text during that sitting and it was given priority during the regular sittings when 23 review sessions were devoted to it by the competent Parliamentary Committee. He stressed the divergence of views between the social partners with regard to certain points raised in the Code and noted, particularly, that his Government had the majority and could put it to a vote. But, in a desire for concertation and dialogue and at the insistence of certain trade unions, it had been decided to continue a further examination in the framework of a tripartite committee set up for that purpose.

With regard to the observation by the Committee of Experts on the protection of workers' organizations against interference by employers in trade union activities, he acknowledged that the Dahir concerning trade unions did not expressly prohibit such interference, since this fundamental principle had to be respected at all times. A violation of this principle could be brought to court. Indeed, any act of interference was contrary to the objectives of the Dahir. Moreover, he stated that during the review of the draft Labour Code by the Parliament, a proposed amendment to prohibit such interference had been submitted by certain deputies and the Government was willing to accept this.

As regards the observations on the measures taken to encourage collective bargaining, he recalled the legislative provisions of the Dahir of 1957 on collective bargaining, which allowed collective agreements to be concluded, without restriction, as a means of settling working conditions. He then referred to circulars sent in 1990 and 1996 to the Governors of various Prefectures and provinces of the Kingdom, as well as to regional delegations on employment, asking them to reactivate the provincial conciliation committees and to make the social partners aware of the importance of collective agreements by providing them all with the necessary technical assistance. Moreover, he emphasized the importance of the dialogue begun with the social partners in the context of a permanent national tripartite committee for social dialogue which led to the signature of a joint declaration which constituted a genuine social charter. In this declaration, the parties undertook to respect labour law and the right to freedom of association, and to work for the rapid ratification of Convention Nos. 87 and 135. With regard to the settlement of labour disputes, he underscored the positive and encouraging results of the regional committees and of the National Conciliation and Arbitration Committee, which had met regularly since September 1996 to resolve collective labour disputes. He emphasized the role played by the Consultative Council created in 1994 to follow the social dialogue. This Council was presided over by a senior magistrate who was also President of the Supreme Court, and included representatives of the Government and professional organizations of employers and workers.

The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for his extensive statement. They noted that this case had been taken up on a number of occasions by the Committee of Experts and had been discussed by the Conference Committee in 1987, 1988 and most recently in 1994. During the discussion in 1994, the Employers' members had pointed out that the Government representative was saying essentially the same things stated already in 1987, when he had announced that a draft Labour Code had been prepared and was being submitted to Parliament for adoption in the near future. The Government representative had once again said very much the same when informing the Committee that the process of preparing the draft Labour Code had commenced in 1992, as well as in his description of the process of its amendment and examination. However, it appeared that there was not yet a foreseeable date when the draft Labour Code would be adopted. Moreover, no information had been provided on its scope. The Employers' members also referred to the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691, which had been adopted by the Governing Body in November 1986 and which had been particularly critical of the low level of willingness shown by the Government to cooperate. In his statement, the Government representative had provided a good deal of information on the efforts that had been made to introduce the draft Labour Code to Parliament, but very little information on its contents or when it might be expected to be adopted.

The Employers' members referred to the three points raised by the Committee of Experts in its report. With regard to the need to adopt measures to encourage and promote voluntary collective bargaining, the Government representative had referred to a number of circulars that had been issued. The Employers' members suggested that the Government should submit these circulars and all related documentation to the Committee of Experts so that it could examine their contents and likely impact on the matters under examination. The Government representative had also referred to the joint declaration adopted by a tripartite body that had been set up in 1996. This information should also be provided to the Office in a detailed written report.

In conclusion, the Employers' members noted that, despite years of endeavour, no noteworthy improvement had been achieved. Although the establishment of the above tripartite body might constitute progress, it was not the same as the adoption of the necessary legislation. In the opinion of the Employers' members, the Government required not only technical assistance, but should also envisage the possibility of inviting the Office to send a direct contacts mission to achieve progress in the situation after the case had been examined for so many years by the various supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information that he had provided and recalled that this case had been discussed in the Committee in 1987, 1988 and 1994. The Committee of Experts had been making very serious observations for many years concerning the absence of legislative provisions to guarantee in law and practice adequate protection for workers against anti-union discrimination, the absence of legislative provisions to protect organizations of workers against acts of interference by employers or by organizations of employers, and the poor functioning of collective bargaining procedures for the determination of the conditions of work, including wages. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also received numerous complaints concerning serious problems of anti-union discrimination and obstacles to collective bargaining. He noted the continued widespread violation of the provisions of the Convention in both law and practice. In accordance with the constitutional obligations of all member States of the ILO, a government that was confronted with such problems of application had to take all the necessary steps to find solutions, and to bring the law and practice into conformity with the provisions of ratified Conventions. Collaboration with national workers' and employers' organizations and with the ILO may be very useful in such cases. In this context, they wondered whether the Government of Morocco had really made all the efforts required to ensure the adoption of the draft laws under discussion. They recalled that, during the discussions in this Committee in 1988 and 1994, the Government representative had stated that a new Labour Code had been prepared. They deplored the fact that no information had been received as to the status of this draft legislation. In this regard, the Committee on Freedom of Association, in case No.1825, which had been examined in March 1996, had noted that the Government had not replied, despite the fact that the allegations were of serious violations of the principles of freedom of association. According to information that they had obtained, acts of anti-union discrimination were frequent in all sectors of activity. One survey had shown that 1,193 trade unionists, members of the Moroccan Workers' Union (UMT), had been dismissed because of their trade union activities and their membership in that organization. Of those workers, 240 were elected representatives who were executives in trade union offices. They emphasized that those revealing figures concerned only the private sector in 14 cities and testified to systematic recourse to discrimination against unions. It was in this context that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government, in a footnote, to furnish full particulars to the Conference.

The Committee had suggested in 1994 that use be made of the ILO's technical assistance and that a direct contacts mission should be undertaken. They deplored the fact that the Government had not responded positively to these suggestions and urged it once again to state clearly whether it would accept a direct contacts mission and if the necessary measures would be taken to give effect to the conclusions of such a mission. The fact that no progress had been noted since the first examination of the case by the Committee made it necessary to adopt such a measure. They observed that the response of the Government would have a direct effect on the nature and the form of the follow-up action taken by the Conference. Finally, they insisted on the importance of taking sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against individuals and entities which had committed acts of anti-union discrimination and asked the Government to provide all the necessary information, including the information referred to during the discussion, so that the Committee of Experts could make an exhaustive examination of the case.

The Workers' member of France, who was also speaking on behalf of the Workers' member of Morocco, thanked the Government representative for the information that he had provided. He recalled that Morocco had not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which could, in part, explain the situation that prevailed in the country. Nevertheless, Morocco had ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which had led to the current discussion in the Committee. Even though the right to organize was recognized in the Moroccan Constitution and legislation, the consistent behaviour of the administration and government authorities depleted these texts of any meaning. The authentic, independent and free trade union movement, particularly in the form of the Moroccan Workers' Union (UMT), was the victim of constant acts of aggression of different types. The UMT had been the victim of anti-union discrimination, including the dismissal of trade union officers and their arrest by the public authorities. As reported by the Workers' members, in 1996, according to incomplete preliminary figures, some 1,193 UMT militants had been dismissed, of whom 242 were elected representatives. These arbitrary measures had been taken against activists in all regions and sectors. Presenting a list of grievances or striking was automatically considered to be a reprehensible act. Even though the list of violations of freedom of association was long, certain flagrant cases merited citing. The first concerned government offices, where UMT union leaders had been transferred or downgraded because they had invited workers to join them in a simple, non-violent act of demonstration, namely the wearing of arm bands. The second was that of a hotel chain where the union secretary had been dismissed for having made a statement on public television following a strike. The upsurge of targeted retaliations, their frequency and gravity illustrated the discriminatory character of the conscious and deliberate policy to methodically decimate the UMT, dismantle its structures, demoralize its members and dissuade them from becoming members or participating in its activities. Large numbers of trade unionists had been charged, arrested and detained under the terms of section 288 of the national Penal Code, which provided for the imprisonment of anyone who tried or who succeeded in organizing a collective work stoppage. The application of this provision was subject to a very broad interpretation by the administrative authorities. In addition, in conformity with another provision of the Penal Code, trade unionists were subjected to forced labour, in violation of fundamental international labour standards as set out in the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). The Government and the Prime Minister of Morocco had been urged to take the necessary measures to repeal these provisions, although no response had yet been noted to the appeal.

The second type of anti-union discrimination to which the trade union movement was subjected in Morocco was even more treacherous and insidious and consisted of dividing unions. Contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the free and independent trade union movement was being undermined by the establishment of trade unions by the administration or by political parties. Nineteen such central organizations had already been created in Morocco, with a view to weakening the independent authentic trade union movement. One political party even had two central trade union organizations. This situation was not only contrary to the provisions of the Convention, but also to those of a crucial ILO resolution of 1952 on the independence of the trade union movement from any authority.

He emphasized that Moroccan workers had the right to be protected against anti-union discrimination. With regard to the right to collective bargaining, he recalled that this right constituted an important element of the right to organize, because without collective bargaining the right to organize was rendered theoretical and abstract. The social dialogue organized by the Government would be little more than a formal exercise until the fundamental issue of trade union rights was resolved. In this respect, he pointed out that the labour legislation referred to by the Government representative had been formulated unilaterally, without consultation, concertation or negotiation. He therefore insisted that the Government take the necessary measures as soon as possible to ratify Conventions Nos. 87 and 135, which were indispensable to make Convention No. 98 operational. Finally, he requested the Government to indicate the number of employers who had been subjected to legal proceedings or sanctions for abuse of power in relation to illegal dismissals, and to state the precise date envisaged for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 135.

The Workers' member of Italy stated that the information provided by the Government representative bore no relation to reality. There was an ongoing process aimed at the dissolution of trade unions. This situation was detrimental to democracy and contrasted with the assertions of the authorities that they were seeking to strengthen democracy. Furthermore, the situation of workers had deteriorated due to the economic transformations, the reduction of social protection in large enterprises and the expansion of the informal and service sectors. Labour law was almost exclusively applicable in practice to the public sector and to large enterprises, in a situation in which labour inspection had rather limited means at its disposal to cope with the very many violations of trade union rights and labour law. Conditions of work were set almost unilaterally by employers. However, the Government could demonstrate a real will to promote social dialogue by deciding to ratify Conventions Nos. 87 and 144. Such a step would permit an improvement in law and practice and would bring them into full conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 98. Explanations also needed to be provided for the interference by public authorities in trade union activities.

The Workers' member of Senegal endorsed the statement by the Workers' member of France concerning the importance of the ratification by Morocco of Conventions Nos. 87 and 135. However, he expressed certain doubts as to whether the Government really intended bringing national law and practice into conformity with the Convention under discussion. He noted that no significant progress had yet been observed in spite of the time that had elapsed since the first examination of this case by the Committee. Workers continued to be subjected to anti-trade union measures in violation of Article 1 of the Convention. He finally urged the Government to indicate clearly when it planned to adopt the legislation, which had been discussed at such length.

The Government representative thanked all those who had taken the floor and stated that he had listened with an open mind to all the comments and observations that had been made. He reiterated his firm intention to defend the principles set out in the Convention, namely to combat anti-union discrimination and interference in the activities of workers' organizations and to promote and encourage collective bargaining. With regard to the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 135, he recalled that he had referred in his first intervention to the joint declaration concluded with the social partners, which specified the Government's commitment to ratify these basic instruments. He also considered that the joint declaration went further, since the social partners had also undertaken to create the conditions necessary for such ratifications. He considered that it was of the utmost importance to cooperate with the ILO and said that all technical assistance offered in this respect would be very welcome. As regards the question of anti-trade union dismissals, he emphasized that, in the context of the dialogue between trade unions and the Government, a tripartite committee had been set up which was responsible for examining all the cases of dismissal that the trade unions considered to be contentious. The committee had already proposed positive solutions in certain cases which had been examined. As regards the exact date for the promulgation of the draft Labour Code, the Government representative emphasized that it was the workers' organizations that had requested that the draft be subject to a tripartite discussion. Following the comments made by different organizations, including the ILO, a new draft Code had been prepared. As the parties had not succeeded in reaching agreement on all questions under consideration a committee had been set up to resolve the outstanding issues. The Government representative noted that technical assistance from the ILO would be quite appropriate in this context. Finally, with regard to the joint declaration, the Government representative stated that it had been signed by all the parties concerned. He was ready to transmit a copy thereof to the Office for examination by the Committee of Experts. He would keep the Committee of Experts informed of the outcome of the negotiations within the above Committee. He recalled that the draft Labour Code contained provisions relating to each of the principles in the Convention, namely the prohibition of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities, as well as the promotion and encouragement of collective bargaining.

The Workers' members referred to two points that had been emphasized by the Government representatives. In the first place, they noted that the Government representative had, on numerous occasions, placed the responsibility for the delay in adopting the draft Labour Code upon workers' and employers' organizations. They also noted that the Government representative had expressed a readiness to adopt any suggestion made with a view to improving the situation in his country. In this context, they recalled that the Workers' and Employers' members had already proposed a direct contacts mission in 1994. No effect had been given to that suggestion, which was even more appropriate at the present time. They therefore called upon the Government to give a clear indication of its willingness to receive a direct contacts mission in the very near future.

The Employers' members endorsed the statement by the Workers' members that it would now be appropriate for the Government to invite the Office to send a direct contacts mission to address the problems raised by the supervisory bodies in relation to the application of the Convention. However, the Government representative had only referred to technical assistance. He undoubtedly knew the difference between technical assistance and a direct contacts mission, and his statement would therefore have to be construed as a rejection of the possibility of inviting a direct contacts mission.

The Government representative stated that his Government was ready to accept ILO technical assistance and added that this assistance was already being provided by the multidisciplinary advisory team (MDT).

The Employers' and Workers' members noted that the Government representative had not clearly indicated whether he would accept a direct contacts mission, as already proposed by the Committee in 1994. Given the importance of the case, they therefore called for the case to be included in a special paragraph of the report of the Committee.

The Government representative indicated that the Government was willing to accept ILO technical assistance and that a technical cooperation programme was in fact in progress with the multidisciplinary team. In the circumstances, the invitation to accept a direct contacts mission was being neither accepted nor rejected.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed. The Committee recalled that it had discussed this case on several occasions in 1987, 1988 and 1994. The Committee noted that both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had criticized the divergencies between law and practice in relation to the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. Despite the fact that the Government had undertaken to submit a draft Labour Code to Parliament to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, the Committee was bound to regret with deep concern the numerous complaints concerning measures of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee urged the Government to supply the above text so that the Committee of Experts could examine whether its provisions guaranteed adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and to workers' organizations against acts of interference, and whether they promoted the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements for the determination of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee once again urged the Government to indicate in its next report whether the draft Labour Code and the draft Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, to which it had referred, had been adopted. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note substantial progress in this respect in the very near future. The Committee regretted that the Government had not accepted the proposal to invite a direct contacts mission, as the Committee had requested the Government to do three years ago. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative indicated that the Government was willing to accept ILO technical assistance and that a technical cooperation programme was in fact in progress with the multidisciplinary team. In the circumstances, the invitation to accept a direct contacts mission was being neither accepted nor rejected.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative stated that his Government attached great importance to the right to organize and collective bargaining, which was reflected in the legislation as well as in practice. At the level of the legislation, there were two important laws - the law of 16 July 1957 respecting occupational organizations and the law of 17 April 1957 on the collective bargaining - which formed the basis for the collective bargaining. Besides the ratification of Convention No. 98, the procedure for the ratification of Convention No. 154 on collective bargaining was presently in its final stage as the Government had already given its accord in principle. On the practical level, collective agreements were concluded both in certain industrial sectors and in individual enterprises; to increase their number and to facilitate the dialogue between the social partners, a model of a typical collective agreement had been elaborated in collaboration with occupational organizations. He considered that the promotion of the law through negotiations was a solution for the future for the stability of industrial relations and for finding practical solutions to the existing problems. With respect to the comments made by certain Moroccan trade unions, like the CDT and the UGTM, concerning the absence of texts protecting the workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Decree of 23 October 1948 provided that the employer could hire workers only on the basis of their qualification and aptitude, any other criteria being illegal, including membership in a trade union; the law of 17 July 1957 proclaimed freedom of association and the right to form trade unions freely to defend professional interests of their members, any encroachment on this liberty being punishable. He emphasized that it was for the complaining party to take the case to the tribunal and that the tribunals had in fact taken decisions in these cases. The Tribunal of the First Instance of Rabat, for example, having determined that the real motive for dismissing certain workers was their exercise of trade union activities, ordered these workers to be reintegrated in their employment. In addition, the Court of Appeal of Rabat, in its decision of 1 October 1984, considered that dismissal for trade union activity was abusive and could give grounds for compensation. As these sanctions were sufficiently dissuasive, it did not seem necessary to provide for penal sanctions, all the more so as Convention No. 98 did not require it. However, to conform to the opinion of the Committee of Experts, more precise provisions accompanied by penal sanctions were included in the draft Labour Code. The adoption of this Code was however delayed at the request of the occupational organizations which wanted to improve it, but considering the measures taken lately, it was highly possible that the Code would be adopted or submitted for adoption before the end of the year. Concerning the complaints considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association, mentioned in the report, he stated that the number of complaints should not prejudge the application of Convention No. 98 and that, on the contrary, the existence of such complaints demonstrated that the interested parties were free to express themselves without any fear of repressive measures. The Government had already responded to these complaints and considered that the complainants should first of all exhaust all internal procedures before the ordinary tribunals to contest the employers' decisions as well as taking action before the administrative tribunals to cancel the administrative acts. Concerning the information on the settlement of collective labour disputes, the representative pointed out that, generally, the procedure for their settlement was contained in the collective agreements concluded between trade unions and employers. The law of 1946 on the conciliation and arbitration which prohibited the use of strikes until the conciliation procedures were exhausted was no longer applied, as a result of the position taken by the trade unions which considered this law to be incompatible with the principle of the right to strike guaranteed by the Constitution; a new draft law had been elaborated and communicated to occupational organizations for comments. In the preceding month a high-level social dialogue had taken place between the Government and the social partners, with very positive results. A written and more detailed report would be communicated as soon as possible.

The Workers' members stated that it was a well-known case for the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as for this Committee, which had already discussed the matter in 1988. They noted with satisfaction the intention of the Government to ratify Convention No. 154, as well as that of taking into account the comments made by the experts. They recalled that the Committee of Experts had for many years made observations and criticisms concerning the acts of anti-union discrimination and interference contrary to provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, and that many trade unions, like the CDT and the UGTM, had to resubmit their complaints and observations denouncing the poor functioning of the collective bargaining procedures as a means of determining the conditions of work. For many years the Government had only repeated that a draft Labour Code was in the course of elaboration, yet this Code had still not been adopted and in the meantime there were many acts of anti-union discrimination. Moreover, collective bargaining had until now remained a theoretical concept and apparently did not have much practical impact. They were even obliged to note that a number of questions persisted concerning the quality of information supplied by the Government. The Committee on Freedom of Association was obliged to deal with numerous complaints without having received the comments and information from the Government. In order to demonstrate its real intention, the Government should adopt the necessary provisions in order to resolve the problems mentioned and provide the information required so that they could be examined in time by the Committee of Experts. They suggested that the Government could request the technical assistance of the Office, but considered that a direct contacts mission would be a more appropriate means of action. It was important to indicate in the conclusions that real progress must be registered next year.

The Employers' members recalled that this case was last discussed in this Committee in 1987 and 1988 and that, with respect to the absence of legislation guaranteeing protection against anti-union discrimination, the Government representative was saying essentially the same things that he said in 1987. Already in 1987 the Government announced that it was about to issue the draft Labour Code which had been prepared with the assistance of the Office. Today it stated that there were new delays in the adoption of this legislation at the request of the participants in this process who wanted to make changes in substance. The Employers' members wondered whether this text was still consistent with the requirements of the Convention after an interval of seven years. The Employers' members supported the suggestion made by the Workers' members for a direct contacts mission to review the present state of the legislation. Given the fundamental nature of protecting workers' organizations from interference, they considered that the Government should enact legislation and fully implement it in practice as a matter of urgency. As to whether or not there was a viable system of collective bargaining in Morocco, the Employers' members noted that negotiations took place through special commissions that included the social partners. However, the Committee of Experts had made a series of requests to the Government for information to clarify the situation, and the Employers' members urged the Government to honour its commitment to provide the information as soon as possible. It was only after the Committee of Experts had reviewed the situation that the Employers' members would be in a position to evaluate whether or not the Government was fully meeting its obligations under the Convention.

The Workers' member of Morocco stated that while the Government of Morocco had ratified the Convention in 1957, no consistent policy was applied in the field of collective bargaining; only ten collective agreements had been concluded since the 1960s; and even the collective agreements signed by the Government were violated, as it was the case in the sugar production sector. The law on collective agreements was not applied, as for example in the banking sector, and when the Government was organizing what its representative has called "dialogues" with the social partners, the result was meaningless and formal sittings giving an illusion of dialogue. Concerning the violations of the rights of trade unions, the acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, he regretted that a Convention of such importance as Convention No. 87 has not been ratified. The law of 16 July 1957 respecting occupational organizations did not provide for the protection of trade union delegates and of trade unions which resulted in practice in violations in the form of dismissals, imprisonments and legal prosecution of trade union activists. In the course of 1993 alone, 96 trade unionists of the Moroccan Union of Labour (UMT) had been arrested or prosecuted, including a good number of militant women, and several dozen militants were dismissed for their trade union activities. The decisions on the reintegration of the dismissed activists given by the tribunals were not applied. This was why several complaints had been made by the UMT to the Committee on Freedom of Association; the examination of the complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association had been postponed many times because of the lack of information from the Government. There was also another and more dangerous form of violation of the right to organize: the Government, in the name of trade union pluralism, was creating various trade union organizations, directly and indirectly, through the intermediary of political parties with the aim of weakening the free, authentic and independent trade unions organized by the workers and for the benefit of the workers. This was in flagrant contradiction with the resolution of 1952 concerning the independence of the trade union movement. Concerning the draft Labour Code and the draft law on arbitration and conciliation, he indicated that there were divergent points of view because those drafts did not constitute a veritable social advance, being in fact a simple compilation of the old texts with an objective of encroaching on the social achievements and in particular on the right to strike. The Committee should invite the Government of Morocco to respect the Convention and the right to organize.

The Government representative recalled that the acts of discrimination came within the competence of the tribunals, and that the interested parties should bring their cases before those bodies. As to the poor functioning of collective bargaining, it was a question which concerned exclusively the trade unions and the employers, because the Government did not interfere in this field. The draft Labour Code had been amended and contained very important provisions which would make possible the ratification of other Conventions. In the pluralistic system in Morocco, there existed at present seven central trade union organizations and the Workers' member who had spoken previously might not represent the general opinion of all trade unions.

The Committee noted the oral information communicated by the Government representative as well as the discussion which took place. The Committee observed with concern that, despite the assurances given on a number of occasions by the Government to adopt a draft Labour Code in the near future and to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, no tangible progress has been noted. The Committee noted that, in the course of the examination of numerous complaints concerning acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recommended the Government to ensure effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination by means of specific provisions. The Committee also noted that the Committee of Experts had made observations on this question as well as on the protection against acts of interference and the poor functioning of the machinery of collective bargaining for the purpose of determining conditions of employment. Recalling the importance it attaches to the implementation of this fundamental Convention, the Committee once again called on the Government to provide, as of next year, a detailed report to be examined by the Committee of Experts in order to permit an evaluation of the extent to which real progress has been made in law and in practice. The Committee recalled that the International Labour Office was at the Government's disposal to provide any technical assistance that might be necessary in the form of direct contacts or any other form.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative stated that national law and practice did not tolerate any form of anti-union discrimination. The courts considered dismissal on the ground of union activity to be abusive and required the reinstatement of the worker concerned. In addition to using appeals and the right to go to court, unions which are represented in Parliament participated directly in the supervision of government action, and, in particular, those activities which concerned the application of labour legislation. The Committee of Experts had requested that penal sanctions against those who carried out antiunion discrimination be provided for in the legislation. Although the necessity to include such provisions was not apparent from the text of the Convention, the Government had included the appropriate provisions in the draft Labour Code, which had since been adopted by the Government.

The Workers' members stated that the Government had indicated to last year's Conference Committee that a new Labour Code would include legislation in conformity with the Convention. This year, the Committee of Experts had noted that the Government had not yet sent the draft code. This meant, therefore, that another year had gone by without being able to examine whether or not the Labour Code was in conformity with the provisions of the Convention; that in this crisis period trade unionists were even more exposed to descriminary acts and had indeed lodged complaints of such acts. There also existed problems concerning workers in agricultural enterprises with fewer than ten workers and problems concerning the intervention by the Government in collective bargaining. It was therefore necessary that the Government send the draft Labour Code as well as carry out discussions with employers' and workers' organisations on the modifications to current law and practice.

The Employers' members recalled that the Committee had discussed this case last year. They insisted that the necessary protective measures be taken and that the Government supply detailed information on the measures adopted. They pointed out that in its observations last year, the Committee of Experts had indicated that legislation must guarantee workers an adequate protection through either civil or penal sanctions. They asked what were the real requirements of the Convention. These should give workers adequate protection, require governments to fulfil this obligation, and allow the Committee of Experts to control whether the measures taken had been adequate. Whether or not sanctions should be civil or penal could not be deduced from the text of the Convention and depended on the legal system of the country. The Committee of Experts should clarify this situation.

The Government representative indicated that the draft Labour Code had been drawn up with the assistance of the ILO and that his Government had no objection to forwarding another copy. The Committee of Experts had required that sanctions be provided for and this was in fact the only point mentioned in its observations in spite of the fact that the Employers' group is not quite in agreement with the obligation of penal sanctions.

The Workers' members remarked that it was not certain that the advice given by the ILO in the drafting of the Labour Code had been followed; it was therefore necessary that the draft code be sent for examination by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and of the discussion which had taken place in the Committee. It noted the indications that the draft Labour Code was to be adopted by the Parliament. The Committee trusted that the adoption of this legislation would grant a full protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as required by the Convention. It invited the Government to send the text of the Code so as to enable the Committee of Experts to make a thorough examination of the situation at its next session. The Committee expressed the firm hope that progress would be achieved soon, in law as well as in practice, and that full information would be supplied next year in this regard.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative noted that the observations of the Committee of Experts dealt with two main points. The first was the non-binding nature of the recommendations made by the Collective Agreements @Boards which had led the Committee of Experts to note that specific legal provisions should be adopted to give effect to the Convention. The second point was the request for statistical information on the practical application of Article 4 of the Convention. The recommendations of the Collective Agreements Board were presented in the form of a standard collective agreement designed to serve as a model for employers' and workers' organisations. Parallel to those recommendations, the Act of 23 October 1948, as supplemented, which determined the relations between employers and workers, provided model rules for enterprises which did not have a collective agreement. The rules set mandatory minimum standards for all industrial and commercial establishments and for employers practising a liberal profession.

Among the provisions contained in the standard minimum rules, particular attention should be drawn to those concerning the circumstances in which employees could be dismissed. There were three of them: disciplinary reasons, professional incompetence, and economic grounds. It could therefore be concluded a contrario that dismissals for trade union activities were prohibited. The Courts which had found dismissals for trade union activities had considered such dismissals to be wrong and had ordered the reinstatement of the workers concerned and the payment of compensation to them, as had been indicated in the course of certain complaints examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

His Government recognised, as did the Committee of Experts, that only civil sanctions were involved. In that connection, it should be pointed out that, although the Convention did not provide for obligatory penal sanctions. his Government was anxious to make all the necessary arrangements to ensure the effective protection of trade union rights and thus to promote collective bargaining. To illustrate that, he read out sections 7 and 8 of a draft labour code relating to the prohibition of any discrimination in employment and to the pertinent sanctions. The draft labour code had been prepared with the collaboration of an expert from the ILO and had been transmitted to employers' and workers' organisations so that they could express their views on it before it was adopted by the Government. It was due to be examined by the Government very soon.

With regard to the statistics on the implementation of the Convention, it should be borne in mind that, since the report of the Committee of Experts had not been received sufficiently in advance, it had not been possible to collect the information required. At present there was an agreement governing the banking sector and an agreement governing the fuel sector, in addition to agreements concluded at the level of certain enterprises. A draft agreement for staff of the social and health sections of the national social security fund, which employed more than 3,000 persons, was also about to be signed. Such agreements were generally concluded for an indefinite period, although either party could, of course, denounce them by giving advance notice.

Furthermore, the annual report of the labour inspection service for 1986 showed that, out of 1,050 collective conflicts recorded, 787 had been settled without recourse to a strike, thanks to the successful conclusion of negotiations between the parties. The settlement of those collective conflicts had given rise to the conclusion of agreements providing for a certain number of social benefits such as an increase in wages, affiliation to a supplementary pension scheme, the reinstatement of dismissed workers and the restoration of normal working hours.

The Employers' members stressed the importance of Convention No. 98 for the right to organise and collective bargaining. Moroccan legislation on the subject contained a few obscure points. Although the recommendations made by the Collective Agreements Board were not binding, they had great influence; it was important to point out that collective bargaining was a right of both workers and employers. The State should not intervene in it except to ensure that the right was respected. The Convention did not specify the exact nature of the measures that had to be taken for that purpose. It merely indicated that appropriate measures should be taken. In its General Survey of 1983, the Committee of Experts had taken the view that protection against anti-union discrimination must be accompanied by civil or penal sanctions. The Employers' members referred to a case involving another country in which the Committee of Experts had interpreted Convention No. 98 differently as far as the adoption of protective measures was concerned. The Government ought to transmit, in writing, detailed information for subsequent examination by the Committee of Experts. It was to be hoped that the minor discrepancies obtaining at present would be eliminated.

The Workers' members expressed their satisfaction regarding the Government representative's oral presentation of the information requested by the Committee of Experts. A striking feature of the report of the Committee of Experts was that it dealt with Morocco's implementation of Convention No. 98 first on the basis of previous comments, then by referring to the General Survey of 1983, and finally by referring to the complaints made to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government representative had just informed the Committee that, with the help of the ILO, new legislative texts had been prepared and were in the process of being adopted. It would have been useful if the Office had been informed already of the results of this collaboration. The new provisions seemed to provide for sanctions in cases involving attacks on trade union activities and unjustified dismissal. That was important, just as was the question of reinstatement to employment. They expressed the hope that the Office and the Committee of Experts would be able to examine the results of the collaboration with the ILO and that a solution would be found to the existing problems next year.

The Government representative informed the Committee that the draft labour code drawn up with the assistance of an ILO expert was already at a very advanced stage and that it would shortly be examined by Parliament. He assured the Committee that the next report on the Convention would contain comprehensive and detailed information.

The committee took note of the information provided orally by the Government representative. It noted, however, that there were still divergencies between Moroccan legislation and the Convention, particularly with regard to the absence of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. It urged the Government to take into account the comments made by the Committee of Experts with a view to making the appropriate amendments to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would be in a position next year to indicate, in its report, the progress made.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 concerning issues for the most, already raised in previous comments and the Government’s reply thereon.

Article 4 of the Convention. Representativeness required for engaging in negotiations. For a number of years, the Committee’s comments have referred to section 92 of the Labour Code, which provides that only the most representative organizations are authorized to engage in collective bargaining, in conjunction with section 425 of the Code, which imposes a requirement of 35 per cent of the total number of employee–delegates elected at the enterprise or establishment level for a trade union to be representative. The Committee considered that this threshold was too high and likely to obstruct the development of collective bargaining, especially if there was no trade union organization that fulfilled this condition. In its previous comments, while noting the explanations provided by the Government, the Committee nevertheless considered that it would be desirable for the promotion of collective bargaining if the Government took steps to amend section 425 of the Labour Code so that, where no trade union has obtained 35 per cent of the number of employee–delegates, collective bargaining rights are not denied to the trade unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee observes that the Government explains in its report that the figure of 35 per cent provided for in section 425 of the Labour Code was the subject of dialogue and consensus with the employers’ and workers’ organizations when the Code was drawn up. It also indicates that, under section 420 of the Labour Code, trade unions may form a grouping which would enjoy all the rights conferred on occupational trade unions, and this would enable trade unions which have not obtained the required percentage to participate in collective bargaining. Finally, the Government indicates that a Bill on trade unions which is in the process of being drawn up provides, in cases where a trade union fails to obtain the 35 per cent figure, for the setting up of an inter-union committee composed of an equal number of trade union representatives and able to participate in collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations. It welcomes the initiative of the Government, which, with a view to promoting collective bargaining, provides for the setting up of an inter-union committee for the purposes of collective bargaining in cases where no trade union has gained the required percentage to be considered representative in the enterprise or establishment. The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on all progress made in the adoption of the Bill relating to trade unions and, if applicable, to supply a copy of the text.

Article 6. Collective bargaining for certain categories of public servants and employees. The Committee recalls that it has been making comments for a number of years on the Royal Decree (Dahir) of 24 February 1958 establishing the general public service regulations, and in particular section 4 thereof, which refers to specific regulations for certain categories of staff (teachers, prison officials, lighthouse workers, water and forestry workers) without giving details of their collective bargaining rights. The Committee asked the Government to indicate precisely whether these categories of staff enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

The Government indicates in its report that the aforementioned section 4 applies to officials in the central administrative departments of the State and local communities and external services, but does not apply to members of the judiciary or the royal armed forces or to the administrative corps of the Ministry of the Interior. It also explains that prison officials, lighthouse workers and water and forestry workers do not have the right to establish trade unions but may form associations to defend their rights. The Government adds, with regard to employees and public servants who exercise a function involving the right to carry a weapon such as forest wardens, that the reason for their exclusion from the scope of the Convention is that they have similar responsibilities to the members of the police and the royal armed forces (FAR).

The Committee notes the Government’s explanations. The Committee recalls that prison officials, lighthouse workers and water and forestry workers should enjoy the right to collective bargaining through their trade union organizations. It points out that even though some of these officials are obliged to carry a weapon in the course of their duties, this does not mean that they are members of the police or armed forces (categories which may be excluded from the application of the Convention under the terms of Article 5). The Committee therefore again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the legislation so that it grants the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining to the representative organizations of all public servants and employees, since they are not public servants engaged in the administration of the State or members of the police or armed forces, which are the only categories that may be excluded from the scope of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 29 August 2008 and the Government’s replies thereto.

Article 4 of the Convention. Representativity required to engage in negotiations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 92 of the Labour Code provides that only the most representative organizations are authorized to engage in collective bargaining. It also noted that the requirement of 35 per cent of the total number of employee–delegates elected at the enterprise or establishment level, as required by section 425 of the Labour Code, was too high and thereby obstructed the development of collective bargaining, especially if there was no trade union organization that fulfilled this condition. In its report, the Government indicates that the percentage of 35 per cent of the number of votes obtained by employee–delegates within the enterprise appears reasonable as it is lower than the absolute majority or the relative majority of votes. In this respect, two trade unions which have obtained 35 per cent of the votes may conclude collective agreements and the others, which obtained less than 35 per cent, may be involved in the bargaining process. Furthermore, according to the Government, the requirement of this percentage implies that only those trade unions which have the support and confidence of the workers would be in a position to participate in collective bargaining and legitimately defend their interests. According to the Government, a lowering of this percentage could create an overlap between trade unions within the same enterprise, increase the number of negotiating partners and cause antagonism to the detriment of the workers’ interests, thereby threatening the purpose of this mechanism. Furthermore, the Government indicates that trade unions which have not obtained 35 per cent of the total number of employee–delegates elected at the enterprise or establishment level may conclude protocol agreements and atypical collective agreements, which may establish rights and acknowledge acquired rights for the benefit of workers. In this regard, the social partners concluded 265 protocol agreements in 2007. While noting this explanation, which it deems reasonable, the Committee nevertheless considers that it would be desirable for the promotion of collective bargaining if the Government took measures with a view to amending section 425 of the Labour Code so that, where no trade union has obtained 35 per cent of the number of employee–delegates, collective bargaining rights are not denied to the trade unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any developments in this regard.

Article 6 of the Convention. Collective bargaining for certain categories of public servants and employees. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that section 4 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the general conditions of service of public servants refers to specific regulations for certain categories of staff (teachers, prison officials, lighthouse workers, water and forestry workers) without giving details of their collective bargaining rights. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the same rights as public servants (any person appointed to a permanent post on a grade applicable to senior officials in the Administration of the State is regarded as a public servant). Recalling that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State must enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention, particularly the right to collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate clearly whether the categories of staff referred to in section 4 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958, as well as categories of staff such as teachers, prison officials, lighthouse workers and water and forestry workers, enjoy the right to collective bargaining, and whether such bargaining has taken place in recent years.

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that, under section 4 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 5 February 1958 concerning the exercise of the right to organize by public servants, those public servants and employees who exercise a function involving the right to carry a weapon do not enjoy the right to organize, nor consequently the right to collective bargaining. In its report, the Government indicates that the reason that employees and public servants who exercise a function involving the right to carry a weapon are excluded from the right to bargain collectively is because they exercise extremely important functions (protection of the territory, looking after forests, intervening in emergency situations). According to the Government, the sensitive nature of their intervention, its security dimension and the need for continuity in the public service means that the exercise of the right to organize by these employees and public servants has until now been regarded as incompatible with their functions. Considering that the public servants in question discharge responsibilities relating to security, but are not members of the police or armed forces, the Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that it grants the right to organize and to collective bargaining to the representative organizations of these public servants and employees, since they are not public servants engaged in the administration of the State or members of the police or armed forces, which are the only categories that may be excluded for the scope of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports. It also notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 10 August 2006, and the Government’s reply. With regard to the various cases concerning anti-union dismissals, the Committee notes that certain of these relate to cases already examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association [see Cases Nos. 2109 (325th Report, paragraphs 448-462) and 2416 (340th Report, paragraphs 1000-1030)].

Article 4 of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. 2-04-425 dated 29 December determining the number of members of the Collective Bargaining Council (a tripartite advisory body provided for in the new Labour Code).

2. Representativity required to engage in negotiation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, as section 92 of the Labour Code provides that only the most representative organizations are authorized to engage in collective bargaining, the requirement of 35 per cent of the total number of employee delegates elected at the enterprise or establishment level, as required by section 425 of the Labour Code, may appear high and thereby obstruct the development of collective bargaining, especially if there is no trade union organization that fulfils this condition. In its report, the Government indicates that trade unions which have not obtained 35 per cent of the total number of employee delegates elected at the enterprise or establishment level may conclude protocol agreements and “atypical” collective agreements, which may establish rights and acknowledge acquired rights for the benefit of workers. While noting this information, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for the promotion of collective bargaining if the Government took measures with a view to amending section 425 of the Labour Code so that, where no trade union has obtained 35 per cent of the number of employee delegates, collective bargaining rights are clearly accorded to the trade unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and to provide information on the number of protocols and “atypical” collective agreements, as referred to by the Government, concluded over the past two years.

Article 6. 1. Collective bargaining for certain categories of public officials and employees. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that section 4 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the conditions of service of public servants refers to specific regulations for certain categories of staff (teachers, prison officials, lighthouse workers, water and forestry workers) without giving details of their collective bargaining rights. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, dialogue takes place through tripartite negotiations and also within the context of the Higher Council of the Public Service. On several occasions, the statutory situation of officials has been the subject of collective bargaining between ministries and the trade unions concerned. The Government refers, for example, to negotiations with the trade union organizations of the teaching sector. Recalling that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State must enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention, particularly the right to collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate clearly whether the above categories of staff enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

2. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, under the terms of section 4 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 5 February 1958 concerning the exercise of the right to organize by public servants, those public servants and employees who exercise a function involving the right to carry a weapon do not enjoy the right to organize, nor consequently the right to collective bargaining. The Committee understands that the public servants in question discharge responsibilities relating to security, but are not members of the police or the armed forces. Under these conditions, it requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that it grants the right to organize and to collective bargaining to the representative organizations of these public servants and employees, since they are not public servants engaged in the administration of the State or members of the police or armed forces, which are the only categories that may be excluded from the scope of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and notes with interest the entry into force of Act No. 65/99 concerning the Labour Code.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the provisions of the new Labour Code prohibit and sanction acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference in employers’ and workers’ organizations by each other (sections 9, 12, 36, 41, 63, 397 and 428 of the Labour Code).

Article 4. 1. The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that a draft decree concerning the Council for Collective Bargaining (a tripartite advisory body provided for in the new Labour Code) was recently approved in the Council of Ministers. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decree in question.

2. The Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to its efforts to give a fresh boost to social dialogue, which culminated in the signature of the agreement of 30 April 2003 between the Government and the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of this agreement of 30 April 2003.

3. The Committee notes that, for a trade union organization to be able to obtain the status of "most representative organization" for the purposes of collective bargaining, section 425 of the Labour Code provides that account must be taken at national level of: (1) the acquisition of at least 6 per cent of the total number of workers’ delegates elected in the public and private sectors; (2) the effective independence of the union; and (3) the contractual capacity of the trade union. At enterprise or establishment level, account must be taken of: (1) the acquisition of at least 35 per cent of the total number of employee delegates elected at enterprise or establishment level; and (2) the contractual capacity of the trade union.

The Committee notes that, since section 92 of the Labour Code provides that only the most representative organizations are authorized to engage in collective bargaining, the requirement of 35 per cent of the total number of employee delegates elected at enterprise or establishment level may appear high and might thus obstruct the development of collective bargaining, especially if there is no trade union organization which fulfils this condition. The Committee requests the Government to adopt measures to amend section 425 of the Labour Code so that, where no trade union has obtained 35 per cent of the number of employee delegates, collective bargaining rights are awarded to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

4. Finally, noting that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this regard, the Committee again requests the Government to reply to the comments by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and provide it with practical information on the general state of collective bargaining and particularly the number of collective agreements concluded to date and the sectors of activity concerned.

Article 6. 1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report indicates that the legislative and regulatory texts which apply to the status of public servants and public sector employees with regard to their right to organize and collectively bargain are: (1) the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the conditions of service of public servants; and (2) the Decree of 5 February 1958 concerning the exercise of the right to organize by public servants. The Committee also notes that the Government’s report does not contain any reply to its comments on section 4 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the conditions of service of public servants.

The Committee noted that section 4 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 refers to particular regulations for certain categories of staff (teachers, prison officials, lighthouse workers, water and forestry workers) without giving details of their collective bargaining rights. Recalling that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State must enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention, particularly the right to collective bargaining, the Committee therefore again requests the Government to indicate whether these categories of staff enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

2. The Committee also notes that section 4 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 5 February 1958 concerning the exercise of the right to organize by public servants provides that the right to organize is not applicable to any persons who, under any title or to any extent, are responsible for performing a duty or mandate even on a temporary basis, whether for payment or free of charge, in the service of the State, public administration, municipalities, public establishments or public utilities and in which the right to carry a weapon in the performance of their duties has been conferred.

The Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide a list of public servants covered by the exception provided for in section 4 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 5 February 1958 and, if some of the public servants on this list cannot be considered as "public servants engaged in the administration of the State", to amend this provision to bring it into conformity with Article 6 of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Government’s response. It also notes the Government’s indication that the new Labour Code has been adopted by the Chamber of Councillors and the Chamber of Representatives and that it will enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Bulletin. According to the Government, the new Labour Code contains important innovations in respect of the protection of the right to organize and the promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the new Labour Code with its next report due in 2004.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the ICFTU refers to several cases of anti-union discrimination in which workers were dismissed or subjected to pressure by reason of the establishment of trade unions (for example in the textile sector) or for carrying out various trade union activities. The ICFTU states that, although the courts are empowered to order employers to reinstate workers, they cannot compel them to pay compensation. The Committee notes that the Government merely recalls that the Dahir of 16 July 1957 was amended in February 2000 to bring the principles of the national legislation into compliance with the Convention. The Government states that it raises no obstacles to the free exercise of the right to organize and that over 20 trade union federations freely exercise their activities.

In its previous comments (see the observation of 2001), the Committee noted the promulgation on 15 February 2000 of Act No. 11-98, amending and supplementing Dahir No. 1-57-119 of 16 July 1957 on occupational trade unions. The Committee considered on that occasion that the Dahir henceforth afforded adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. However, in the light of the comments made by the ICFTU, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the operation in practice of the respective procedures and means of recourse, and particularly the channels available to workers to obtain reparation rapidly for any anti-union discrimination.

Article 4. Promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee notes the ICFTU’s indication that, although the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining is set forth in the law concerning both the private and public sectors, this right is not adequately protected. Accordingly, in practice, and even though collective bargaining has been developed somewhat in the industrial sector and in services (banking, health and the public service), wages are often determined unilaterally by employers, and collective agreements are not always applied, giving rise to numerous disputes. The Government indicates that the application of the principle of collective bargaining is ensured by: (1) the monitoring of industrial relations and the settlement of collective labour disputes in the context of the regular meetings of national and regional investigation and conciliation commissions; (2) the dissemination of the principles of freedom of association and the culture of social dialogue through the organization of seminars; and (3) the support and technical assistance provided by the labour administration for the conclusion of collective agreements. In this respect, the Government refers to the recent conclusion of a collective agreement between the enterprise Cellulose of Morocco and the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) on 19 November 2001. In the event of the failure to apply any of the clauses of the collective agreement, the injured party is entitled to take legal action.

When it receives the Government’s next report, the Committee will examine the legislative aspects of collective bargaining in the light of the new Labour Code. However, the Committee requests the Government to reply specifically to the observation concerning the unilateral determination of wages in practice. Furthermore, while taking due note of the collective agreement concluded on 19 November 2001 between the CDT and the enterprise Cellulose of Morocco, the Committee requests the Government to provide practical information on the general situation with regard to collective bargaining, and particularly the number of collective agreements concluded up to now and the sectors covered.

The Committee will address the other pending issue concerning the right to collective bargaining of certain categories of public servants when it examines the Government’s report due in 2004.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the need to adopt legislative measures to ensure adequate protection, coupled with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the enactment and promulgation of Act No. 11-98, amending and supplementing Dahir No. 1-57-119 of 16 July 1957 on occupational trade unions. As amended, the legislation: forbids occupational employers’ and employees’ organizations from interfering directly or indirectly in each other’s business; prohibits any impairment of the independence of such bodies, their constitution, management or administration; forbids any natural person or legal entity from hindering the exercise of the right to organize; and prohibits any discrimination between employees based on trade union membership or activity, particularly as regards hiring, the carrying out and distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, the award of social benefits, dismissal and disciplinary measures.

The Committee notes with interest that the amending law: (a) extends the scope of the provisions on sanctions for infringements of the exercise of the right to organize, as "it now applies to all natural persons or legal entities"; and (b) removes a number of restrictions on trade union activities by minors.

2. Article 4.  In its previous report the Committee noted that a committee had been set up to revise the draft Labour Code, and had made a number of improvements to it (particularly as regards compulsory arbitration), and expressed the firm hope that the draft would be adopted shortly.

The Government indicates that the competent committee is soon to study and discuss the draft in full and that, in parallel, the social partners are pursuing their consultations in a tripartite committee for social dialogue, on a number of points in the draft which are in dispute.

The Committee again expresses the firm hope that the draft will shortly be adopted and again asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

3. Article 6. With regard to the provisions of the draft Labour Code that concern collective bargaining, the Government states in its last report that, like workers in the private sector, public servants and public sector employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively pursuant to Dahir No. 1-58-008 of 24 February 1958 and Dahir No. 2-57-1465 of 5 February 1958 and that there are committees in the public service sector in which the sector unions negotiate the employment conditions of public servants.

The Committee notes, however, that section 4 of Dahir No. 1-58-008 of 24 February 1958 establishing the general statute of the public service states that some categories (teachers, prison services, lighthouse personnel, water and forestry personnel) are governed not by the general statute but by specific statutes. The Committee recalls that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention, particularly the right to collective bargaining. It asks the Government to indicate whether the above categories have the right to collective bargaining and to send any relevant information in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that the draft text amending the Dahir of 16 July 1957 respecting professional trade unions was adopted by the Council of Ministers in April 1999 and that this amendment, if adopted by the legislature, will bring national legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee hopes that such statutory protection will guarantee adequate protection, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference referred to under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the text following its adoption and to provide information on its application.

2. Article 4. The Committee notes that a Tripartite Committee has been convened to examine the draft Labour Code. The Government reports that this Tripartite Committee has on the one hand suppressed the draft texts respecting compulsory arbitration and on the other hand inserted provision for recourse to arbitration following the consultation and agreement of the parties concerned. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft Code will be adopted shortly to guarantee conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

3. Article 6. As regards the provisions of the draft Labour Code respecting collective bargaining, the Committee has previously pointed out that these provisions appear to apply to workers in the private sector only. The Committee notes that the Government's report does not indicate whether the right to collective bargaining applies to public employees and public servants who are not employed in the administration of the State. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, these workers should enjoy the rights and guarantees envisaged under this Convention, including the right to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in this regard and to communicate any further developments in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information given to the Conference Committee in June 1998 and the ensuing detailed discussions. The Committee also notes the Bills communicated by the Government concerning the Labour Code, occupational trade unions and the settlement of collective labour disputes, as well as the Government's statement that if the adoption of the draft Labour Code continues to be blocked by the resistance of one of the social partners, a different text will be adopted reinforcing the texts that are already in force in respect of freedom of association.

The Committee also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 1877 (see 307th Report, June 1997) concerning serious allegations of numerous dismissals based on trade union activities.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused on the following points:

-- the need to strengthen the legislative provisions contained in Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960 with a view to guaranteeing in law and in practice adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the time of recruitment and in the course of the employment relationship (including all measures which might prejudice workers, such as transfers, downgrading, involuntary retirement) coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions (Article 1 of the Convention);

-- the need to adopt specific legislative measures to protect organizations of workers against acts of interference by employers or by organizations of employers, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of an employer, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other means (Article 2);

-- the need to adopt appropriate measures to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers' and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment (Article 4).

1. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with interest that under the terms of section 365 of the amended draft Labour Code, "any discriminatory measure based on an employee's trade union membership or activity, in particular with regard to hiring, management and distribution of work, vocational training, promotion and social benefits, termination of employment and disciplinary measures, shall be prohibited". The Committee also notes that the Bill amending and supplementing Royal Decree No. 1-57-119 of 16 July 1957 concerning trade unions also provides, in section 1, paragraph 2, 2bis (new), that "no discrimination based on a worker's trade union membership or activity shall be carried out between workers and, in particular, in the area of employment, operation and distribution of work, occupational training, promotion, social benefits, termination of employment and disciplinary measures". The Committee lastly notes the fines provided for under section 384 of the Bill, which are doubled for second and subsequent offences.

2. Protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference in each other's affairs. The Committee notes with interest that section 1, 2bis, of the Bill amending and supplementing Royal Decree No. 1-57-119 of 16 July 1957 concerning trade unions stipulates that "organizations of employers and workers shall not be entitled to interfere in each other's affairs, either directly or indirectly, in any matter concerning their membership, work and management". The Committee also notes the financial sanctions referred to in section 2, 23 of the same Bill.

3. Measures to promote collective bargaining. The Committee notes that sections 112-139 of the draft Labour Code (Title V) concern the procedure for concluding a collective agreement.

The Committee also notes that the provisions of the draft Labour Code are supplemented by a Bill concerning the settlement of collective labour disputes which, in sections 14-16, provides for compulsory arbitration in cases where conciliation has not led to an agreement or where points of disagreement remain. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration is admissible only in the case of public servants employed in the administration of the State, or in essential services, or during the conclusion of the first collective agreement (at the request of the workers' organization concerned) or in the case of deadlock in bargaining which cannot be broken without the initiative of the authorities.

The Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Bill will be in conformity with the Convention and in particular that it will not impose binding arbitration where conciliation fails.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Bills referred to by the Government apply to the private sector. The Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, the Convention does not concern the situation of public servants engaged in the administration of the State. Consequently, the other categories of public employees and public servants should enjoy the rights and safeguards provided for by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in this regard and to inform it of any developments in this matter in its next report.

Finally, the Committee takes note of recent measures referred to by the Government with a view to promoting collective bargaining and which include, inter alia, the setting up of a National Committee on Social Dialogue.

4. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Bills cited will be adopted in the very near future and asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. The Committee notes the debate which took place at the Conference Committee in 1997.

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691, both of which were examined most recently in November 1996 (see the 305th Report approved by the Governing Body at its 267th Session), in which the Committee on Freedom of Association expresses its grave concern at the gravity of the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities brought before it. It notes also the conclusions of the Committee concerning Case No. 1877 (see the 307th Report approved by the Governing Body at its 269th Session, June 1997) in which serious allegations of numerous dismissals based on trade union activities were examined.

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been insisting on the following points:

-- the need to strengthen the legislative provisions contained in Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960 with a view to guaranteeing in law and in practice adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the time of recruitment and in the course of the employment relationship (including all measures which might prejudice workers, such as transfers, downgrading, involuntary retirement) supported by effective sanctions of a sufficiently dissuasive nature (Article 1 of the Convention);

-- the need to adopt specific legislative measures to protect organizations of workers against acts of interference by employers or by organizations of employers, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of an employer, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other means (Article 2 of the Convention);

-- the need to adopt appropriate measures to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment (Article 4 of the Convention).

The Committee notes that the Government representative to the Conference Committee stated that draft legislation had been prepared containing provisions on the three matters noted above, that the Government was ready to accept the technical assistance of the ILO and that a technical cooperation programme was in fact in progress with the multidisciplinary team.

Observing that neither the legislation nor the national practice are in conformity with the Convention, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure significant progress is achieved in the near future, and trusts that the ILO technical assistance will be useful in meeting this objective.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed of progress in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691, both of which were examined most recently in November 1996 (see the 305th Report approved by the Governing Body at its 267th Session), in which the Committee on Freedom of Association expresses its grave concern at the gravity of the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities brought before it.

In these conditions, the Committee is bound to repeat its observation concerning the following points:

- the need to strengthen the legislative provisions contained in Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960 with a view to guaranteeing in law and in practice adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the time of recruitment and in the course of the employment relationship (including all measures which might prejudice workers, such as transfers, downgrading, involuntary retirement) supported by effective sanctions of a sufficiently dissuasive nature (Article 1 of the Convention);

- the need to adopt specific legislative measures to protect organizations of workers against acts of interference by employers or by organizations of employers, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of an employer, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other means (Article 2);

- the need to adopt appropriate measures to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment.

The Committee recalls that the question of anti-union discrimination and of the poor functioning of the machinery of collective bargaining for the purpose of determining terms and conditions of employment has been the subject of its comments for several years and notes with regret that no tangible progress has been made. Emphasizing the importance that it attaches to the application of this fundamental Convention and recalling that the ILO is at the disposal of the Government to provide any necessary technical assistance, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the real progress which has been made in law and practice in this respect. It requests it in particular to specify whether the draft Labour Code and the draft Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, to which the Government referred in its previous report, have been adopted and, if so, to indicate the extent to which they secure adequate protection for workers' and employers' organizations against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and promote free and voluntary collective bargaining without interference by the public authorities.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the 85th Session of the Conference.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information provided by a representative of the Government to the Conference Committee in June 1994 and the following debate.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

- the need to strengthen the legislative provisions contained in Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960 with a view to guaranteeing in law and in practice an adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the time of recruitment as well as in the course of the employment relationship (including all measures which might prejudice workers, such as transfers, downgrading, involuntary retirement) supported by effective sanctions of a sufficiently dissuasive nature (Article 1);

- the need to adopt specific legislative measures to protect organizations of workers against acts of interference by employers or by organizations of employers, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of an employer, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other reasons (Article 2);

- the need to adopt appropriate measures to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers' and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of conditions of employment.

The Committee notes that the Conference Committee, in June 1994, observed with concern that, despite the assurances given on a number of occasions by the Government to adopt a draft Labour Code in the near future and to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, no tangible progress has been noted. It also noted that, in the course of the examination of numerous complaints concerning acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recommended the Government to ensure effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination by means of specific provisions. It also noted that this question as well as the protection against acts of interference and the poor functioning of the machinery of collective bargaining for the purpose of determining conditions of employment has been the subject of comments for several years. Recalling the importance it attached to the implementation of this fundamental Convention, it called on the Government to report on real progress which has been made in law and in practice. It also recalled that the International Labour Office was at its disposal to provide any technical assistance that might be necessary in the form of direct contracts or any other form.

The Committee also notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Consultative Council on Social Dialogue has been established in 1994 and that the draft Labour Code as well as the draft Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes are in the process of adoption. The Committee can only, once again, express the firm hope that the legislative texts which are in the process of adoption will, in the near future, ensure that workers' and employers' organizations enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and of interference and promote free and voluntary collective bargaining without interference by public authorities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1589 (283rd and 287th Reports).

Further to its previous observation, the Committee recalls that the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Workers' Union of Morocco (UGTM) submitted comments in 1991 concerning Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention in which they criticized the absence of any legislation guaranteeing adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at work and the fact that workers' organizations do not enjoy, either in law or in practice, any protection against acts that impair their freedom to establish organizations and their independence.

The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that the Decision of 23 October 1948 issues model conditions of service determining the employment relationship between workers and employers and provides that the employer must only take into consideration the skills and capacities of workers with a view to their recruitment. Fines are envisaged for violations of this provision.

The Government also states that the draft Labour Code includes a provision prohibiting any discrimination between workers on the grounds of their membership of a trade union or their trade union activities and provides that employers who violate these provisions are liable to penal sanctions or fines.

The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code has been under examination for several years, that it is still being debated and has not yet been adopted. It recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association, when examining Case No. 1589, pointed out in its conclusions in 1993 that it is necessary for the legislation expressly to establish procedures for appeal against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers against workers, as well as penalties in this respect, in order to ensure the effectiveness in practice of Article 1 of the Convention (287th Report, para. 155). It also reiterated its recommendation recalling the need to ensure, by means of specific provisions and sufficiently dissuasive penalties, that workers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination by their employer.

With regard to protecting the right to establish organizations and their independence, upon which the CDT and the UGTM also commented, the Committee notes that the Government refers to the Dahir of 16 July 1957 respecting occupational organizations. The Committee notes, however, that the above text does not contain any provision which explicitly protects workers against acts of anti-union discrimination or which protects workers' organizations against acts of interference.

The Committee also recalls that it noted in the past that acts of anti-union discrimination had been raised in several complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association (Cases Nos. 992, 1017 and 1116).

In these circumstances, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts is bound once again to urge the Government to take legislative or other measures in the near future to ensure the application of the Convention.

Article 4. The Committee had also requested the Government to make detailed observations on the comments of the CDT and UGTM concerning the functioning of collective bargaining procedures.

The Committee notes, according to the information provided by the Government in its report, that negotiations and consultations between the social partners currently take place within the framework of special commissions including representatives of all trade union and economic groups. The Industrial Relations Committee, which is composed of representatives of the administration and of employers' and workers' organizations, has prepared a draft collective agreement based on the recommendations of the High Council of Collective Agreements. A draft framework agreement has been prepared for the sugar sector.

The Government also states that the Constitution, as amended in 1992, provides for the establishment of an economic and social council.

With regard to consultation and arbitration commissions, the regulations of which were issued by a Dahir of 1946, the Government states that they were unable to fulfil their functions and that the competent authorities are preparing draft legislation on the settlement of disputes.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that various draft texts have been prepared. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the adoption and implementation of these texts. In particular, it requests the Government to supply information on the composition, competence and establishment of the Economic and Social Council and its relationship with the High Council of Collective Agreements and the Industrial Relations Committee.

The Committee notes that the Government refers to case-law relating to dismissals on the grounds of the trade union activities of workers. It requests the Government to supply the text of any ruling issued by judicial bodies in this respect.

The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the practical rules which are currently in use for the settlement of collective labour disputes, and on the progress achieved in the preparation of draft legislation in this field.

The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the application of the model agreement for the sugar sector and on the number of collective agreements which have been concluded in the various sectors of the economy, the procedures followed for the renewal of collective agreements, the number of workers covered, etc.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not communicated its observations on the comments submitted by the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Workers' Union of Morocco (UGTM) of 5 March 1991 concerning Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, criticising the absence of any legislation guaranteeing adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at work and the fact that workers' organisations do not enjoy, either in law or in practice, any protection against acts that impair their freedom to establish unions and their independence.

The Committee is bound to stress once again, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, the need to adopt specific provisions guaranteeing effective protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and workers' organisations against acts of interference.

Article 4. The Committee notes with regret that, according to the observations of the CDT and the UGTM, the Government has paralysed most collective bargaining procedures. The above organisations refer to the Central Medical Advisory Council which is to be removed by section 364 of the draft Labour Code, the Central Prices and Wages Committee which has not met since 1961, the Central Collective Agreements Council which is no longer provided for in the draft Labour Code, the conciliation and arbitration committees responsible for the settlement of collective disputes, and the Central Council of the Public Service which has not met since 1961.

The Committee requests the Government to submit detailed comments on the observations of the CDT and the UGTM concerning the practical functioning of the various bodies mentioned above (number of collective agreements concluded, sectors covered) and any other procedure or body established to promote the full utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation, particularly in the national sugar enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the draft Labour Code contains no provision ensuring that workers' organisations are protected against acts of interference by employers or their organisations.

In the absence of comments on this point in the Government's report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that it intends to take in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to Case No. 1499 (272nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association), the Committee notes that an agreement was concluded unilaterally between the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for the national sugar refineries setting out the employment conditions and wages of workers in the refineries, although a collective agreement is still in force. The Committee also notes that by virtue of section XVIII, the agreement can only be modified through legislation or by decision of the general management approved by the Minister of Finance. This provision has the effect of ruling out all future possibilities of determining by way of collective bargaining the employment conditions and wages of workers in sugar refineries.

In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on any measure that has been taken or is envisaged so that workers in the national sugar refining sector can collectively bargain their conditions of employment and wages through their trade union organisations, in accordance with the principles of the voluntary negotiation of conditions of employment and wages set out in Article 4 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee notes from the Government's report that prefectoral and provincial employment delegates have been requested in a circular to take the necessary measures to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements between the social partners.

In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of this measure (the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors and workers covered by these agreements) and on the work of the Higher Council of Collective Agreements that was set up by Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960 and of any other body that is responsible for promoting collective bargaining.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1499 (272nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association).

Article 1 of the Convention. For several years the Committee has been requesting the Government to adopt statutory provisions to provide workers with adequate protection against acts of anti-trade union discrimination, and in its previous observation it noted that the draft Code supplied in 1988 includes provisions that are in accordance with the Convention on this point.

In its report, the Government indicates that measures have been taken to speed up the procedure for the adoption of the Labour Code. The Government adds that prefectoral and provincial employment delegates have been requested in a circular to take the necessary measures to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements between the social partners, and that the agreements that have been concluded emphasise the need to respect the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively.

While noting this information, the Committee refers to Case No. 1499 (272nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association) and notes with concern that in recent years several cases of dismissal of workers for trade union activities have been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

In these conditions, the Committee of Experts, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, once again urges the Government to take appropriate measures accompanied by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions so that workers can exercise the trade union rights recognised in the national legislation without fear of anti-trade union reprisals, and particularly so that the provisions of the draft Labour Code are adopted in the near future. It requests the Government to supply information on the progress achieved in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the draft Labour Code contains no provision ensuring that the workers' organisations are protected against any act of interference by employers or their organisations, as provided for by Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that specific measures, in particular through legislative provisions accompanied by civil remedies and penal sanctions, must be taken to ensure compliance with the guarantees mentioned by Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or considered to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee of 1988 and its report on the application of the Convention.

Referring to the Committee's previous comments concerning the shortcomings of the statutory provisions on protection against anti-union discrimination (Article 1 of the Convention), the Government stated in its previous report that the new Labour Code in the process of being drafted included provisions to guarantee the application of this Article of the Convention concerning the protection of workers against acts of anti-trade union discrimination in employment. The Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the draft Labour Code and to supply information on the adoption of these measures.

The Committee takes note of the text of the above draft submitted by the Government and notes with interest sections 7 and 353 of the draft Code under which a worker may not be subjected to discriminatory measures either at the recruitment stage or in the course of employment, or in respect of the distribution of work, vocational training, wages, promotion, the granting of social benefits, dismissal and disciplinary measures, and sections 8 and 372 guaranteeing the application of the above provisions by the imposition of civil and/or penal sanctions. It also notes section 54(1) of the draft, under which trade union membership does not constitute a valid reason for dismissal, and section 79 which provides that employers can be obliged to reinstate workers dismissed unjustly. Finally, it notes that, in conformity with section 104(3) of the above draft, all collective agreements must contain provisions which regulate the recruitment and dismissal of workers without prejudicing the free choice of a trade union by the workers.

In the view of the Committee, these provisions should make it possible to ensure that Article 1 of the Convention is given legal effect. However, the Committee regrets that it has received no information concerning the entry into force of the Labour Code.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft Labour Code will be adopted in the near future and urges the Government to provide information on progress made in this respect.