Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 79, 1965

1. 86. The complaint by the Moroccan General Federation of Labour (U.G.T.M.) is contained in a communication dated 4 October 1963 addressed directly to the I.L.O.; it was supplemented by a communication dated 6 May 1964 containing fresh allegations. The original complaint was transmitted to the Government for its observations by a letter dated 14 October 1963 and the information supplied in support of it in a letter dated 15 May 1964. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 9 September 1964.
2. 87. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has, however, ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 88. The complainants allege that, by tacit agreement with the authorities, a systematic policy of discrimination against U.G.T.M is being followed in Morocco. The result of this policy is to give the Moroccan Labour Union (U.M.T.) a near monopoly in trade union affairs because of the advantages it enjoys to the detriment of U.G.T.M.
2. 89. In support of these general statements the complainants allege, firstly, that in Casablanca and throughout the Kingdom, whereas U.M.T has received a number of subsidies exceeding tens of thousands of dirhams, U.G.T.M, its unions in most of the regions of Morocco, and its member federations, have been denied any assistance since 1959.
3. 90. The complainants further assert that many premises, and in particular the labour exchanges in a number of places, are at the free disposition of U.M.T alone; this deprives thousands of workers affiliated to U.G.T.M of premises large enough to hold meetings and conduct their other trade union activities, or compels U.G.T.M to rent premises-an expense which U.M.T is spared.
4. 91. The Government points out in its reply that subsidies are granted to trade union organisations either by the local communities or by the Ministry of the Interior. Up to 1960, it says, only U.M.T had received subsidies; in that year U.G.T.M, having received legal recognition, was able to request the same benefits in this field.
5. 92. The Government states that in the local communities it is the communal councils that vote the budget. The democratic principles governing the election of such councils ensure that these reflect the prevailing political tendencies in the various localities; as a result they grant subsidies either to U.M.T or to U.G.T.M. As an example the Government refers to the case of the Municipal Council of Fez, which supported the Istiglal; when considering its budget for 1961 it decided to give subsidies of 4,000 dirhams to U.G.T.M and 500 dirhams to U.M.T, although the latter had been receiving from the town of Fez a subsidy of 54,000 dirhams before the institution of communal councils. The Government states that, on the other hand, the Municipal Council of Settat has opposed the granting of a subsidy in favour of the local branch of U.G.T.M.
6. 93. The Ministry of the Interior, continues the Government, has endeavoured, whenever possible, to offset to an appreciable extent the effects of this method of allocating subsidies. To do so it has used credits in its own budget. Accordingly, says the Government, U.M.T and U.G.T. M. each received a subsidy of 200,000 dirhams in 1960, but in 1962 only U.G.T.M received a subsidy, to the amount of 100,000 dirhams.
7. 94. With regard to the allegations concerning the use of labour exchanges, the Government points out that a distinction should be made between the employment offices built by municipalities with a state subsidy, as at Rabat and Casablanca, and the premises made available without charge to the local trade union organisations in various urban communes.
8. 95. The Government states that U.M.T, since it was the only trade union federation until 1960, occupied and still occupies the labour exchanges at Rabat and Casablanca and still has the usage of premises made available to it since 1957 by municipalities and other centres of population.
9. 96. The Government declares that the Ministry of the Interior is endeavouring to settle the problem of subsidies and in every case is seeking a solution intended to keep the trade unions on an equal footing. A survey of the various material benefits received by the local organisations is being carried out for this purpose. It is intended either to withdraw entirely from the trade union organisations the use of premises they now occupy-a course that may not be accepted by the communal councils-or to grant the organisations identical benefits. The Ministry of the Interior is giving careful attention to the practical working out of this solution, for the chairmen of the communal councils have to sign the leases of the premises and to authorise payment of the rents and the cost of supplies, which is likely to give rise to certain difficulties. The Government states that, in any case, a decision will soon be taken to satisfy all concerned.
10. 97. The Government emphasises, however, that the administration is not seeking in any way to favour one trade union at the expense of another and does not permit infringements against the right to organise; on the contrary, it continually endeavours to redress a situation caused by circumstances.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 98. When examining former cases that showed certain similar characteristics to those of the present case the Committee pointed out, on the one hand, that the repercussions which financial aid may have on the autonomy of trade union organisations will depend essentially on circumstances: they cannot be assessed by applying general principles; and, on the other hand, that the fact that a government granted benefits to a certain organisation or withdrew them from it in favour of another was likely to result, even if inadvertently, in aiding or in impeding one trade union in comparison with the others and consequently to become a discriminatory action. More specifically, the Committee believed that a government, by aiding or impeding one organisation in comparison with the others, is able to influence-directly or indirectly-the choice of the workers as regards which organisation they wish to join; for it is a fact that they will be inclined to join the trade union most useful to them even if, for vocational or other reasons, they would have preferred to affiliate to some other organisation. The Committee further pointed out that the free choice of the persons concerned constitutes a right explicitly recognised in Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
2. 99. In the present case it would appear that the Government is far from favouring the continuation of a situation in which certain organisations have advantages over others and is actively seeking solutions likely to ensure that the various branches of the trade union movement receive strictly equal treatment as regards material benefits. It appears that the Government's action on subsidies has already proved successful, at least partially, in putting right the injustices that had arisen from circumstances and the actual political situation in various parts of the country. The Government states that a decision will shortly be made on the utilisation of labour exchanges and other premises made available to trade unions that will satisfy all the interested parties.