Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 214, Marzo 1982

1. 93. The Committee already examined this case at its May 1981 Session at which it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body requesting certain additional information from the Government information. That information was supplied by the Government in a communication dated 11 January 1982.
2. 94. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 95. The allegations still pending after the last examination of this case by the Committee related to the sentences imposed on four strikers following a labour dispute that arose in the transnational corporation, American Chewing Gum. According to the complainant, Mr. Salah Saassaa had received a suspended sentence of two months' imprisonment, Mr. Mohamed Gharid and Mr. Mohamed Khlikhel had received suspended sentences of four months' imprisonment, and Mr. Mohamed Souhir was to be tried on 2 January 1981.
2. 96. Following the dismissal of four trade union leaders in September 1980, according to the complainant, the workers of the corporation had called a solidarity strike, and had opposed the management's efforts to bring in new workers. The authorities had then retaliated by the arrests and sentences mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
3. 97. Since the Government had not, when the case was last examined, supplied any information on the sentences imposed on the trade unionists, at its May 1981 Session the Committee requested the Government for information on this aspect of the case.

B. The Government's reply

1. 98. In its communication of 11 January 1982, the Government explains that the dispute which had arisen in the American Chewing Gum Corporation was terminated by an agreement between the two parties. At the same time, regarding the criminal proceedings taken against the workers whose cases had been brought before the court, the Government acknowledges that the sentences mentioned by the complainants were in fact imposed on the workers in question by the Casablanca court of first instance and only Mohamed Souhir had been given the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted on 9 January 1981.
2. 99. The Government states that Salah Saassaa was charged with interference with the right to work for having obstructed the path of the plaintiff, Mostai'in Jamila, a woman worker, on 7 October 1980, in an attempt to compel her to join the strikers. She had taken refuge at the workplace until the arrival of the police, who had then arrested Mr. Salah Saassaa and handed him over to the public prosecutor's office together with other persons charged with the same offences. However, only Mr. Saassaa has been prosecuted and had been given a suspended sentence of two months' imprisonment and sentenced to a fine.
3. 100. For their part, Mr. Mohamed Gharid and Mr. Mohamed Khlikhel were accused by another woman worker, Mrs. El Atek Najat on 13 October 1980 of having obstructed her path in order to compel her to join the strikers and of having beaten her. The plaintiff produced a medical certificate of 20 days of invalidity. The two men received a suspended sentence of four months' imprisonment, and were sentenced to a fire, for assault and battery.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 101. The Committee notes that this case relates to penal sentences imposed on strike pickets accused of interference with the right to work, whereas, according to the strikers, they merely attempted to oppose the recruitment of new workers taken on by the corporation to break the strike.
2. 102. In this connection, the Committee recalls that it has always considered that strike pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities. It has also considered it legitimate to prevent pickets from disturbing public order and threatening workers who continue to work.
3. 103. The Committee must note however that, according to the complainant, the strike pickets opposed the entrance of new workers engaged by the corporation to break the strike, an affirmation to which the Government does not reply.
4. 104. The Committee in this particular case considers that the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace the workers on strike may have entailed a risk of derogation from the right to strike liable to affect the free exercise of trade union rights.
5. 105. In this instance, since the strikers received suspended sentences and the labour dispute was terminated by an agreement, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.