Informe provisional - Informe núm. 234, Junio 1984

1. 544. The complaint from the National Federation of Railways (Moroccan Union of Labour) is contained in communications dated 13 May 1983; this organisation supplied additional information in a communication of 30 May 1983. As no reply had been received from the Government, the examination of this case was adjourned by the Committee at its November 1983 meeting. Subsequently, an urgent appeal was made to the Government for its observations [see paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Committee's 233rd Report (approved by the Governing Body at its 225th Session, February-March 1984)]. No reply has been received from the Government.
2. 545. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 546. In its complaint of 13 May 1983, the National Federation of Railways (UMT) states that following the refusal of the General Management of the National Railways (ONCF) to open negotiations with it, the union organised a general strike from 3 to 21 May 1983 in order to put forward a list of claims. The trade union organisation protests against the authorities' reaction to this strike, which involved the use of the military to break it up and the arrest of nine railwaymen in Taza on 5 May 1983 for having taken part in the strike. Those railwaymen arrested were: Benjilali Abdeslam, Layachi Fouad (staff delegate), Meftah Mohamed, Saber Yahia, Ridal Abdellah, Ben Melih Azzedine, Zfizef Mohamed, Chahid Mohamed and Khaldi Mohamed. Furthermore, the complainant organisation points out that it issued instructions to the strikers to maintain order and discipline. As support to this statement, it encloses a summons to strike which it sent to all the railwaymen on 30 April 1983.
2. 547. In its supplementary communication of 30 May 1983, the complainant organisation alleges that the requisition orders were issued to the striking railwaymen at their homes by the authorities and it states that the nine trade unionists mentioned above were arrested and detained at the civilian prison from 4 to 19 May 1983 but that they were judged by the Taza court for having refused to comply with these orders. It mentions that three of these railwaymen, Ridal Abdellah, Chahid Mohamed and Saber Yahia, have been suspended from their work by a decision of the Director of Operations at the ONCF. It also mentions that following the strike, other trade unionists were arrested in Marrakech by the police so that their cases might be prepared and brought before the court, on the grounds that they had taken part in the strike. The complainant organisation points out that the railway workers' claims date from February 1982 and that, since that time, it had approached both the general management of the ONCF and the competent ministerial authorities on numerous occasions to voice its claims; however, it had never received any response to these claims or to its requests for a hearing. Consequently, a 24-hour general strike had already been organised on 17 February at the Operations headquarters; as a result of the total lack of response from both the ONCF management and the Government, it had been decided to hold a 24-hour general warning strike, which had then been extended, finally leading up to the strike from 3 to 21 May 1983.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 548. The Committee deeply regrets that in spite of the time which has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint and the many requests made to the Government, the latter has not sent its comments on this matter. Consequently, the Committee is bound to recall that the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and that it is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance of formulating, for objective examination detailed replies to the allegations submitted against them.
2. 549. In the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee can only note with concern that during the general strike from 3 to 21 May 1983 in the railway sector, nine trade unionists were arrested for having taken part in the strike, three of whom were suspended from their jobs and that the authorities called in the military to break up the strike; it also notes that this strike had been decided upon by the National Federation of Railways (UMT), the complainant organisation, following its unsuccessful attempts since February 1982 to negotiate with the general management of the ONCF and the ministry concerned on a list of claims. The Committee points out that a 24-hour general strike had already taken place in February 1983 and that, following its failure to achieve any results, the complainant organisation had decided upon a general strike which, after being extended several times, took place from 3 to 21 May 1983.
3. 550. The Committee would point out that, in this case, the complainant organisation alleges that the authorities called in the military to break up the strike and that, furthermore, requisition orders had been sent to all the railwaymen on strike at their homes, obliging them to work. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government's attention, as it has already done in the past [See, for example, 110th Report, Case No. 561 (Uruguay), para. 209; 214th Report, Case No. 1021 (Greece), para. 123.], to the fact that mobilisation and requisition measures against workers during labour disputes might be abused and that it is inappropriate to resort to such measures, except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity. The Committee notes that the nine railwaymen arrested were detained in a civilian prison from 4 to 19 May 1983 and tried by the Taza court for having refused to comply with the requisition orders and that three of these railwaymen had been suspended from their jobs by decision of the Director of Operations at the ONCF.
4. 551. Recalling that the right to strike is generally recognised as one of the legitimate means by which workers and their organisations may defend their occupational interests, the Committee considers that the use of police to break up a strike constitutes an infringement of trade union rights, as the police should only be concerned with maintaining public order. Furthermore, the Committee considers that transport does not generally fall within the category of essential services, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population. [See, for example, 199th Report, Case No. 943 (Dominican Republic), para. 172.]
5. 552. With respect to the fact that neither the employer nor the administrative authorities gave effect to the requests from the Federation to open negotiations on the railway workers' claims, the Committee recalls that the right to negotiate freely with employers and their organisations on wages and working conditions constitutes a fundamental aspect of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee considers that the trade unions should have the possibility of exercising this right freely and that, in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Morocco, it is the Government's duty to guarantee the promotion of this right.
6. 553. The Committee is also concerned by the fact that three of the railwaymen who took part in the general strike in May 1983 have been dismissed from their employment by the general management of the ONCF. The Committee points out that such measures constitute acts of discrimination liable to infringe freedom of association with respect to employment; in the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee can only note that, according to the complainant organisation, these dismissals took place on the grounds that those concerned had taken part in the strike. In these circumstances, the Committee points out that there is an infringement of Article 1 of Convention No. 98, which states that "workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment". The Committee therefore requests-that these three railwaymen be reinstated in their jobs given that the organising trade union gave instructions that order and discipline be maintained during the general strike in May 1983, that strike action is a legitimate means of defending the occupational interests of workers and their organisations, and that, in this particular case, the dismissals constitute a discrimination against workers involved in legitimate trade union activities.