Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 294, Junio 1994

1. 347. In a communication dated 13 July 1993, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) made a complaint against the Government of Morocco alleging violation of trade union rights. It sent additional information in a communication dated 20 July 1993. In a letter dated 17 August 1993, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) endorsed the complaint presented by the UMT.
2. 348. In the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee had to postpone its examination of this case on three occasions, and at its meeting of March 1994, it made an urgent appeal to the Government stating that in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the information and observations requested from the Government had not been received in due time. Since then, the Government has not furnished any observations.
3. 349. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87); however, it has ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainant organization

1. 350. In its communication of 13 July 1993, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) alleges that on 7 July 1993, 12 workers on strike from the SOCAFIR (smelting works) plant in Casablanca were arrested by the gendarmerie after the police intervened against the workers of this plant who had gone on strike on 20 February 1993. The workers were Messrs. Taik Abdelaziz, Mouiid Mohammed, Hilali Mohammed, Lakhouara Erreguragui, Aarif Brahim, Laasri Lhoussine, Arabi Abderrahim, El Asry Abdellah, El Kamouni Mustapha, Ilataa Jilali, Zraidi Jilali and Saadi Jilali. The UMT explains that this strike lasted five months and had been carried out in solidarity with four trade union delegates of the UMT - these persons are also staff delegates - who had been arbitrarily dismissed. The UMT adds that the persons arrested were to be tried on 15 July 1993 on charges, which it maintains were unfounded, of violating the freedom to work. It believes that whatever the verdict this collective arrest of strikers following brutal intervention by the police is a flagrant violation of freedom of association and the right to strike which is, however, expressly guaranteed in the Moroccan Constitution and constitutes intimidation and anti-trade union discrimination.
2. 351. The complainant organization alleges that six strikers from the SICOPAR establishment were arrested in Casablanca on 2 July 1993 on the same unfounded charge of violating the freedom to work. These were Messrs. Tortani Hamou, Charii Omar, Lahlal Abdelakader, Dahloul Mohammed, Assamane Jilali and Aariche Mustapha. According to the UMT, the trial of these persons was scheduled for 16 July 1993. The complainant organization recalls that in this case as in the others, there has been flagrant collusion between the public authorities and the employer since the strikers were arrested and imprisoned on the basis of totally prefabricated accusations, including in particular false evidence provided by persons close to the employer such as his personal chauffeur and a member of his domestic staff.
3. 352. The UMT also refers to the arrest on 12 August 1993 of six strikers employed at Sidi-Kacem in the El Baraka agricultural enterprise which is part of the former COMAGRI enterprise, a recently privatized agricultural firm. The UMT indicates that these arrests were also due to the so-called violation of the freedom to work, although in fact the strikers were simply protesting in front of the establishment against the arrival of a group of strikebreakers recruited by the employer. It points out that the arrested persons included Mr. Mohammed Zarzour, secretary-general of the UMT trade union in the enterprise.
4. 353. The complainant organization also alleges brutal intervention by the police and the refusal of the employers to negotiate in several enterprises. Thus in the PLASTIMA plant, the police allegedly took violent action on 14 June 1993 against strikers and the employer still refuses to discuss any of the claims put forward by the workers; the employers of the SOPROMAROC (textiles) multinational enterprise, where the dispute has continued since 3 April 1993, and the MARPHOCEAN maritime transport enterprise, a branch of a nationalized group (OCP), also refuse to negotiate with the workers; in this last mentioned enterprise, the strike began on 2 July 1993 and the refusal of the employer to negotiate in good faith has allegedly been accompanied by measures of intimidation and provocation against the strikers. The UMT states that the public authorities have turned a blind eye which, according to the complainant organization, is further proof of collusion with the employer and discrimination against the UMT.
5. 354. In its communication dated 20 July 1993, the UMT provides details of the events which took place at the El Baraka agricultural enterprise in Sidi-Kacem. It explains that the workers in this enterprise went on strike on 15 June 1993 following the refusal of the employer to discuss their claims concerning the granting of work cards, the maintenance of their wages and the application of social security regulations. From the beginning of the strike the employer allegedly made use of strikebreakers. When the workers demonstrated against this manoeuvre in front of the enterprise, the public authorities intervened and in particular the gendarmerie, which asked the strikers to appoint six workers to discuss the matter with the King's Prosecutor. Thus, Mr Ali Zarzour, secretary-general of the UMT trade union in the enterprise, and five other strikers who had accepted this offer in good faith agreed to follow the gendarmes in a private vehicle. These persons were then arrested by the Prosecutor who, after the intervention of the National Agricultural Federation of the UMT and in the absence of any charges, released them on 14 July 1993.
6. 355. The UMT states that in Rabat, on 13 July 1993, a trade union demonstration by staff of the Ministry of National Education was violently broken up by the police outside the headquarters of the Ministry, following the refusal of the Minister to hold discussions with the representatives of the demonstrators. The following morning a new demonstration was held outside the Ministry to demand a meeting with the Minister. As a result of brutal intervention by the police, 30 workers were injured, including three seriously. One demonstrator was arrested and released at the end of the day on 14 July 1993.
7. 356. The UMT adds that in Nador, 12 strikers out of 1,600 deep-sea fishermen who had stopped work following a call made by the UMT on 16 July 1993 were arrested on the morning of 17 July by order of the Governor of the city. The UMT explains that the fishermen were demonstrating against the increasing number of serious procedural violations by officials in the National Fisheries Office which systematically deprive them of a large part of their income. The UMT states that those arrested were accused of violating the freedom to work and to trade and of disrupting public order and brought before the court on 19 July 1993 and that the verdict was expected for 23 July 1993. The persons imprisoned are: Messrs. Jabari Chaib, Amrani Mohamed, Bilali Chouaib, Bouarfa Yamani, Aberkan Ahmed, Rochdi Mimoun, Talhaoui Mehdi, Frasi Abdeslam, Daradi Khalid and Chibani Said.
8. 357. As regards the 12 strikers from the SOCAFIR (smelting works) enterprise in Casablanca who were arrested on 7 July 1993, the UMT states that they were tried on 15 July 1993 by the court of the first instance of Casablanca and given a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment and fined 2,500 dirhams (i.e. the equivalent of twice the minimum monthly wage of a labourer). It also points out that the UMT lawyers have lodged an appeal.
9. 358. As regards the six strikers from the SICOPAR enterprise who had been arrested on 2 July 1993 in Casablanca, the UMT states that the court of the first instance of Casablanca gave them a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment on 16 July 1993.
10. 359. As regards the dispute in the MARPHOCEAN maritime transport enterprise, the UMT states that it has continued since 2 July 1993. Although the strike has been unanimously followed by navigation officers and seamen, the management still refuses to negotiate and rejects the claims put forward by the National Union of Officers of the Merchant Marine (SNOMM-UMT) and the National Union of Commercial Seafarers (SNMC-UMT). According to the UMT, these two trade unions have organized two national solidarity strikes since the beginning of the dispute in this enterprise. The employer, with the support of the Ministry of the Merchant Marine and Fishing, has allegedly freighted foreign vessels to circumvent the strike. The enterprise also ordered on 16 July 1993 the forced removal from their vessel of two striking officers and on 19 July 1993 the removal of three other officers.
11. 360. The UMT states that the disputes in the PLASTIMA and SOPROMAROC plants continue.
12. 361. In conclusion, the complainant organization states that since the beginning of July 1993, 57 strikers who are members of the organization have been arrested and that, in the city of Casablanca alone, 20 UMT trade union delegates were dismissed in the month of June 1993. The complainant organization believes that this reflects a deliberate policy of anti-trade union repression and discrimination which has been violently and massively applied against the militant members, officials and structures of the UMT.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 362. The Committee regrets that, despite the time elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, and though it has been invited on several occasions to make comments and observations on this case, including through an urgent appeal, the Government has not answered any of the allegations made by the complainant organization.
2. 363. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure (see the 127th Report of the Committee, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee feels obliged to submit a report on the substance of this case in the absence of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 364. The Committee first of all reminds the Government that the purpose of the procedures established by the International Labour Organization for examining allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure that this freedom is respected in law and in fact. While these procedures protect governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize for their part the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed replies to such allegations made against them (see First Report of the Committee, para. 31).
4. 365. The Committee notes with concern that the allegations in this case once again concern serious and numerous infringements of freedom of association in several Moroccan enterprises and against certain employees in the public sector: arrests, imprisonment and the sentencing of strikers, violent interventions by the police during strikes, the refusal of employers to negotiate with workers and their representatives, the substitution of strikers to put an end to strikes, the dismissal of strikers and trade union officials as well as other measures of intimidation and provocation against them.
5. 366. As regards the allegations concerning the arrest and, in some cases, the sentencing on charges of violating the freedom to work of a large number of workers and trade unionists on strike, the Committee notes that they concern the following enterprises and persons: (i) in the SOCAFIR enterprise in Casablanca, 12 persons were arrested on 7 July 1993 and were given a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment by the court of the first instance of Casablanca and fined 2,500 dirhams (i.e. the equivalent of twice the minimum monthly wage of a labourer); Messrs. Taik Abdelaziz, Mouiid Mohammed, Hilali Mohammed, Lakhouara Erreguragui, Aarif Brahim, Laasri Lhoussine, Arabi Abderrahim, El Asry Abdellah, El Kamouni Mustapha, Ilataa Jilali, Zraidi Jilali and Saadi Jalali; (ii) in the SICOPAR enterprise in Casablanca, six strikers were arrested on 2 July 1993, imprisoned on the basis of prefabricated accusations and false evidence by persons close to the employer and given a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment by the court of the first instance of Casablanca: Messrs. Tortani Hamou, Charii Omar, Lahlal Abdelakader, Dahloul Mohammed, Assamane Jilali and Aariche Mustapha; (iii) in the El Baraka agricultural enterprise in Sidi-Kacem, six strikers were arrested on 12 July 1993, including Mr. Mohammed Zarzour, secretary-general of the UMT trade union at the enterprise, and released on 14 July 1993 following the intervention of the National Agricultural Federation of the UMT and in the absence of any charges; (iv) in Nador, 12 deep-sea fishermen on strike were arrested on 17 July and brought before the court on 19 July 1993; a verdict was due to be given on 23 July. Among imprisoned persons were Messrs. Jabari Chaib, Amrani Mohamed, Bilali Chouaib, Bouarfa Yamani, Aberkan Ahmed, Rochdi Mimoun, Talhaoui Mehdi, Frasi Abdeslam, Daradi Khalid and Chibani Said; and (v) on 14 July 1993, a person was arrested during a trade union demonstration by staff of the Ministry of National Education.
6. 367. As regards the arrest by the police of strikers alleged by the complainant organization, the Committee reminds the Government that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 363). Furthermore, in the opinion of the Committee, the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike (Digest, op. cit., para. 447). The Committee recalls that taking part in picketing and firmly but peaceably inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace cannot be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers in an attempt to interfere with their freedom to work; such acts constitute criminal offences in many countries (Digest, op. cit., para. 435). With account being taken of these principles to which it attaches considerable importance, the Committee urges the Government to release immediately all the persons who were arrested for normal trade union activities and reinstate them in their jobs. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the situation of these persons and to transmit the texts of any judgements handed down against them. Noting furthermore that the workers of the SOCAFIR enterprise who were given suspended prison sentences have lodged appeals, the Committee requests the Government to furnish the texts of the rulings handed down on appeal.
7. 368. As regards the allegations concerning the violent intervention of the police to disperse striking workers and during the course of which some persons were injured, and in particular the brutal intervention by the police during strikes organized by workers in the SOCAFIR enterprise in Casablanca, the SICOPAR enterprise in Casablanca, the El Baraka agricultural enterprise in Sidi-Kacem and the PLASTIMA enterprise, as well as during a trade union demonstration by staff of the Ministry of National Education, the Committee once again emphasizes that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can develop only where fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed (see Digest, op. cit., para. 68), and recalls that the authorities should resort to the use of force in the event of strikes only in serious situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The Committee therefore requests the Government to open an independent, impartial and in-depth inquiry to determine the nature of the police action alleged by the complainant organization and to determine responsibilities and to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of this inquiry.
8. 369. The Committee also notes that the complainant organization alleges that several employers have adopted an anti-trade union attitude. Thus, the management of the PLASTIMA, SOPROMAROC and MARPHOCEAN enterprises and of the El Baraka agricultural enterprise Sidi-Kacem and the authorities of the Ministry of National Education allegedly refuse to discuss in good faith the claims put forward by their workers or to negotiate with them. Furthermore, in the MARPHOCEAN enterprise, the management has allegedly had recourse to measures of intimidation and provocation against striking workers; it is also accused of having freighted foreign vessels to circumvent the strike, with the support of the Ministry of the Merchant Marine and Fishing, and of having ordered the forced disembarkation of five striking officers. The management of the El Baraka agricultural enterprise in Sidi-Kacem allegedly made use of strikebreakers. The Committee notes that the UMT states in general that 20 of its delegates in Casablanca alone were dismissed during the month of June 1993. It also notes that the complainant organization states that in all these cases the public authorities refrained from taking steps to ensure the respect of workers' rights or sided with the employers.
9. 370. In these circumstances, the Committee can only remind the Government that legislation must establish express provisions for appeals and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations in order to ensure the practical application of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98. The Committee must also remind the Government in this connection that for a number of years the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has asked the Government to adopt specific provisions to guarantee effective protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and workers' organizations against acts of interference (see Report III (Part 4A), 1992, p. 276). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to adopt as soon as possible legislative or other measures to ensure the application of the Convention and to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect.