Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 218, Novembre 1982

1. 556. The complaint of the Local Federation of Trade Unions of Casablanca, affiliated to the Moroccan Federation of labour, is contained in a communication dated 15 February 1982. The Government forwarded its observations in a letter dated 21 May 1982.
2. 557. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 558. The Local Federation of Trade Unions of Casablanca alleges that three trade union leaders have been dismissed. It explains that, on 3 January 1982, employees of the SEPO Food Company, located at 2 rue du Caporal Corbi in Casablanca, held a general meeting at the head office of the Moroccan Federation of Labour in order to discuss the penalties imposed by the management on trade union leaders Mohamed Al Jahid, Bouchaib Najmedine and Mohamed Ben Mouyal in order to intimidate them. The complainant organisation states that on 4 January the management ordered the dismissal of these trade union leaders the latter two of whom had 8 and 27 years service respectively. It asks that the Conventions on freedom of association be respected and that the unlawfully dismissed trade unionists be reinstated.

B. The Government's reply

1. 559. The Government confirms the dismissal on 4 January 1982 of three workers delegates by the SEPO Company. However, according to the Government, the three delegates in question had organised a meeting of factory personnel during working hours and prevented a maintenance crew from working on Sunday to prepare equipment. Several steps had been taken by the labour inspectorate in order to reach an amicable settlement to the dispute, but the employer had upheld his decision of dismissal. The delegates' case had been referred to the Social Tribunal, which alone is competent to settle the matter, concludes the Government.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 560. The Committee notes the explanations sent by the Government and, in particular, the fact that the workers delegates were dismissed for organising a meeting in the undertaking during working hours.
2. 561. The Committee notes that the complainant organisation has given no indication of the reasons which caused the management to penalise the workers delegates, nor of the nature of the initial so-called "intimidation" penalties imposed on them. In addition, according to the complainant organisation, a meeting was held at the trade union head office outside company premises.
3. 562. The Committee has examined the provisions of Dahir No. 1-61-116 of 29 October 1962 (29 Joumada I 1382) in respect of workers representation in undertakings. This text assigns delegates the task of submitting any individual or collective complaints to the head of the establishment and, in the event of a disagreement, to forward these complaints to the official responsible for labour inspection; the head of the establishment is bound to place at their disposal the necessary premises to enable them to carry out their duties and to hold meetings; they may post up the information which it is their duty to bring to the notice of the workers; the head of the establishment is obliged to allow them the necessary time off for carrying out their duties (which may not exceed 15 hours per month and for which they are paid as for hours worked); they must be received by the employer once a month and, in urgent cases, at their request. Finally, the text specifies that any absolute dismissal of a delegate by the management must be submitted without delay to the official responsible for labour inspection, who must make a recommendation and that, in the event of serious misconduct, the head of the establishment may immediately order temporary dismissal until the official responsible for labour inspection has made his recommendation, which he is bound to issue within eight days; any interference with workers delegates in the proper exercise of their functions is punishable by a fine or even imprisonment.
4. 563. The Committee notes that this legislation does not appear to derogate from the principles of freedom of association and that it provides preliminary guarantees in the event of dismissal of workers delegates.
5. 564. In these circumstances, given that, in the case in question, the versions of the complainant organisation and of the Government of the reasons for the dismissal of the workers delegates do not fully coincide, since according to the complainants the general meeting was held outside the premises of the undertaking, while according to the Government a meeting took place in the factory during working hours, the Committee considers that the text of the decision of the Social Tribunal could be useful in enabling it to reach conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.