Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 230, Novembre 1983

1. 65. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 1982, during which it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Subsequently, the complainant organisation presented additional allegations on 10, 12, 22 January, 2 February, 7 March and 18 July 1983. Concerning one of the aspects of this case, the accused employer, in this case the North African pharmaceutical laboratories LAPROPHAN, submitted comments in a communication of 27 January 1983; furthermore, the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers, in a communication dated 1 April 1983, supported the complaint made by the Moroccan Federation of Labour, especially with respect to the dispute in the GEPIMA firm. Finally, the Government provided some information in communications dated 25 February, 1 and 10 August and 31 October 1983.
2. 66. 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. 67. The complainant organisation's allegations concerned the dismissal, for reasons of anti-union discrimination, of three Workers' delegates at the SEPO firm; this dismissal allegedly took place on 4 January 1982 following a labour dispute. The Government had confirmed the dismissals but stated that they had been made because the delegates in question had held a meeting in the factory during working hours. As the dispute had been referred to the Social Tribunal, the Committee considered that, in order to enable it to reach a decision in full knowledge of the facts, it should receive a copy of the judgement as soon as it had been taken.

B. New developments

1. 68. Since then, the complainant organisation has submitted further allegations concerning dismissals, prompted by anti-union discrimination, not only at the SEPO firm but also at the LAPROPHAN firm, at the MAGRI quarries, at Sotmar, at the GEPIMA firm, at the BENI AMER farms and at the Moroccan Vincent meter firm, a branch of the multinational enterprise Flonic Schlumberger.
2. 69. The LAPROPHAN company had allegedly dismissed Mr. Boujemaa, Mr. Jilliali, Mr. Baghdadi and Mr. Nahil, Workers' delegates, other workers having been laid off for eight days or downgraded.
3. 70. According to the complainant, an official from the trade union executive had been dismissed at the MAGRI quarries; furthermore, 22 and 21 workers had been dismissed at Sotmar and at the BENI AMER farms, respectively, for having attempted to set up a union within the undertaking.
4. 71. At the GEPIMA firm, 18 workers, including five members of the trade union executive, had allegedly been dismissed as a reprisal for having assumed trade union responsibilities. All the staff had then come out on a sympathy strike as from 1 February 1983. Concerning this latter issue, the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers mentions that, during a visit to Casablanca from 17 to 20 March 1983, it learnt from discussions with several workers at the GEPIMA firm that the majority of the 250 employees in this firm were young girls aged from 16 to 18 years, without a contract of employment and uncovered by social security. There had allegedly been several cases of dismissals following an occupational accident. Furthermore, bonuses would be withdrawn from any workers joining a union.
5. 72. At the Moroccan Vincent meter firm, Mr. Sindes, Mr. Lahmeur, Mr. Dahmani, Mr. Driss and Mr. Aboulaïch, trade union delegates, had allegedly been dismissed and Mr. Touïri laid off for having taken part in a token strike on 10, 14, 15, 18, 21 and 23 February 1983, declared by the workers in support of their claims for employment security.
6. 73. Finally, at the General Pharmaceutical Union, Mr. Bifihzi, Mr. Lasry, Mr. Yahyaoui and Mr. Jaa had allegedly been the victims of anti-union reprisals and been dismissed on 7 July 1983.
7. 74. The Moroccan Federation of Labour considers that the labour disputes are mainly caused by the refusal of the governor of the Ben Slimane region, representing the Ministry of the Interior, to grant the workers free exercise of their trade union rights. Indeed, in several firms, the workers had allegedly complied with the administrative procedure required to set up a trade union executive but the administration had refused to issue the receipt of the deposit of their application. Furthermore, according to the complainant, the provincial authorities had proceeded to demolish the premises of the Moroccan Federation of Labour.
8. 75. For its part, the LAPROPHAN company, in its communication of 27 January 1983, denies having adopted an anti-union attitude and claims that any sanction taken had been in accordance with current law. It also points out that a protocol agreement had been signed under the aegis of the authorities concerned and that no protest had been raised concerning the measures taken against those penalised for serious misconduct.

C. The Government's reply

1. 76. In a first communication of 25 February 1983, the Government pointed out that, with respect to the SEPO company, the labour inspectorate had discovered that the employer had committed an offence by not complying with the procedure governing disciplinary action against a trade union delegate and it stated that the matter was still being examined by the Social Tribunal.
2. 77. On 1 August 1983, the Government added that a conciliation meeting had been held at the headquarters of the labour inspectorate on 5 April 1983 and had been attended by the prefectural labour delegate, the director of the GEPIMA firm, the staff representatives and the trade unions' delegates of the Moroccan Federation of Labour; an agreement had been reached as a result of this meeting, enabling workers to go back to work on 6 April 1983. Only Mr. Gharmat and Mr. Farhi had not returned to work but they will continue to receive their wages until the Director-General of the GEPIMA firm has arrived, with whom they will meet to discuss a final settlement of the issue.
3. 78. On 10 August 1983, the Government pointed out that a final agreement had been reached at the LAPROPHAN firm on 25 January 1983, which settled the dispute by granting compensation to the trade union delegate Mr. Boujemaa, dismissed for having organised a workers' meeting in the undertaking and, according to the Director of the company, for having made insulting remarks against the authorities; the agreement also provided for the reinstatement of all the dismissed workers except for Mr. Jihali Najmi, who is physically disabled and must be taken in care by the National Social Security Office. On 31 October 1983, the Government also pointed out that the Moroccan Vincent meter firm and the local Federation of Trade Unions of Casablanca have reached an agreement, thanks to the efforts of the Ministry of Labour delegation of the Mohamadia Zenata Prefecture, according to which salaries have been increased and four temporary workers employed on a permanent basis.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 79. The Committee notes that the allegations principally concern reprisals taken by employers in several firms against workers involved in labour disputes. The complainant also alleges that the governor of a province is unco-operative and holds up the procedure for setting up new trade union organisations.
2. 80. The Government and the employer of one of these firms explain that the proceedings are conducted within the framework of the law. The Government particularly mentions conciliation meetings which have had some positive results.
3. 81. The fact nevertheless remains that the Government did not provide information - or did not provide adequate information - on, for example, several disputes at the SEPO firm, where the matter was still being examined by the Social Tribunal, at the MAGRI quarries and at Sotmar, in particular the Beni Amer farms.
4. 82. The Committee notes that it has frequently had to deal with allegations of dismissals for anti-trade union reasons in Morocco recently' and it points out that, especially with respect to Case No. 1017, it has already drawn the attention of the Moroccan Government to the need for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination under which workers' representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any acts prejudicial to them, including dismissal, layoff, transfer or downgrading, based on their status or activities as workers' representatives, on their union membership or participation in union activities in accordance with the law.? The Committee can therefore only request the Government, as did the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at its meeting in March 1983, to adopt more specific legal provisions guaranteeing workers adequate protection, possibly accompanied by penalties against discriminatory acts in employment.
5. 83. The Committee considers it useful to draw the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations once again to the matter of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the legislative level.