Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 328, Juin 2002

1. 464. The Committee already examined the substance of this case at its May-June 2001 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 325th Report, paras. 433-447, approved by the Governing Body at its 281st Session (June 2001).] The Government provided additional information in its communications dated 21 September 2001, and 5 February and 6 May 2002.
2. 465. Morocco has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); however, it has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 466. At its June 2001 session, in the light of the Committee’s interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendation:
2. The Committee requests the Government to transmit the text of the judicial decision justifying the police intervention in February 2000 at the Oulmès company. It also invites the Government to provide, after consultation with the company concerned, further information on the allegations, including those concerning the use of labour from outside the company during the dispute at the Oulmès company. The Committee requests the complainant to transmit any additional information it may consider useful.
3. B. The Government’s new reply
4. 467. In its communication dated 21 September 2001, the Government states that, as part of the efforts of the Department of Labour to settle disputes and promote social dialogue, the National Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation convened a meeting on 19 July 2001 in an attempt to bring the parties to the dispute closer to an agreement. However, the Oulmès company did not attend the meeting and rejected all the Commission’s proposals for an amicable settlement, preferring that the workers involved in the dispute take their case to the courts.
5. 468. In addition, in a communication dated 5 February 2002, the Government forwards documents related to the strikers’ takeover of the workplace at the outset of the dispute, and in particular:
6. - a copy of the company lawyer’s request to the court of first instance to appoint a bailiff to carry out an official verification; and
7. - a copy of the official verification report by the bailiff.
8. The bailiff’s report notes that the striking workers had put up shelters next to the factory warehouse and that a group of workers had taken up a position in front of the company’s outer gate. The bailiff also recorded statements by workers alleging that they had been threatened by the workers who had occupied the factory premises.
9. 469. Finally, in a recent communication of 6 May 2002, the Government transmitted a copy of a letter from the Oulmès company which explains that 20 persons were hired, from March 2000 to February 2002, with a view to improving productivity and quality and that, unfortunately, people living in the area of the enterprise did not have the required qualifications.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 470. The Committee recalls that this case concerns various incidents, in particular a police intervention and the arrests and sentencing of trade unionists during a labour dispute in a private company. The Committee had already pointed out in this respect several contradictions between the versions of the complainant and the Government as regards respective responsibilities during this dispute, in particular as concerns the police intervention and the company’s use of labour from outside the enterprise during the strike. Furthermore, the Committee had noted that the Government referred to a judicial decision justifying the police intervention without giving further details about this decision. In these circumstances, the Committee had considered itself obliged to request additional information on the allegations, including the matters noted above, both from the Government, after consultation with the company concerned, and from the complainant.
2. 471. The Committee notes with regret that, despite its request, the Government has only sent a bailiff’s report certifying the sit-in held by the striking workers but has not forwarded the judicial decision justifying the police intervention in February 2000. The Committee also regrets that the complainant has not provided any additional information on this case.
3. 472. In these circumstances, the Committee would like first of all to make several preliminary remarks. The Committee notes with concern that in the last five years, seven complaints have been presented against the Government of Morocco (Cases Nos. 1877, 2000, 2048, 2055, 2082, 2109, 2164). Several of these complaints concern the arrest or dismissal of trade unionists following strikes, as well as police intervention in labour disputes. On a number of occasions, as in the present case, while the workers alleged that acts of violence had been committed against them by the police, the Government asserted that members of the police force had been injured by striking workers.
4. 473. The Committee deplores that, in many of these cases, it had not been possible to find a peaceful solution to the collective labour disputes and that the Government considered it necessary to have recourse to police intervention which, in the Committee’s opinion, is not conducive to harmonious labour relations. This situation would appear to reveal a lack of sufficient and effective machinery to enable solutions to be rapidly found to this type of dispute. The Committee therefore considers that it would be desirable for the Government to examine, with the social partners, the possibility of establishing an effective system for the settlement of collective labour disputes. It underlines that the technical assistance of the Office is at the Government’s disposal in this respect.
5. 474. In the present case, the Committee takes note of the declaration of the Government according to which the enterprise had not attended the meeting convened by the National Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation aimed at bringing the parties closer to an agreement. The Committee expresses the hope that, in the future, the company will participate, where there are disputes, in the established procedures aimed at facilitating settlement of these disputes. It requests the Government to spare no efforts to encourage a settlement of the dispute in the Oulmès company. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
6. 475. As regards the allegation that the company had called in labour from outside the enterprise to take out existing stocks under the protection of the authorities charged with public order, the Committee observes that the Government, for its part, states that around 50 managers and technicians of the company continued to guarantee production. In addition, the company states that 20 persons were hired from March 2000 to February 2002, for reasons of productivity, and that people living in the area of the enterprise did not have the required qualifications. Nevertheless, as concerns the specific allegation of the use of labour from outside the enterprise to replace striking workers in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term -- which is clearly not the case of a mineral water bottling company -- the Committee cannot but recall that recourse to striker replacements entails a risk of derogation to the right to strike which may affect the free exercise of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 574]. The Committee trusts that the Government will take this principle fully into account in the future.