Informe provisional - Informe núm. 294, Junio 1994

586. In its communications dated 8 and 23 December 1992, and 17 April 1993, respectively, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) submitted complaints of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Morocco. As regards Case No. 1687, the union sent further information on 23 December 1992. As regards Case No. 1712, in a communication dated 22 April 1993 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with the complaint presented by the UMT; the latter submitted further allegations on 15 June 1993.

1. 586. In its communications dated 8 and 23 December 1992, and 17 April 1993, respectively, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) submitted complaints of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Morocco. As regards Case No. 1687, the union sent further information on 23 December 1992. As regards Case No. 1712, in a communication dated 22 April 1993 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with the complaint presented by the UMT; the latter submitted further allegations on 15 June 1993.
2. 587. The Government submitted its observations on Case No. 1691 in a communication dated 6 February 1994. It submitted its observations on Cases Nos. 1687 and 1712 in a communication of 16 February 1994.
3. 588. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has, however, ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

• Case No. 1687
  589. 589 In its communication of 8 December 1992, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) alleges acts of anti-trade union discrimination by the management of the Industrial Cleaning Company (SINET), with headquarters in Casablanca, against workers and trade union delegates employed by this enterprise, as well as acts of interference against the UMT enterprise trade union, comprised of 280 of the 320 workers employed by SINET.
  590. 590 The complainant organization states that as part of the normal exercise of their mandate, trade union delegates submitted to the director of the enterprise observations concerning wage protection of employees. It explains that the delegates drew attention to serious irregularities at that time: since 1990, management supposedly withheld from wages a contribution for basic social security calculated for a 26-day period, although it only declared 13 days to the National Social Security Fund, and withheld an additional 4.5 per cent for a supplementary retirement benefit, although it paid nothing into the Moroccan Interoccupational Retirement Fund. Moreover, the director reportedly notified authorities of the "results" of elections of staff delegates, although according to the UMT no elections were held, employees were not invited to vote and no slate of candidates was announced.
  591. 591 The UMT states that four trade union delegates were arbitrarily dismissed on 2 November 1992 for having protested against the misappropriation of the employees' social security contributions, and against the flagrant misrepresentation of their wishes through the employer's appointment of workers' representatives. The dismissed delegates were Mr. Bouna Houcine, General Secretary of the UMT enterprise trade union, Mr. Mouzoune Hassan, Deputy General Secretary, and Mr. Attor Ahmed and Mr. Lachgar Brahim, trade union delegates.
  592. 592 According to the complainant organization, despite a general 24-hour strike on 11 November 1992, and repeated negotiations between the UMT, the UMT local union in Casablanca and city officials, the situation has not changed: the four trade union officials are still unemployed without due cause and trade union contributions continue to be misappropriated while the public authorities do nothing to ensure that trade union rights and social security legislation are respected. Furthermore, the head of the enterprise has taken an aggressive stance towards the workers, with increasing instances of provocation. Since the above-mentioned dismissals, he has allegedly surrounded himself with an entourage of henchmen who terrorize workers both inside and outside the enterprise, and he reportedly insists that he "fears no one" and that "no one will make him reconsider his decisions".
  593. 593 In a communication dated 23 December 1992, the UMT enclosed a copy of a letter from the General Secretary of the regional UMT trade union in Casablanca addressed to the Minister of Employment dated 9 December 1992, as well as a letter from the UMT National Secretariat addressed to this same Minister dated 23 December 1992. In both letters, the UMT draws the Minister's attention to the situation at the SINET enterprise, asking him to intervene so that trade union rights will be respected by reinstating the dismissed trade unionists, and to ensure compliance with labour legislation by fully restoring the social rights of workers at this enterprise.
• Case No. 1691
  594. 594 In its communication of 23 December 1992, the UMT alleges acts of anti-trade union discrimination by the management of the Filarsy company, with headquarters in Casablanca, against trade union delegates and workers employed by this enterprise, as well as acts of interference against the UMT-affiliated enterprise trade union, comprised of 110 workers.
  595. 595 The UMT states that on 22 September 1992, the management of Filarsy arbitrarily dismissed seven of the nine members of the UMT trade union executive which had recently been established at the enterprise. Following a series of meetings held in vain with the labour inspectorate and city authorities of Hay Moahammadi-Aïn Sebaa (Casablanca) aimed at having the employer rescind these dismissals and recognize trade union rights, workers called a strike on 29 October 1992. The complainant organization states that the strike was continuing as of the date of the complaint.
  596. 596 Meanwhile, according to the UMT, management persists in refusing to recognize the trade union executive and to reinstate the dismissed workers, and allegedly has resorted to recruiting strike breakers. Despite protests by the UMT regional union in Casablanca, the public authorities have taken no measures to ensure that trade union rights and the right to strike are respected.
  597. 597 The complainant organization states that on 23 December 1992, police under the command of an officer and the district chief (kaid) brutally attacked workers at the entrance to the enterprise. They reportedly beat the workers with clubs and truncheons repeatedly and verbally abused them while chasing them into the surrounding areas. While fleeing, one worker was allegedly struck by a car and seriously injured. It was reported that workers also suffered many injuries, including fractures and bruises.
• Case No. 1712
  598. 598 In its communication of 17 April 1993, the complainant organization alleges violations of trade union rights and of the right to negotiation by the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel in Marrakesh.
  599. 599 The UMT states that on 15 April 1992, the day after a UMT trade union executive had been established at the hotel, the management of the hotel chain to which the Mansour El Dahbi belongs dismissed every member of this executive without any explanation. The employer has reportedly refused to hold discussions with the trade union, stating that it does not recognize it and does not wish to hear any talk of trade unions in its establishments. The complainant organization states that in the light of the sympathy movement undertaken by employees and the trade union executive, the employer has engaged in a massive intimidation campaign, including 98 suspensions.
  600. 600 In view of these measures, the employees of the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel have gone on an unlimited strike. Rather than engaging in negotiations in good faith, the employer has reportedly appealed to public authorities and the police, who allegedly attacked strikers violently at the entrance to the hotel on 17 April 1992. During this attack, several workers were arrested (Aboul Hanane Abdeljalil, Abou Nouass Latifa, El Hasnaoui Ahmed, El Korssa Aberahmane, Boukentar Mohammed, Souhal Fatima, Boulal Zohra and Kati Mohammed), and a number of others injured (Sebti Mohammed, Tagmouti Aberahmane, Fellah Ahmed, Baname Aziza, Daiss Hafida (a pregnant woman), Alaoui Daquaq and Manchoub Fatema Zohra). According to the UMT, these events have evoked the sympathy of workers in the hotel sector, and the employees of the Nfis and Toubkal hotels have also reportedly gone on strike.
  601. 601 In its communication of 15 June 1993, the UMT alleges violations of trade union rights at the Plastima plastics factory in Casablanca, in addition to police intervention against workers at this enterprise. It states that since 17 May 1993 workers have carried out a daily two-hour strike at the enterprise to express their sympathy with 11 of their colleagues who were arbitrarily dismissed. The complainant organization explains that on 10 May 1993, in violation of the law on employee representation, management suspended three UMT trade union delegates who were also employee representatives. The UMT adds that in response to the immediate protests of all the workers, management dismissed the three trade union delegates in question as well as eight other workers.
  602. 602 On 14 June 1993, management reportedly closed the doors to the factory. The police intervened on the morning of 15 May 1993, in the presence of a superintendent, to forcibly deny workers access to the factory and to allow some 20 strike breakers to enter. According to the complainant organization, the police intervention was accompanied by provocations, threats and assault and battery against the enterprise's trade unionists and leaders of the UMT regional sector who were on the scene.

B. The Government's reply

• Case No. 1687
  603. 603 In its communication of 16 February 1994 concerning the allegation according to which management of the Industrial Cleaning Company in Casablanca (SINET) failed to declare the total number of working days to the National Social Security Fund, the Government states that following intervention by the labour inspectorate the employer made the supplementary declaration for the undeclared days for the period between August 1990 and January 1991. As regards the failure to pay contributions owed to the Interoccupational Retirement Fund, according to the Government the employer claims it is a matter of a delay linked to financial hardship, seeing that the company has lost a large number of contracts. The labour inspectorate has obtained an official commitment from the employer to settle this matter as soon as possible. The Government adds that affiliation of employers with the Interoccupatinal Retirement Fund is optional, representing a supplementary scheme in addition to the compulsory scheme under the National Social Security Fund.
  604. 604 As regards the dismissal of certain workers, the Government states that, according to the employer, each year the management of the company, based on service requirements, transfers its workers within its various branches. At the time of the 1992 transfers, the four workers referred to by the complainant organization refused to transfer to their new work site, which led to their dismissal. Also according to the Government, the labour inspectorate sought to find a satisfactory solution to this problem, though the attempt failed. The employer therefore offered to grant the workers in question a lump-sum compensation so as to settle the dispute; however, the workers reportedly refused this offer, preferring instead to submit their case to a competent court.
  605. 605 Finally, the Government states that on 20 September 1992 the company held elections for workers' delegates. After the results of these elections were announced, the delegates exercised their right of legal appeal. The competent court ruled against the appeal presented by the workers in question, noting that it lacked valid grounds.
• Case No. 1691
  606. 606 In its communication of 6 February 1994, the Government states that the source of the dispute at the Filarsy company is linked to the decision to dismiss seven workers whom management of the enterprise accuses of various instances of professional misconduct, as indicated by the labour inspectorate which intervened to settle the dispute amicably. Owing to the impossibility of finding a solution that satisfied both parties, the workers submitted their case to a competent court.
  607. 607 As regards the allegations that a temporary workforce was used to break the strike, the Government states that inquiries carried out by the labour inspectorate failed to substantiate these allegations, as every worker at the plant during the strike had been hired beforehand and declared to the National Social Security Fund.
  608. 608 As regards the allegations concerning police intervention during the strike, according to the Government local authorities intervened to protect the freedom to work, which certain striking workers had interfered with in an attempt to prevent nonstriking workers from going to work.
  609. 609 The Government also points out that the enterprise held elections for workers' representatives on 30 September 1992, resulting in the election of six representatives and six alternates who were not affiliated to a trade union. According to the Government, this is the reason why the complainant organization lodged an appeal against the elections with the competent court, which ruled that the elections were legal.
• Case No. 1712
  610. 610 According to the Government in its reply of 16 February 1994, the employer at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel in Marrakesh considers the dismissal of workers to fall within its competence as a disciplinary measure in accordance with current legal provisions. It notes that the workers in question are considered to be ordinary workers without any trade union status or duties, since there was no written statement relative to the establishment of the trade union executive. The inquiry carried out by the labour inspectorate indicated that the trade union executive had no legal status since the legal procedures under the Dahir of 16 July 1957 concerning trade unions had not been followed. According to the Government, the local UMT had not provided to the competent services a list of the members of its executive.
  611. 611 As regards the allegation concerning the employer's refusal to hold discussions with the trade union, the Government states that it is entirely groundless, as indicated by the labour inspectorate. In fact, the relationship between the hotel management and workers has been founded on dialogue and consultations. The Government also states that the minutes of the meetings held confirm this fact, and has included a copy of one of the minutes. By way of example, it cites meetings reportedly held by the parties on 21, 28 and 30 April, stating that other meetings were subsequently held under the auspices of the labour inspectorate.
  612. 612 As regards allegations concerning the failure to recognize the UMT trade union at the hotel, the Government points out that according to the report filed by the labour inspectorate, the management of the hotel chain in question bases its relationship with its personnel on respect for trade union rights and freedoms while recognizing trade union executives at the various establishments in the wilayat of Marrakesh. However, to explain the situation at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel, the Government adds that the hotel management refused to reply to trade union claims owing to exceptional economic conditions, which the Marrakesh trade union local interpreted as a violation of trade union rights and freedoms, and which exacerbated tensions between the two parties.
  613. 613 Concerning the allegations relative to the suspension of 98 workers, the Government states that only 27 workers with permanent, official status were dismissed. The others were seasonal workers employed by the hotel under fixed-term contracts. According to the Government, the decision to dismiss them was taken when the workers refused to respect the decision to transfer 11 workers to the city of Ouarzazate in response to the hotel's needs there. Many colleagues of the workers concerned called a sympathy strike. To ensure the success of the strike, striking workers occupied the entrance to the hotel, which led management to dismiss several other workers whom it accused of having infringed the freedom to work. Also according to the Government, the labour inspectorate attempted conciliation so as to find a satisfactory solution to the dispute. However, no agreement was reached owing to the stubbornness of the parties.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 614. The Committee notes with concern that the allegations in the above cases pertain to numerous infringements of the freedom of association in four Moroccan private enterprises: acts of anti-trade union discrimination against trade union delegates and trade unionists; acts of interference by employers and public authorities against UMT trade union executives; and violence by the police and authorities during strikes.
2. 615. The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the latest allegations by the complainant organization concerning violations of trade union rights at the Plastima factory in Casablanca (violence by the police in dispersing strikers, arbitrary dismissals, replacement of strikers by strike breakers). It urgently requests the Government to submit its observations concerning these allegations without delay.
3. 616. First of all, the Committee notes that the complainant organization draws attention to a large number of suspensions and dismissals for anti-trade union reasons. On 2 November 1992, four trade union leaders were dismissed at the SINET enterprise in Casablanca because, according to the complainant organization, they had protested against the misappropriation of workers' social security contributions and the employer's falsification of the election of workers' representatives. According to the Government, after having been transferred for reasons of service, these people refused to go to their new work site and were therefore dismissed. The four workers have submitted their case to a competent court.
4. 617. As regards the Filarsy company in Casablanca, the complainant organization alleges that seven of the nine members of the UMT trade union executive that had been established at this enterprise were dismissed. The Government states that the dismissals were the result of various instances of professional misconduct and that this case has been submitted to a competent court.
5. 618. According to the complainant organization, every member of the UMT trade union executive at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel in Marrakesh was dismissed without any explanation once the executive was set up. Furthermore, 98 other workers were suspended for having expressed sympathy with the dismissed employees. The Government states that in the absence of a written statement concerning the establishment of the trade union executive, the workers in question are considered to be ordinary workers with no trade union status or duties. As regards the suspension and dismissal of workers at the enterprise, including members of the trade union executive, the Committee notes the Government's statement according to which these measures were taken owing to the workers' refusal to comply with the decision to transfer 11 workers to the city of Ouarzazate. The Government also states that several other workers were dismissed for having interfered with the freedom to work.
6. 619. The Committee notes with concern the contradictions existing between the complainant organization's statements and those of the Government as regards the above-mentioned dismissals and suspensions, and the Government's denial that these measures were taken for anti-trade union reasons. In view of the large number of people involved and the circumstances in which these measures were taken (creation of a trade union executive, strikes called at the enterprises concerned), the Committee is unable to conclude that these dismissals and suspensions have no connection with the trade union activities of the individuals concerned.
7. 620. The Committee consequently reminds the Government of the fundamental principles according to which all workers should in practice be able to form and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom, and that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 1985, 3rd edition, paras. 222 and 538.) It requests the Government to hold inquiries so as to determine the actual reasons for the dismissals of Mr. Bouna Houcine, General Secretary of the UMT enterprise trade union and Mr. Mouzoune Hassan, Deputy General Secretary, as well as Mr. Attor Ahmed and Mr. Lachgar Brahim, trade union delegates at the SINET enterprise; the seven members of the UMT trade union executive at the Filarsy enterprise; every member of the UMT trade union executive at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel, in addition to the suspension of 98 workers at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel. If it is proved that these people were dismissed or suspended owing to their trade union activities, they should be reinstated in their job. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the results of these inquiries as well as of the legal appeals filed by the four trade union delegates and members at the SINET enterprise and the seven workers at the Filarsy enterprise contesting their dismissal.
8. 621. As regards the police interventions during the sympathy strikes by workers at the Filarsy enterprise and the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel (when several people were reportedly injured), the Committee takes note of the Government's reply according to which, in the case of Filarsy, local authorities intervened to ensure protection of the freedom to work that had been interfered with by certain strikers who had tried to prevent non-striking workers from going to work. In this sense, the Committee emphasizes 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, acts that constitute criminal offences in many countries. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 435.) The Committee also points out that in cases of strike action the authorities should resort to the use of force only in serious situations where law and order is seriously threatened. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 431.) The Committee consequently requests the Government to see that an independent, impartial and in-depth inquiry is carried out to determine the nature of the police actions referred to by the complainant organization, to assess responsibility, and to inform it of the results of this inquiry.
9. 622. Concerning the arrest of strikers by the police on 17 April 1993 during the strike at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel, the Committee notes that the Government has not replied. The Committee recalls 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, op. cit., para. 363.) The Committee is also of the opinion that authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 447.) In the light of the great importance it attaches to these principles, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with information concerning the status of workers arrested at the Mansour Ed Dahbi Hotel - Mr. Aboul Hanane Abdeljalil, Mr. Abou Nouass Latifa, Mr. El Hasnaoui Ahmed, Mr. El Korssa Aberahmane, Mr. Boukentar Mohammed, Mr. Souhal Fatima, Mr. Boulal Zohra, and Mr. Kati Mohammed - indicating whether they have been released and reinstated in their job.
10. 623. As regards the allegations that the Filarsy company utilized strike breakers, the Committee notes the Government's statement that inquiries carried out by the labour inspectorate failed to prove these allegations, in view of the fact that every worker at the establishment during the strike had been hired before the strike and had been declared to the National Social Security Fund.
11. 624. Generally speaking, the Committee regrets that once again in these cases it has been presented with allegations concerning serious infringements of the trade union rights of Moroccan workers and the authorities' refusal to intervene in order to ensure respect for these rights in practice. Recalling that trade union rights can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressures or threats of any kind against trade unionists, and that it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected (See Digest, op. cit., para. 70.), the Committee appeals to the Government to take appropriate measures so that workers will be assured of the free exercise of trade union rights. It urges that the Government will take the necessary steps so that these rights will be recognized and respected in fact as well as in law.