Definitive Report - Report No 316, June 1999

1. 618. On 4 January 1999, the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) submitted a complaint of violation of freedom of association against the Government of Morocco on behalf of its member, the National Federation of Transport Workers (hereinafter, the National Transport Federation).
2. 619. The Government sent its comments and observations on this complaint in communcations dated 11 March and 1 April 1999.
3. 620. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); however, it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegation

1. 621. In its communication of 4 January 1999, the National Transport Federation, a member of the Moroccan Labour Union, relates the following facts concerning the Harbour Authorities' Office (ODEP), a public body responsible for operating ports in Morocco.
2. 622. According to the complainant, the staff of ODEP (affiliated to the UMT) organized their statutory congress on 6 December 1998 and renewed the composition of their executive bodies. The congress elected an administrative committee of 21 members and an executive of nine members. In accordance with the legislation, the new executive registered with the authorities on 16 December and then submitted its list of claims to the director-general. This list of claims called for the effective application of the regulations and ODEP classifications to all the staff, the membership of all staff to the national social security fund and an upgrading of wages and bonuses.
3. 623. Both before and after the list of claims had been submitted, the director-general of ODEP allegedly refused outright to discuss with the new trade union executive, refusing even to meet with it. To make his point even clearer, he had Mr. Hijab, former secretary-general of the UMT Federation of ODEP staff, dismissed from his post as a result of a vote at the congress on 6 December 1998, attend the ODEP administrative council held during the week of 20 December in the capacity of staff representative. According to the complainant, the director-general thus chose his partner himself instead of the Federation and the staff and, with an obvious intention to intimidate, he announced the suspension of Mr. Mustapha Dalil, shop steward, trade union delegate and member of the administrative committee set up at the congress of 6 December 1998, for eight days on 28 December.
4. 624. A general 48-hour solidarity strike subsequently took place throughout Morocco from 5 January 1999 onwards. The Moroccan Government, through the Ministry of Procurement to which ODEP and its director-general report, remained totally silent on this matter; meanwhile, the harbour activities of Casablanca, the most important port in Morocco, were completely paralysed.
5. 625. According to the complainant, this attitude illustrates the meaninglessness of the official allegations on social dialogue in Morocco and confirms the continuation of a policy of anti-union repression, of infringements of the free exercise of trade union rights, of repression against trade unionists and of flagrant discrimination against the UMT, its structure and its members.

B. The Government's reply

1. 626. In relation to the allegation that Mr. Dalil was suspended by the Harbour Authorities' Office (ODEP), the Government states in its first communication of 11 March 1999 that, according to information gathered from ODEP and contrary to the UMT's allegations, Mr. Dalil had not been elected either as shop steward or trade union delegate and, as such, held no representative office. As may be seen from the minutes of the meeting held by the National Transport Federation of the Moroccan Trade Union (UMT) on 6 December 1998, of which the Government encloses a copy, Mr. Dalil is not amongst the members of the new federal executive of the UMT. The allegations that he was punished on trade union grounds are therefore completely unfounded. The decision to suspend him for eight days was taken by his hierarchical superior on grounds of violent incitement to down tools and the creation of disturbances at the workplace.
2. 627. As regards the participation of Mr. Hijab in the ODEP administrative council, the Government points out that the participation of staff representatives in the work of this administrative council is decided upon in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 84.844 of 10 Rajeb 1405 (1 April 1985), under Act No. 6.84 setting up ODEP, which stipulates that the administrative council of this body is made up, amongst others, "of two representatives of the Harbour Authorities' Office appointed by the Prime Minister upon proposal of the ministry responsible for procurement". The Government continues by stating that Mr. Hijab, who was elected as shop steward on 3 October 1997, sits on the ODEP administrative council as an elected representative of the staff and not as a representative of a trade union federation. Furthermore, the Government acknowledges that Mr. Hijab, as pointed out by the complainant, was "dismissed from his functions as a result of the vote taken in congress on 6 December 1998". The Government explains, however, that the letters convening the abovementioned administrative council were sent on 27 November 1998, that is ten days before the holding of the congress on 6 December and 19 days before the minutes of this congress were sent to the ODEP management. Consequently, the interpretation given by the UMT to Mr. Hijab's participation on the ODEP's administrative council is entirely unfounded, as irrefutably proved by the facts mentioned above.
3. 628. As regards the allegation of refusal to dialogue with the Federation of the UMT, the Government points out that social dialogue is a long-standing tradition within the ODEP. A circular dated 15 June 1993 (a copy of which was enclosed) concerns social dialogue and establishes a timetable for the holding of quarterly meetings with the trade unions at local level and biannual meetings at the central level with each major trade union federation. The meetings for these discussions have been planned so as to distinguish between matters of a local nature and those of a general nature affecting all ports and to separate issues relevant to the ports from those concerning general management. The ODEP management therefore, as soon as it had received the list of claims from the local executive of the UMT of the port of Casablanca, immediately transmitted the document to the management operating the port in question authorized to examine it with the trade union concerned, in accordance with the procedure explained above. Furthermore, the Government points out that the ODEP management maintains that it did not receive from the new executive of the National Transport Federation any request to speak with it since its election on 6 November 1998. The UMT's complaint, according to the Government, tends to create confusion concerning the dates on this matter by stating that the list of claims was submitted by the National Transport Federation on 16 December 1998, whilst in fact the initiative lay with the local executive of the UMT which in fact deposited it on 6 November 1998, i.e. 20 days before the election of the executive bodies of the National Transport Federation. In any event, the Government states that the social dispute which prompted this complaint had been settled following the signing of an agreement upgrading -- subject to the approval of the supervisory administrations -- a number of bonuses granted to the ODEP staff, including transport bonuses, meal allowances, bonuses for the Al.Adha and Achoura feast days and educational allowances.
4. 629. Concerning the allegation that the Government was conducting a policy of anti-union repression, the Government maintains that the promotion of freedom of association and social dialogue with the social partners is one of its major concerns and constitutes one of the cornerstones of its policy to guarantee the respect of workers' basic rights in general and trade union rights in particular. It has embarked upon a process of dialogue with the trade union organizations, accompanied by a set of measures clearly showing that this position is irreversible. Two meetings at the level of the Prime Minister were held with the trade unions in 1998, followed by meetings with the Ministers of Social Development, Solidarity and Employment, and of Vocational Training during the same period. A national tripartite seminar on social dialogue was also organized in cooperation with the ILO in April 1998, followed by another seminar on freedom of association in February 1999. A tripartite committee was also set up to examine the draft Labour Code before it was to be submitted for adoption to the competent authorities. This committee has met on a regular basis since 13 January 1999, with the participation of the most representative trade union federations.
5. 630. The Government, which notes the absence of any tangible evidence provided by the complainant to back its assertions that it is pursuing "a policy of anti-union repression infringing the free exercise of trade union rights", objects strongly to these allegations which are totally unfounded and asks the Committee on Freedom of Association to take account of this in its recommendations.
6. 631. In a subsequent communication dated 1 April 1999, the Government encloses a copy of the agreement signed by the Harbour Authorities' Office and the UMT following the collective dispute between them in December and adds that this same agreement has also been signed with two other trade union executives belonging to the other most representative trade union federations: "the Democratic Confederation of Labour and the General Union of Moroccan Workers".
7. 632. As regards the trade union responsibilities of Mr. Dalil, the Government points out once again that, according to the minutes of 6 December 1998 sent by the UMT to ODEP -- of which a copy has been communicated -- the person concerned is neither a shop steward, because he was not elected at the last elections, nor a trade union delegate because he is not included amongst the members of the UMT union executive listed in the minutes. The Government points out that the ODEP management states that the UMT had never sent it any notice concerning the composition of the administrative committee set up, according to the complainant, at the congress of 6 December 1998. As ODEP was not in possession of the list of the members of this committee, it does not know whether Mr. Dalil is a member or not. The only trade union representatives whose names were communicated to ODEP are those included in the minutes of 6 December 1998 mentioned by the Government in its first communication.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 633. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations that a trade union official was suspended for eight days and that an employer refused to conduct a dialogue with a trade union representative elected and appointed by the complainant to submit a list of claims to the employer.
2. 634. The versions of the complainant and the Government differ on a number of points. According to the complainant, the employer mentioned in this specific case, i.e. the Harbour Authorities' Office (ODEP), failed to take account of the new executive bodies of the National Transport Federation elected at the statutory congress of 6 December 1998 and of the list of claims submitted to the director-general of the Harbour Authorities' Office. Thus, on 20 December 1998, the ODEP management called upon the assistance of Mr. Hijab, former secretary-general dismissed from his functions at the congress of 6 December, in his capacity as staff representative, thus choosing him as a partner instead of allowing the Federation and staff to choose. Furthermore, on 20 December it suspended for eight days Mr. Mustapha Dalil, shop steward, trade union delegate and member of the administrative committee set up at this congress.
3. 635. However, according to the Government, ODEP signed an agreement on an increase in bonuses granted to the staff with all the trade union organizations. The ODEP administrative council is made up, amongst others, of two representatives from the staff of the Harbour Authorities' Office appointed by the Prime Minister upon proposal from the Minister of Procurement. Mr. Hijab sits on the administrative council as a shop steward elected at the elections of 3 October 1997 in his capacity as staff representative and not as representative of a trade union federation. The Government acknowledges that Mr. Hijab was dismissed from his functions at the congress of 6 December 1998, but explains that notifications of the holding of the administrative council dated from 27 November 1998, i.e. ten days before the congress was actually held and 19 days before the minutes of the congress were submitted to the ODEP management.
4. 636. As concerns the aspect of the case concerning the trade union situation of Mr. Dalil and Mr. Hijab, the Committee has examined the minutes of the congress of 6 December 1998 enclosed with the Government's reply and notes that they concern the election of an executive of nine members elected by the general assembly of staff of the Harbour Authorities' Office and do not refer either to Mr. Dalil or to Mr. Hijab. The Committee also notes the Government's statement to the effect that ODEP maintained that it never received any notification of the composition of the administrative committee set up at the congress of 6 December 1998. Furthermore, the complainant has not submitted this list to the ILO. The Committee recalls that trade unions should have the right to be represented by trade union delegates that have been freely elected by the workers.
5. 637. Concerning the suspension of Mr. Dalil, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the person in question is neither a shop steward nor a trade union delegate and is not included amongst the nine members of the new federal executive of the UMT. The decision to suspend Mr. Dalil for eight days was taken by his hierarchical chief on grounds of violent incitement to lay down tools and creating disturbances at the workplace.
6. 638. On this last point, the Committee points out that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike and taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully 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 (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 586).
7. 639. Finally, with regard to the labour dispute within the ODEP, the Committee examined with interest the agreement on the upgrading of a certain number of bonuses signed by ODEP and all the trade union organizations, including the complainant, which put an end to the labour dispute.
8. 640. While noting that according to the Government an agreement was reached between the parties to end the labour dispute, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that in future the letters convening the administrative council of ODEP are sent to the newly elected workers' representatives.