Interim Report - Report No 53, 1961

1. 50. The complaint lodged by the U.G.T.M is contained in a communication dated 2 May 1960, supplemented by a further communication dated 11 June 1960. These communications were transmitted to the Government, which sent its comments by two letters dated 29 June 1960 and 6 February 1961.
2. 51. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Non-Recognition of the U.G.T.M.
  52. 52 The complainants allege that they were refused permission to take part in the First of May celebrations on the ground that their organisation (the U.G.T.M.) was not legally recognised, and that only the Moroccan Labour Union (U.M.T.), the government trade union, was authorised to hold a May Day procession. In the complainants' view, the Government has tried to impose the monopoly of a single trade union and violated democratic freedoms and trade union rights.
  53. 53 In support of its allegations the complaining organisation has provided copies of letters from the authorities to the U.G.T.M leadership notifying them to refrain from engaging in any trade union activities, the text of a circular letter from the administration to undertakings enjoining them not to have dealings with the U.G.T.M, the text of the decision prohibiting U.G.T.M members from participating in the May Day demonstrations and, finally, the text of the dahir respecting trade union rights and that of the decree limiting such rights.
  54. 54 The latter enactment (Decree No. 2.57.0571 of 19 hija 1376 (17 July 1957), relating to occupational associations) authorises the Secretary-General of the Government, after consulting the appropriate ministries, to raise an objection to the setting up of a trade union within a period of three months from the date of registration of its by-laws. In its first reply dated 31 May 1960, the Government states that the organisation had not at the time been recognised, and that it was indeed pursuant to the decree in question that an objection to its establishment was raised.
  55. 55 In the view of the Committee, a legislative provision of this kind is in direct contradiction with the basic principle according to which employers and workers should have the right to establish organisations of their choice without prior authorisation.
  56. 56 The Committee notes, however, that in its second reply dated 6 February 1961 the Government states that the above-mentioned decree has been repealed and that all of the administrative measures taken under this decree have accordingly become null and void. " Today ", the Government continues, " industrial associations can be formed freely in Morocco, and no administrative opposition is possible ". The Government states that the officials of public administrations have been instructed to receive the leaders of the new unions and to maintain the same relations with them as with the unions affiliated to the U.M.T. " It is therefore true to say ", the Government concludes, " that there is no longer any discrimination between unions on the part of Moroccan administrative authorities".
  57. 57 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to note with satisfaction the Government's statement that the decree limiting the right of workers to form organisations of their choice without prior authorisation has been repealed, and that the decisions taken under this decree have become null and void, and to decide accordingly that it would be pointless to consider this aspect of the case any further.
• Allegations relating to Discriminatory Dismissals
  58. 58 The complainants allege that many workers were dismissed from their jobs for the sole reason that they were members of the U.G.T.M. In support of this allegation they have provided a list giving the names of some 80 workers, together with their addresses, the name of their employer, their family status, the date of their dismissal and their seniority.
  59. 59 The reply of the Government to these allegations is as detailed as the complaint itself. The Government, in its communication of 6 February 1961, states first that, while some dismissals did take place, they were effected by employers in a very small number of undertakings " to avoid disturbances in their undertakings " and " under no administrative pressure ".
  60. 60 As soon as the Government was informed of these dismissals-the Government further states-the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, at a meeting held on 29 July 1960, i.e. before the repeal of the Decree of 17 July 1957, gave instructions to labour supervision officers and labour inspectors to intervene energetically with the undertakings concerned in order to obtain the reinstatement of the employees who had been dismissed for reasons unconnected with their work. These instructions were confirmed by a circular dated 30 July 1960, a copy of which is attached to the Government's reply. This circular read in part as follows: " Following the instructions given orally at the meeting of 29 July 1960, I remind you that it has come to the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that workers in a number of undertakings have been wrongfully dismissed, suspended or downgraded for reasons unconnected with their work. I earnestly request you to take all the steps necessary to achieve the reinstatement of these workers and the regularisation of the situation illegally created."
  61. 61 The Government further states that the officials of the labour inspectorate, to whom the list provided by the complainants had been communicated, took immediate steps to obtain the reinstatement of the workers in their previous jobs. The inquiries conducted by the labour inspectors, which covered all of the persons named by the complainants, disclosed that a large number of workers claiming to have been dismissed for trade union reasons were in fact dismissed owing to serious misdeeds or for other reasons unconnected with their union membership. A list supplied by the Government, giving the reasons for each dismissal, shows among others, incompetence, extended absence without justification, theft, serious faults in the performance of work, implication in a murder, closure of a worksite, and instigating a brawl on the premises. The inquiries further showed that some of the workers mentioned by the complainants had either left their jobs of their own free will or had never been employed in the undertakings mentioned. Finally, it is stated that in those cases where officials of the labour inspectorate felt that reinstatement would be justified, but were unable to achieve it, a manpower committee will be shortly convened by the appropriate ministry to decide on the fate of the workers concerned.
  62. 62 The Government states that the labour inspectors were able to achieve several reinstatements, but that in other cases they were met with a fiat refusal on the part of the employers, who pointed out that the workers dismissed had been replaced by others giving full satisfaction who could not be discharged without sufficient reason.
  63. 63 The Government states, finally, that some of the dismissed workers applied to the labour courts for reinstatement, on the advice of the labour inspectorate.
  64. 64 Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which has been ratified by Morocco, provides that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. The same Article further specifies that such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership. The Committee notes that some of the facts alleged-which for the most part are not questioned by the Government-constitute the very type of situation which Convention No. 98 seeks to prevent. In view of the importance which the Committee has always attached to faithful observance of the principles embodied in this Convention, and the fact that Article 3 of the Convention provides that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established where necessary for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to suggest to the Government that it consider the adoption of all such measures as may seem appropriate with a view to the general avoidance in the future of the repetition of acts of anti-trade union discrimination such as those referred to in the present complaint.
  65. 65 In the present case, it appears from the detailed reply given by the Government that the latter did everything within its power to obtain reinstatement of those workers who had been improperly dismissed. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to note with satisfaction that in a number of cases the Government's efforts to secure reinstatement of the workers improperly dismissed met with success. It also recommends the Governing Body to express the hope that all of the workers improperly dismissed who, for one reason or another, have not yet been or cannot be reinstated, will in the near future receive compensation for the prejudice suffered, and to request the Government to keep it informed of subsequent progress in this direction.
  66. 66 With respect to the Government's statement that several workers applied to the labour courts for reinstatement, the Committee, in previous cases, has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings, provided that these proceedings were attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, where the pending proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well-founded.
  67. 67 In the present case, the Committee, following its normal practice, recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to inform it of the outcome of the proceedings instituted by some of the dismissed workers before the Moroccan labour courts and, in the meantime, to postpone consideration of this aspect of the case.