Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 253, November 1987

1. 185. The two complaints from the Moroccan Federation of Labour are contained in communications dated 15 and 30 January, 10 February, 15 April, 26 November, 8 and 10 December 1986 and 12 January 1987. The Government submitted some partial observations in a communication dated 9 May 1986.
2. 186. 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. Developments in the first complaint

1. 187. The first point at issue was originally brought to the attention of the Director-General of the ILO in two telegrams dated 15 and 30 January 1986, in which the complainant requested his intervention. They were protesting against the dismissal of trade union activists and officials following a strike at the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking (Province of Safi), against the occupation of the premises of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (UMT) by the police and against the arrests, on 24 January 1986, of the Secretary-General of the UMT branch office, Mr. Mestour, and five other trade union activists, Mr. Attochi, Mr. Anzar, Mr. Zabri, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Moghir, on 28 January.
2. 188. When he received these communications, the Director-General immediately cabled the Government of Morocco requesting it to send its observations on this matter as rapidly as possible.
3. 189. Subsequently on 10 February 1986, the complainant submitted a detailed report to supplement the information it had supplied when requesting the Director-General to intervene. It gave an account of the events leading up to the strike and the general situation. It explained that during the autumn of 1985, those workers who had decided to set up their trade union once again after a longer period of repression and intimidation, had re-elected the main office holders and the Executive, elected trade union delegates in various departments of the undertaking and drawn up a list of claims.
4. 190. The management had reacted by refusing to have any dialogue with the trade union on its list of claims and adopted a hostile attitude towards the union delegates and activists in collusion, according to the complainant, with the local authorities. This resulted in:
   • - a cut in the end-of-the-year bonus of the newly elected Secretary-General of the trade union, Mr. Mestour, who had become safety and health delegate;
   • - the suspension of the trade union delegate, Mr. Bouharam, on 31 December 1985;
   • - the arrest of Mr. Attochi Mansour and Mr. Bouharam Abbes, trade union activists and delegates;
   • - the occupation of the UMT branch office by the police; and
   • - the banning of any public meeting of more than three to four people.
5. 191. According to the complainant, the workers, in sympathy with their colleague, Mr. Bouharam, who had been suspended from office by the management on 31 December, called a strike as from 2 January 1986 in response to a call from the union Executive. Faced with this strike, the management went back on its decision to suspend Mr. Bouharam and the authorities released the two above-mentioned prisoners and evacuated the trade union premises.
6. 192. The complainant states that as a result of this, the union Executive ordered a return to work as from 4 January. During the same period, a meeting was held at the headquarters of the local authorities, chaired by the head of the General Affairs Division, representing the Government of the Province of Safi, and attended by two members of the National Trade Union Committee and representatives of the trade union of the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking. During this meeting, the authorities undertook to pardon the action and persuade the management to open a dialogue, as borne out by a letter from the Governor.
7. 193. The management, however, far from meeting these requests, retorted by dismissing 49 workers, including three trade union officials, which resulted in a general protest strike as from 14 January. The complainant adds that the authorities and the management reacted strongly and that as a result:
   • - the Secretary-General of the trade union was arrested on 24 January;
   • - the trade union premises were occupied once again by the police;
   • - workers were requisitioned;
   • - strikers were attacked by the police;
   • - people's homes were forcibly entered;
   • - about 40 strikers were arrested; after spending the night of 24 January 1986 at the headquarters of the local authorities, they were brought before the Governor who asked them to state their preconditions for the workers returning to work. The management, expecting that the workers would be intimidated, continued to disregard the free exercise of trade union rights.
8. 194. The complainant states that after it had sent many telegrams of protest and issued press statements recounting the dispute, it was received by the Minister of Energy and Mines. The UMT related to him the major reasons behind the strike and the dismissal of 49 workers and pointed out that work would only be resumed once the dismissed workers were reinstated and the detained trade unionists released. It also submitted a list of its claims in this dispute to the Minister. The complainant states that the Minister, having read the file, seemed understanding and promised to intercede with the management.
9. 195. The complainant attaches several documents to its written communications:
   • - an explanation of the end-of-year bonus granted on the basis of the official's "professional qualities" in his performance report, which the management often used as a means of bringing pressure to bear against any participation in trade union activities and as a means to favour those persons who were the most submissive to the methods of the hierarchy;
   • - a summary of the workers' claims which centered on: (1) the recognition of the right to organise; (2) the revision of job scales ("job" implying work carried out by six to eight persons paid on the basis of the team's performance, multiplied by a co-efficient of difficulty during eight hours; this means that for an acceptable wage, teams must work from 12 to 14 hours per day), the generalisation of statutory wage increases to all categories and scales of staff, improvements in occupational safety and health and improvements in transport services; - figures showing that out of a total of 6,000 wage earners, including 5,600 manual workers, 4,500-5,000 persons went on strike; - finally, a list giving the names of the 46 workers who had been dismissed and a description of the trade union duties of three of them; it also named three foremen and administrative officers who had also been dismissed, according to the management, for failing to observe safety instructions, refusing to carry out work included in their job descriptions and damaging equipment.
10. 196. In this same communication of 10 February 1986, the complainant also declares that the strike was continuing.
11. 197. In a later communication dated 15 April 1986, the complainant points out that, to avoid the worst, the workers had ended their strike on 12 February 1986 without, however, giving up their legitimate claims. It adds that the Secretary-General of the trade union was still in custody without having been tried, that the trade union premises were still occupied by the police and that in spite of inadequate safety and health conditions, the teams doing particular "jobs" were still working from 12 to 14 consecutive hours per day in the galleries, although the statutory workday was eight hours.
12. 198. All these communications were sent to the Government for its observations on the matter.

B. The Government's reply on the first issue

1. 199. In a reply dated 9 May 1986, the Government stated that the strike called on 28 December 1985 at the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking continued on 2 and 3 January 1986 and that the mine face was occupied as a protest against the arrest of several workers on the grounds of their having disturbed public law and order.
2. 200. The Government admitted that following the release of the arrested workers, work was resumed on 4 January 1986. However, it claims that this return to work took place in a very tense atmosphere, as the mine authorities had discovered that equipment had been sabotaged and damaged. For instance:
   • - several worksites had caved in;
   • - several telephones and lighting systems had been cut;
   • - site conveyors had been stopped;
   • - the automatic functioning of one of the pumping stations had been interfered with;
   • - a machine was left running on the face until it had run out of petrol;
   • - several rivet-drifts in the galleries had been destroyed.
3. 201. The Government continues by stating that in spite of the fact that work was resumed, the staff did not carry out its normal activities and failed to observe safety instructions. They were therefore guilty of lack of safety measures, voluntary idleness, failure to respect the work schedule and refusal to transfer. The Government concedes that, confronted with this situation, the authorities of the mine had taken sanctions against 49 officials who were dismissed.
4. 202. It added that as from 14 January 1986, 1,937 workers out of the 3,043 involved in extraction and processing work went on strike for an unlimited period. Furthermore, according to the Government, 700 strikers occupied the pit as from 15 January 1986.
5. 203. However, the Government explained that following a meeting of the Staff and Regulations Committee on 18 January, the last workers occupying the pit returned to the surface on 20 January; the strike nevertheless continued. The Government points out that during the time the workers occupied the pit, they were regularly examined by the doctors of the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking.
6. 204. The Government also acknowledged that at the request of the staff representatives, a meeting had been held on 28 January 1986 under the chairmanship of the public authorities. However, it noted that although this meeting made it possible to assess the situation, it did not result in any compromise; the staff representatives demanded that the 49 dismissed officials be reinstated before work was resumed, but the management representatives rejected this solution. They nevertheless pledged, after work was resumed, to study, case by case, the files of the dismissed workers.
7. 205. Finally, the Government stated that the situation at Youssoufia had also been referred to during the talks, held on 4 February 1986, between the Minister of Energy and Mines and the members of the National Co-ordinating Committee of the UMT and several UMT staff representatives from Youssoufia and Khouribga. On this occasion, the Minister had recalled the steps taken by his department to try and overcome difficulties through dialogue both at the central and local level. He had also invited the members of the Committee to approach the workers with a view to their returning to work and he assured them of the willingness of his department to continue its efforts to find a solution to the problems in conformity with legislation.
8. 206. The Government added that meanwhile and alongside these steps, work was gradually resumed during the first days of February; it confirmed that as from 12 February, the Youssoufia mine had been operating as usual.

C. New allegations and observations from the complainant on this first issue

1. 207. The complainant, to whom the Government's reply had been communicated, stated, in a communication dated 8 December 1986, that it regretted and disapproved of the tendentious nature of the Government's reply.
2. 208. As regards the mass dismissal of 49 workers, the complainant noted that the Government referred to the lack of safety, interference in the automatic functioning of the pumping station, cuts in the telephone and lighting system and, in addition to all this, the caving in of several worksites.
3. 209. According to the complainant, these statements were even more astonishing in view of the fact that they concerned the very safety of the miners themselves. In its opinion, such actions, if they indeed took place, would imply that the miners were driven by a desire for mass suicide and that there were several persons with pathological behavioural patterns in their midst. According to the UMT the first assumption was implausible; as for the isolated cases of "destructive madness", these would not have been held in check until the outbreak of a trade union dispute. Furthermore, persons liable to endanger the community by sabotaging safety equipment, even if they existed, which the complainant denied, would certainly not have been trade union officials and activists. The complainant stressed that the miners had provided throughout the strike a permanent service to control and maintain extraction and evacuation equipment, which had enabled a return to normal production on the very day that work was resumed on 4 January.
4. 210. The complainant also denied the accusation that acts of sabotage had occurred - which would suggest a latent anarcho-syndicalist tendency - and that the workers were incapable of conducting trade union activities in a capable and responsible way which, according to the UMT, was not the case. In actual fact, the only reason for the collective dismissal was the refusal to acknowledge a legally constituted trade union.
5. 211. According to the complainant, since 1966, the management of the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking had refused to recognise the right to organise within the undertaking: the members of six trade union Executives had been dispersed throughout various mining centres as a "disciplinary measure" to prevent any co-ordination and trade union action; furthermore, joint committees with extremely limited functions and only an advisory role had been substituted for the Phosphate Workers' Trade Union. This process made it possible to undermine the problems common to workers in the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking.
6. 212. The complainant added that as at 9 December 1986, the trade union premises in Youssoufia were still occupied by the police and the number of dismissed workers had increased, because there were now 80 trade union activists and officials in this situation.
7. 213. In addition, in a communication dated 10 December 1986, the complainant denounced the removal from office of Mr. Mestour, Secretary-General of the UMT union of the Youssoufia Undertaking and safety and health delegate. It explained the reason for this removal from office. In a letter dated 25 October 1986, the management informed the person concerned of his dismissal on the grounds of his extended absence from 25 January 1986 onwards, pointing out that he was considered as having resigned on that date. The complainant explained that the Secretary-General of the trade union had indeed taken part in the strike called on 14 January 1986 and, for this reason, he had been absent from his work. He was unable to go back to his job after work was resumed on 12 February, because he was under arrest and only released after being held in custody for three months without a trial.
8. 214. Finally, in a communication dated 12 January 1987, the complainant repeated its request for the reinstatement of the dismissed workers, the evacuation of the trade union premises and respect of the right to organise. It formally requested that the matter be submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

D. The complainant's allegations concerning the second issue

1. 215. In addition to the first matter, the UMT stated in a telegram, dated 26 November 1986, that the Itma Plastics undertaking of Mohammedia had dismissed 16 workers, including the whole of the trade union Executive, after the trade union Executive had been set up in accordance with legal procedures.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 216. The Committee notes that the allegations in these two matters concern victimisation of workers seeking to exercise their trade union rights.
2. 217. It also notes that although the Government replied to the UMT's first allegations concerning the labour dispute which took place in the Youssoufia Phosphates Undertaking, it did not comment on and therefore did not refute the additional allegations and new observations made by the complainant on this first issue.
3. 218. In this respect, the Committee notes that the facts given by the complainant and the Government are, in part, contradictory. On the one hand, the complainant considers that this dispute, undertaken to gain recognition for the right to organise and to have a list of demands met, led, after a strike of several days, to the dismissal of 80 trade union activists and officials, the imprisonment without trial of the Secretary-General of the local UMT union for three months and his dismissal, to the arrest of several trade union officials and to the occupation of the Youssoufia UMT trade union premises without, in spite of this, those concerned being awarded any of their occupational demands. On the other hand, the Government, which apparently tried - but in vain - to reach a solution to this dispute through dialogue, considers that the workers in question were guilty of acts of sabotage, which led to their dismissal.
4. 219. The Committee notes both the Government's arguments and those of the complainant, especially the complainant's denial of the Government's statement concerning the sabotage of equipment. In particular it notes that according to the complainant, the miners stated that they were not driven by collective suicidal tendencies and that, throughout the duration of the strike, they had provided a permanent service to control and maintain the extraction and evacuation equipment, which had enabled normal production to be resumed on 4 January, the day the workers returned to work.
5. 220. The Committee also notes that the Government did not deny the allegations concerning the imprisonment without trial of the Secretary-General of the local UMT and his dismissal; neither did it deny the occupation of the UMT trade union premises of Youssoufia.
6. 221. Finally, the Committee notes with regret that, in spite of the time which has elapsed since the UMT submitted its second complaint (in November 1986), the Government has not made any comment on the labour dispute at the Itma Plastics undertaking and that, consequently, it has not refuted the allegations of the complainant in this matter, denouncing the dismissal of the whole of the trade union Executive after it had been set up.
7. 222. The Committee notes with concern that it is called upon frequently to examine complaints concerning victimisation of workers seeking to exercise their trade union rights in Morocco (see, for instance, Cases Nos. 992, 1017 and 1116 (Morocco)).
8. 223. As regards the strike called by the workers to try and settle the labour dispute at the Youssoufia mine, the Committee recalls that it has, on several occasions, declared that peaceful strike action is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and defence of their occupational demands. In the present case, it would seem that the demands were of a purely occupational nature and that, consequently, recourse to strike action was legitimate.
9. 224. As regards the removal of the UMT Secretary-General of Youssoufia and the dismissal of trade union officials, including the founder members of several trade union Executives both at the Youssoufia Phosphates undertaking and the Itma Plastics undertaking, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that workers and workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and that such representatives should have the right to present the demands of the workers (see 22nd Report, Case No. 148 (Poland), para. 94). It follows that one of the basic principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination such as dismissal, transfer, demotion and other prejudicial measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of founders of a trade union, trade union officials and delegates, because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of their trade union position.
10. 225. As regards the occupation of the UMT premises at Youssoufia, the Committee recalls that an occupation of this nature, without a legal warrant, may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities (see, for instance, 204th Report, Case No. 962 (Turkey), para. 257 and 208th Report, Case No. 1025 (Haiti), para. 418).