Definitive Report - Report No 342, June 2006

753. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 29 October 2005 from Aircraft Engineers International (AEI), on behalf of its affiliate, the Moroccan Union of Aviation Technicians (STAM).

1. 754. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 12 and 27 December 2005 and 15 February 2006.
2. 755. Morocco has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). It has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 756. The Moroccan Union of Aviation Technicians (STAM) is an independent, apolitical trade union. At the time the complaint was presented, the Royal Air Maroc (RAM) aviation technicians belonging to STAM had been on strike since 29 June 2005. The strike was an expression of the technicians’ determination to assert their legitimate rights, to exercise their trade union freedoms and to bring their negotiations with the management of RAM to a successful conclusion.
2. 757. The complainant organization alleges that the management of RAM categorically refuses to recognize STAM as a trade union and has consistently refused to hold discussions with its executive committee. Moreover, instead of negotiating with this committee, the management has chosen to hold discussions with the staff representatives, in order to create the impression that it is abiding by national law and international conventions.
3. 758. The AEI adds that, in addition to refusing to recognize STAM as a trade union, the management of the company has carried out a campaign of harassment aimed at the union’s members. It has ordered the unwarranted transfer of union leaders to other Moroccan facilities and dismissed eight technicians. The national authorities and the management of RAM has also employed various repressive measures of a legal and psychological nature. The management of RAM has threatened most of the strikers with dismissal or suspension should they continue with their legitimate strike action; the families of the strikers have been deprived of medical cover and access to sites belonging to the company; other RAM workers who are members of the families of some of the striking aviation technicians, have been threatened and, in some cases, transferred.
4. 759. According to AEI, the Moroccan Government and the management of RAM have violated the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the provisions of the Moroccan Labour Code.
5. B. The Government’s reply
6. 760. In its communications dated 12 and 27 December 2005, the Government states that, in June 2005, the management of Royal Air Maroc (RAM) suspended eight employees, accusing them of refusing to carry out certain of their normal duties in the following circumstances:
7. – on the night of 24-25 June, because of their rank and because of an increased workload, four aviation technicians were transferred to another workshop to provide support for the team there, in order to ensure the timely delivery of two airplanes. The technicians concerned refused outright to carry out the work required of them;
8. – furthermore, the Industrial Aviation Centre had organized a training programme, providing the instruction necessary for the completion of the tasks set out in the labour contract. A number of aviation technicians decided of their own free will not to attend the programme, without providing any explanation. They were therefore requested to join the training programme immediately. Only two of the six technicians complied with this request.
9. 761. The first four technicians were suspended on 29 June 2005, pending their appearance before a disciplinary board. The four other technicians were summoned before a disciplinary board on 5 July 2005 but failed to attend. A second summons was sent to them on 6 July 2005 and was again ignored; a third summons sent on 7 July 2005 likewise met with no response. Despite the management’s manifest willingness to allow the individuals concerned to put up a defence, the disciplinary board was forced to rule that they be dismissed owing to their absence from the proceedings.
10. 762. As to the transfer of workers, the Government states that the company was responding to operational requirements.
11. 763. This being the situation, the Moroccan Union of Aviation Technicians (STAM) decided to call a strike, which began on 29 June 2005 and which, according to the Government, involved 400 strikers out of a workforce of 4,800. It was not until 1 July 2005 that the company received a press release informing it of the planned strike action, no prior notice having been given. At the beginning of the strike, the company maintains that no disciplinary measures had been taken and that STAM had not yet been established.
12. 764. Despite the situation, the senior management of the company announced that it was prepared to hold a meeting with the technicians’ representatives, an invitation that was not taken up. On 7 September 2005 the human resources department sent invitations to all the staff representatives of the technicians to attend a meeting the next day; this invitation was not taken up either.
13. 765. The external services of the Ministry of Employment and Vocational Training intervened as soon as they were informed of the dispute and held several conciliation meetings to find a solution. Both parties, however, maintained their position.
14. 766. Regarding the application of the principles of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Government states that the Moroccan Constitution guarantees freedom of association for all citizens and their freedom to join the trade union organization of their choice. National law recognizes the right to associate and to bargain collectively. Collective bargaining is governed by Titles III and IV of Volume I of the Labour Code. The Government further emphasizes that it abides by the legal rules and regulations as they relate to freedom of association and spare no effort to protect the exercise of the right to organize, to resolve disputes and to promote social dialogue.
15. 767. In its communication of 22 February 2006, the Government states that direct negotiations were held between the management of the company and the employees, resulting in an agreement whereby the strike ended and work resumed on 2 January 2006. All the employees who had been suspended were reinstated; the two employees transferred to Fès and Oujda agreed to their transfer, subject to payment of their travel expenses; the outstanding contributions for medical cover were made up, and the strikers were granted a loan on the occasion of Aïd-El-Adha.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 768. The Committee notes that the present complaint concerns the following allegations: the Royal Air Maroc (RAM) company refused to recognize the Moroccan Union of Aviation Technicians (STAM) and to negotiate with it, preferring to deal with staff representatives; the company also committed several acts of anti-union harassment against the officials and members of STAM, including: unwarranted transfers of union leaders to other facilities; dismissal of eight technicians; threats of suspension without wages and dismissal of strikers (on legal strike since June 2005); withdrawal of medical cover for strikers and their families during the period of the strike.
2. 769. The Committee notes, however, that, according to the Government’s communication dated 22 February 2006, the conflict has come to an end, that the labour climate within the company has returned to normal and that an agreement has been reached on all the issues raised in the complaint, i.e. the end of the strike, the resumption of work on 2 January 2006, the reinstatement of all the employees who had been suspended, the negotiated settlement of the case of the workers transferred to Fès and Oujda, and the payment of contributions for medical coverage.
3. 770. While noting this information with interest, the Committee recalls, regarding RAM’s initial refusal to recognize STAM, that direct negotiations between the company and its employees, bypassing representative organizations where these exist, might in certain cases be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. The Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), contain explicit provisions guaranteeing that, where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures are to be taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives in an enterprise is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, paras. 786-787]. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the RAM company recognizes STAM, which is now a legally constituted trade union, and that, in future, it negotiates with STAM’s representatives, being the most representative trade union, who must not be subjected to anti-union discrimination or harassment.