Informe provisional - Informe núm. 93, 1967

1. 299. The complaint of the Moroccan General Federation of Labour (U.G.T.M.) is contained in a communication dated 15 June 1966 addressed directly to the I.L.O. On 30 June 1966 the complaint was transmitted for observations to the Government, which replied by a communication dated 14 October 1966.
2. 300. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 301. The complainants allege that the Government has consistently favoured the Moroccan Labour Union (U.M.T.) at the expense of U.G.T.M, as a result of which U.M.T enjoys a virtual monopoly of trade union action; that the Government's policy has deprived hundreds of thousands of members of U.G.T.M of the possibility of engaging in normal trade union activities; and that the effect of this has been to exert an undue influence upon the workers in their choice of a union to join.
2. 302. In support of these general assertions the complainants make a number of specific allegations in respect of facts which they consider to be evidence of the discrimination to which U.G.T.M is subjected. These allegations are examined separately below.
   • Allegations relating to Elections among Employees of the Port of Casablanca
3. 303. The complainants allege that all the elections for staff representatives and members of the different joint committees were rigged and carried out in an improper manner owing to the fact that the representatives of the administrations and of the employers consistently adopted an unfavourable attitude towards U.G.T.M.
4. 304. To be more specific, the complainants assert that the elections held in October 1965 among the personnel of the Port of Casablanca gave rise to protests on the part of U.G.T.M as to the regularity of the proceedings. In accordance with the election rules, continue the complainants, a complaint was lodged with the Regional Court of Casablanca, which, at a hearing on 23 March 1966, ruled after hearing the evidence of U.G.T.M that the elections were irregular and declared them null and void, instructing the Ministry of Public Works and Communications to order new elections as provided for by law.
5. 305. At the time the complaint was lodged with the I.L.O four months had passed and, according to the complainants, the court's ruling had still not been applied.
6. 306. The complainants further allege that on 10 June 1966 the Harbour Master of Casablanca, " by order of the Ministry of Public Works and Communications, called a meeting of the members elected during the elections declared irregular and annulled by the Regional Court of Casablanca in order to decide as to the promotion of certain workers ".
7. 307. In its observations on these allegations the Government states that, as regards the court ruling to which U.G.T.M refers, the Minister of Public Works and Communications has stated that he has received " no notification to date " of the matter and that the Casablanca Dock Board has not been served with a summons in this connection.
8. 308. The Committee is confronted here with conflicting statements. Whereas the complainants make the allegation, substantiated by details as to the date of the ruling and the court which made it, that a court has ordered the annulment of the staff elections held in the Port of Casablanca in October 1965, the Government, in stating that the authority concerned-namely the Ministry of Public Works and Communications-has not been notified of such a court ruling, appears to imply that the ruling has never been made.
9. 309. The Government's reply considers that to enable it to reach a decision on this aspect of the case in full awareness of the facts it is necessary for it to know whether or not the complainants' allegation that there has been a court ruling annulling the elections is correct and, if so-bearing in mind that the statement by the Minister of Public Works and Communications that he had received no notification " to date " of such a ruling may simply mean that a ruling has been made but has not yet taken effect-what the terms of the ruling are and what action has been taken upon it.
10. 310. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the particulars specified in the preceding paragraph.
    • Allegations relating to Staff Elections at the National Electricity Board (Oujda)
11. 311. The complainants allege that despite the fact that 90 per cent of the wage-earning and salaried employees of the electric power station at Oujda belong to U.G.T.M the manager of the power station refused to receive the officers of U.G.T.M on the pretext that the managing director, himself an active member of U.M.T, had instructed him not to recognise the members of U.G.T.M, and that these members are generally discriminated against by the manager of the power station.
12. 312. The complainants make the more specific allegation that the manager of the power station " refused the U.G.T.M list of candidates for the elections of representatives of employees in the electric power station".
13. 313. In its reply the Government states that the complainants allude to the fact that the manager of the National Electricity Board has, in their view, unjustifiably refused to accept the lists of U.G.T.M candidates for election to the governing bodies of the Welfare Board and the Mutual Social Security Fund.
14. 314. The Government states in this respect that the manager's refusal was in conformity with the rules, which provide that lists must be complete. Under the rules, in effect, the list for the Welfare Board should have contained the names of 28 candidates, including 14 substitutes, while the Mutual Social Security Fund list should have contained the names of 12 regular members and 12 substitutes. According to the Government U.G.T.M's lists gave only two candidates (one regular member and one substitute) for each election. The Government adds that despite a postponement of the vote U.G.T.M found it impossible to add further names to its lists. In these circumstances the Government takes the view that the refusal by the manager of the National Electricity Board to accept the lists was perfectly justified.
15. 315. It would appear from the explanations furnished by the Government that, despite being given extra time to complete its lists of candidates for election to the governing bodies of the Welfare Board and the Mutual Social Security Fund, the complaining organisation failed to do so, and that it was for thus having failed to comply with the rules governing the elections in question that U.G.T.M had its lists rejected.
16. 316. In these circumstances, considering that the complainants have failed to establish that there was any infringement of freedom of association in this instance, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
    • Allegations relating to the Dismissal of Wage-Earning and Salaried Employees of the Moroccan Automobile Manufacturing Company of Casablanca
17. 317. The complainants allege that the 600 wage-earning and salaried employees of the Moroccan Automobile Manufacturing Company of Casablanca (SOMACA) lawfully came out on strike as a protest against the arbitrary dismissal of 30 workers. According to the complainants the management, instead of opening negotiations with the strikers, decided to dismiss en masse all the wage-earning and salaried employees at the works and opened a recruiting office where wage-earning and salaried employees " may re-register for their former work on condition that they forfeit their length of service and register as new workers". The complainants assert that this office has in fact registered as " new workers " 340 wage-earning and salaried employees, " who, being the breadwinners of large families, are afraid to remain without work and join the thousands of workers dismissed for trade union action or because of their political opinions". The complainants add that despite the representations made by U.G.T.M to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Industry, "260 workers and employees, all belonging to U.G.T.M and including the works representatives who had been elected, are now unemployed".
18. 318. In its reply the Government begins by stating that the fluctuations in the number of employees of SOMACA are due to fluctuations in its activities over the year. In the Government's view this explains why the management of SOMACA decided in April 1966 to dismiss a certain number of redundant workers, as it was entitled to do under the labour legislation in force. The Government concludes by stating that the SOMACA management has recently re-engaged these workers now that activities are picking up.
19. 319. Here again, the Committee considers that the Government's reply to the concrete allegations of the complainants does not contain sufficient detailed information to enable the Committee to assess the position. The reply in fact does no more than refer to the dismissal, for economic reasons, of " a certain number of redundant workers " who were subsequently re-engaged. The complaining organisation, for its part, refers to the dismissal, described by it as arbitrary, of 30 workers, a strike in protest against this measure in which the entire staff of the undertaking took part, the mass dismissal, consequent upon the strike, of all the wage-earning and salaried employees of SOMACA, the subsequent recruitment of a proportion of these workers on less favourable terms than they had previously enjoyed, and finally the non-reinstatement of 260 workers who, according to the complainants, were all members of U.G.T.M and included all the elected works representatives.
20. 320. In these circumstances, before being able to make its final recommendations to the Governing Body the Committee considers it necessary to obtain from the Government more detailed information on this aspect of the case, and it therefore recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish detailed observations on each of the specific allegations to which reference is made in the preceding paragraph.
    • Allegations relating to the Arrest and Sentencing of Mr. Drissi Laghnimi, General Secretary of U.G.T.M at Sidi Slimane
21. 321. The complainants allege that at the time of a strike by agricultural workers in Sidi Slimane in support of their lawful claims Mr. Drissi Laghnimi, General Secretary of U.G.T.M at Sidi Slimane, was arrested by the Caid of the district and threatened with imprisonment should be refuse to break the strike. Having in fact refused, Mr. Laghnimi was arbitrarily sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
22. 322. In its observations the Government begins by declaring that, contrary to the allegations of U.G.T.M, the inquiry carried out by the Ministry of Home Affairs has revealed that Mr. Laghnimi is not the General Secretary of the local branch of that organisation, being ineligible for such a post under the law in view of his police record (thefts and public disturbances with threats to kill).
23. 323. The Government furnishes the following explanations with respect to the events referred to by the complainants and the action taken against Mr. Laghnimi. In March 1966 Mr. Laghnimi called wildcat strikes during which he incited the workers to use force both against their employer and against the representative of the public authorities who came to the workplace in an attempt to settle the dispute between the strikers and the owner of the farm where they were employed.
24. 324. The Government states that as a result of the threatening attitude adopted by Mr. Laghnimi he was arraigned before the Crown Attorney and found guilty of violence and interference with freedom to work in accordance with the terms of section 288 of the Dahir of 26 November 1962 approving the Penal Code.
25. 325. It would seem clear from the explanations furnished by the Government that the action taken against the person in question was motivated not by any activities he may have engaged in defence of the occupational interests of the workers but by acts of violence or incitement to violence committed at a time when workers were taking action in support of their claims. Moreover, the judgment pronounced against the person concerned appears to have been perfectly in accordance with the law and pursuant to regular judicial proceedings.
26. 326. In these circumstances, considering that the complainants have failed to establish that there was any infringement of freedom of association in this instance, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.