Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 112, 1969

1. 53. The complaint of the Federation of Free Workers' Unions (USTL) at Rabat is contained in a communication dated 4 February 1969, which has been supplemented by another dated 5 March 1969. The texts of these communications have been transmitted to the Government, which has sent its observations in a letter dated 21 April 1969.
2. 54. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It has, however, ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 55. It is alleged that Mr. Mohamed Bennadi, Deputy Secretary of the National Bureau of the complainant organisation, General Secretary of the National Federation for Public Health, which is affiliated to the complainant Organisation, and General Secretary of the local union of Rabat, has been dismissed by the Ministry of Public Health, in which he was employed. In the opinion of the complainants, such a decision by the administration is unwarranted and constitutes a discriminatory measure.
2. 56. From the detailed explanations given by the Government it appears that, as long as the Government was convinced that Mr. Bennadi was actually carrying out trade union functions, it allowed him to be detached so that he could devote himself to these functions. It appears that it was only when doubts arose concerning the authenticity of the trade union functions carried out by him that he was invited to resume his post. However, since the question of Mr. Bennadi's trade union functions appears to have given rise to a lawsuit, he was again allowed to be detached. Since he had failed to provide the court with proof of the authenticity of his trade union functions, the administration in which he was employed did not consider it appropriate to allow him to remain detached and invited him to resume his post. It seems that it was only when he refused to resume his work that the administration in which he was employed dismissed him for dereliction of duty.