Informe provisional - Informe núm. 194, Junio 1979

1. 283. The complaint of the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) is contained in three communications dated 23, 28 and 29 May 1978. The Government forwarded its observations in a letter dated 30 January 1979.
2. 284. 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

1. 285. In its letter of 23 May 1978, the complainant alleges that following a strike of all ground mechanics employed by Royal Air Maroc (RAM) on 21 May 1978, the management recruited foreign technicians in their place, as well as unqualified assistant mechanics, in order to maintain operation of the service. In two telegrams of 28 and 29 May 1978, it claims that the police laid siege on strikers in their union premises for 72 hours, leaving then without water, food, electricity and telephone services, forced entry and committed acts of destruction. The complainant further alleges that several strikers were arrested and taken to unknown destinations.
2. 286. In its observations of 30 January 1979, the Government states that upon the launching on 21 May 1978 of the strike by the RAM mechanics in Casablanca, the government authority in that Prefecture gave order for the requisitioning of 35 strikers. They took refuge in their union headquarters to escape the requisition orders. On 29 May, at 1 a.m. the striking workers left the premises of their own free will and peacefully. They were notified of the requisition orders and work began again normally on 30 May 1978. The Government states that the authorities acted in full conformity with the law and respected trade union rights and premises.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 287. The Committee notes these statements made by the Government. Although they do not refer specifically to certain aspects of the complaint, such as the alleged arrest of several strikers and destruction of property, the Committee observes that the complainant did not provide particulars in support of these allegations, such as the names of those arrested or a description of the property in question. In any case, as regards the workers themselves, the Government's reply seems to indicate that they were back at work nine days after the beginning of the strike.
2. 288. In connection with the Government's statement that the strike was handled by the authorities in conformity with the law, the Committee observes that, in Morocco, in accordance with the provisions of a dahir of 19 January 1946, as amended, all collective labour disputes shall be submitted to a conciliation and arbitration procedure. Agreements reached through conciliation, as well as arbitration awards, shall be binding (sections 1, 18, 21 and 23 of the dahir). With particular reference to the provision on compulsory arbitration, the Committee notes therefore that the law appears to exclude the recourse to strike action in industrial disputes. Furthermore, Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963 appears to enable the authorities to call up persons in order to meet national needs. On this point, however, in a report made in 1977 by the Government under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, concerning the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), it was stated that a new bill concerning requisition of labour was in course of elaboration.
3. 289. The Committee has always considered that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. It has pointed out in this connection that a general prohibition of strikes, whether imposed directly or indirectly, would not be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Although it has also stated that strikes may be subject to restrictions or even prohibited in the public service or in essential services provided these limitations were accompanied by certain compensatory guarantees, it has made clear, particularly in two cases involving airline services, that the prohibition of strikes in undertakings which were not performing an essential service in the strict sense of the term that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population and would not be in conformity with the principles mentioned above.
4. 290. Noting, moreover, that in the present case the authorities issued requisition orders concerning 35 strikers, the Committee wishes to draw attention, as it has done in other cases, to the possibility of abuse involved in the requisitioning of workers as a means of dealing with industrial disputes. In such Gases, the Committee has emphasised the undesirability of recourse to measures of this nature except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity.
5. 291. Therefore, in order to be able to reach definitive conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, the Committee would like to receive further information from the Government on the conditions for the legal exercise of the right to strike, the circumstances in which the legislation concerning requisitioning of workers may be applied to strikers, and, more particularly, the reasons for the issue of requisition orders in the dispute involving the Royal Air Maroc ground mechanics, in May 1978.