Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 253, Noviembre 1987

1. 171. This case has already been the subject of an interim report by the Committee which appears in paragraphs 555 to 569 of its 243rd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its February-March 1986 Session.
2. 172. At its November 1986 and May 1987 meetings, the Committee adjourned its examination of this case, for which it had not received all the information it awaited from the Government. In paragraph 13 of its 251st Report, approved by the Governing Body in May 1987, the Committee stated that in view of the time which had elapsed since the case was last examined it drew the Government's attention to the fact that, in conformity with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, the Committee would present a report at its next meeting on the substance of the matter, even if the information awaited from the Government had not been received in time.
3. 173. Since then the Goverment has still not sent the information requested. The Committee accordingly proposes to examine this case in the light of all the information now in its possession.
4. 174. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 175. At its last examination of the case at its February 1986 meeting, the Committee, taking into account the observations submitted by the complainant in communications dated 27 and 29 June 1985, and by the Government in communications dated 27 November 1985 and 23 January 1986, observed that 11 persons had been sentenced to prison terms of two to four months for striking, following a labour dispute that had broken out between the miners of Al-Hamman and the management of the mine belonging to "Omnium nord-africain" in June 1985.
2. 176. The Committee had observed that the versions of the dispute given by the complainant and by the Government were contradictory. According to the complainant, miners had been unjustly accused of having lost explosives had been imprisoned, but had been released when the explosives were found. After this incident, the trade union executives of the mine proposed to the management that it set up a special branch responsible for supervising the circulation and handling of explosives. When the management turned down this proposal, they decided to hold a strike starting on 6 June 1985. The management refused to negotiate and retaliated by having several members of the trade union executive of the mine, and certain trade union activists, arrested; it also recruited new workers to replace the strikers.
3. 177. The Government, however, stated firstly that the dispute had been settled following an agreement concluded between the two parties, and secondly, although it was true that 11 strikers had been sentenced to prison terms of two to four months, this was because the miners involved in the complaint had attacked the mine and forced the other miners, who were continuing to work, to join the strike. The Government added that the forces of order had intervened to restore order and that the persons mainly responsible for the situation had been brought before the courts.
4. 178. In these circumstances, at its February 1986 meeting the Committee recommended the Governing Body to observe that, according to the Government, the labour dispute which gave rise to this complaint had been settled to the satisfaction of both parties. The Committee nevertheless regretted that 11 persons had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment after a strike. So as to be able to reach conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, it requested the Government to transmit the text of the judgements handed down in these matters, and to provide information on the consequences that the sentencing of these strikers might have on their employment situation. The Committee in any event recalled the importance it attached to strike action as a legitimate means of defending the economic and social interests of workers. It stressed that the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace striking workers entailed a risk of prejudicing the right to strike, and that in cases of strike action the public authorities should resort to the use of the forces of order only in situations where law and order were seriously threatened.

B. Further developments in the case

1. 179. At its November 1986 meeting (see paragraph 10 of its 246th Report), the Committee noted that the Government stated in a communication of 17 October 1986 that the workers of the Al-Hamman mine had been tried for disturbing public order and for impeding the freedom to work of other workers. They had been sentenced, without appeal, to terms of imprisonment, and dismissed by their employer for committing these serious offences which had been punished by the competent courts. The Government added that the employer had nevertheless granted them a special indemnity on their dismissal. The Committee regretted that a copy of the judgements handed down against the striking workers had not been communicated to it, and again requested the Government to transmit a copy of those judgements in order to permit it to reach a conclusion on this matter in full knowledge of the facts.
2. 180. Since then the Government has still not provided a copy of the judgements.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 181. The Committee recalls once again that the purpose of the whole procedure instituted in the ILO to examine allegations of violation of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance for the protection of their own reputation of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to the allegations brought against them. It has always been considered that replies from governments against whom complaints are made should not be confined to generalities (see the Commitee's First Report, para. 31).
2. 182. In the present case the Committee can only again regret that, in spite of repeated requests, the Government has still not communicated the decisions taken by the courts against the members of the trade union executive of the mine who were sentenced to prison terms of two to four months following a strike. Without those decisions the Committee is not in a position to decide whether or not the strike was a peaceful one, and it cannot know the precise grounds on which the trade unionists were brought to trial and sentenced.
3. 183. Nevertheless, the Committee feels bound to recall as a matter of principle that its opinion has always been that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organising or taking part in a peaceful strike. It also considers that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should extend to acts the purpose of which is to dismiss a worker. The Committee is of the opinion that protection against reprisals for strike action would be particularly desirable for trade union delegates, who to be able to carry out their duties with complete independence must have an assurance that they will not be prejudiced as a result of being entrusted with those duties. In the opinion of the Committee, legislation which, in practice, allows employers to dismiss a worker on condition that they pay him statutory compensation for dismissal, even if the real reason for his dismissal is that he is a trade union member or activist, does not provide sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination covered by Convention No. 98, which has been ratified by Morocco.