Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 101, 1968

1. 110. The complaint made by the Moroccan General Federation of Labour (U.G.T.M.) was set forth in two telegrams dated 19 January 1967. The contents of these two telegrams were brought to the notice of the Government, which presented its observations in a communication dated 2 May 1967.
2. 111. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 112. The complainants alleged that, on the occasion of a strike by dockers in the port of Casablanca, the strikers were brutally assaulted by the police and many people were arrested, among them the General Secretary of the U.G.T.M trade union in the port of Casablanca.
2. 113. The Government, in its communication dated 2 May 1967, stated that on 19 January 1967 the U.G.T.M called a 24-hour token strike in support of the claims it had presented to the port authorities on 9 and 15 January. These claims, the Government continued, had been considered unacceptable in that they were in conflict with an agreement reached on 15 July 1966 between the leading organisation, the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.), and the shipping companies about the method of granting annual holidays with pay.
3. 114. The Government then gave the following description of the development of events. On the morning of 19 January 1967 80 dockers out of 556 participated in the strike, and in the afternoon 10 out of 463. " Nevertheless ", the Government continued, " the strikers tried to prevent other dockers from reporting for work. Clashes broke out which necessitated police intervention to restore order and ensure freedom to work. Nineteen workers-nine belonging to the U.M.T, eight to the U.G.T.M, and two persons to neither federation were arrested and brought before the competent legal authorities in accordance with the law. "
4. 115. When this matter was brought before the Committee at its May 1967 Session, the Committee considered that from the Government's explanations it seemed clear that the police had intervened not to break the strike, but to restore order, which had been disturbed by fights between workers belonging to different factions.
5. 116. However, in view of the complainants' allegation that arrests had been made and in view of the Government's confirmation that this was so and that the 19 persons arrested had been brought before the competent legal authorities, the Committee considered that, before it submitted its conclusions to the Governing Body, it would be useful to ascertain what further action had been taken with regard to those persons, and whether they had been released.
6. 117. Accordingly, it requested the Director-General to ask the Government for the above-mentioned information, which he did by a letter dated 9 June 1967. The Government answered by a communication dated 22 August 1967.
7. 118. In this communication the Government gives the following information. It first of all repeats its statement that the U.G.T.M strike order was not fully followed and that many dockers belonging to the U.M.T, or belonging to neither federation, reported for work. The work in question consisted chiefly in the loading and unloading of foreign ships. The Government states that the strikers, dissatisfied that their fellow workers had resumed work, followed the orders of the U.G.T.M and forcibly occupied these foreign vessels under the leadership of the U.G.T.M. General Secretary (Mr. Miloudi Kamar) and prevented anybody, irrespective of trade union affiliation, from boarding the ships or working on them. The Government goes on to say that in such circumstances the police were obliged to intervene. The leaders were told that they were perfectly free to go on strike but that they were not free to prevent access by dockers not belonging to their union and wishing to perform their normal work. The Government states that the strikers refused to comply and assaulted the police, seriously injuring one policeman.
8. 119. The Government states that in these circumstances the police arrested 19 people. Of these, 13 were released without being brought before a court. The other six were brought before the Public Prosecutor and charged with action prejudicial to the right to work, assault and battery and obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty. Remanded in custody on 21 January 1967, the accused were brought before the Regional Court for trial on those charges. On 23 January the Court considered the case and gave its judgment. Five of the accused were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted; Mr. Miloudi Kamar alone was convicted and received a suspended sentence of 25 days' imprisonment and fined 120 dirhams. The Government states that no appeal has been lodged against this verdict, either by the Public Prosecutor or by the person sentenced.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 120. From the explanations given by the Government in its communications of 2 May and 22 August 1967, it is sufficiently clear that the U.G.T.M strike movement had degenerated and that the police intervened not to break the strike, but to restore order. In addition, all the persons originally detained have been released: 13 immediately after their arrest, five following their acquittal, and one by reason of having received only a suspended sentence.