Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 265, Juin 1989

1. 210. The International Miners' Organisation (IMO) presented a complaint of
   • violation of freedom of association against the Government of Morocco on
   • behalf of its affiliate, the Miners' Trade Union of the Democratic
   • Confederation of Labour (CDT), in a communication dated 17 February 1989. On
   • the same day, the CDT, having sent several requests to the Director-General of
   • the ILO to take action in this case, in particular in telegrams dated 27
   • December 1988 and 3 and 24 January 1989, decided to file a complaint itself
   • against the infringements of trade union rights perpetrated by the Government.
   • Similarly, in a cable dated 26 January 1989, the World Federation of Trade
   • Unions (WFTU) informed the ILO of its serious concern as regards this case.
   • Lastly, the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) stated in a
   • communication dated 22 March 1989 that it upheld the CDT's complaint.
2. 211. The Government sent a reply on this case in a communication dated 12
   • April 1989.
3. 212. 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. The complainants' allegations

1. 213. On 27 December 1988, the ILO was requested by the CDT to intervene in a
   • serious labour dispute which was developing in the Jerada mines in Morocco.
   • The IMO and the CDT later filed a complaint against the Morocco Coalmining
   • Company in Jerada as a directly involved partner and against the Government of
   • Morocco, which has a legal and moral obligation to ensure compliance with and
   • application of labour laws and international labour standards. The complainant
   • alleged infringement of trade union rights and violation of ILO Conventions
   • during the above-mentioned labour dispute between the miners and the Jerada
   • Mining Company (Oujda Province).
2. 214. More specifically, the IMO considers that the Government of Morocco has
   • violated ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 143 and 155. In its view, it is the
   • inhuman conditions in which miners live and work that led the persons
   • concerned to hold the strike which has lasted since 19 December 1988.
   • According to the IMO, the miners themselves must pay for their helmets,
   • working tools and even their boots. The showers are three kilometres away;
   • miners are transported there in dump trucks, like the coal, without protection
   • and regardless of the weather. They live in unsanitary dwellings. They and
   • their families are hungry and cold, since their coal allowance has been cut
   • off by the management.
3. 215. The CDT has supplied the following additional information on this case:
   • it explains that the Morocco Coalmining Company in Jerada is a limited
   • liability company of which the State holds 98 per cent of shares. It should
   • normally be managed by a board of directors under the supervision of the
   • Ministry of Energy and Mining; in addition, the management takes all decisions
   • unilaterally without consulting workers' representatives and their trade union
   • or hearing their grievances, and systematically refusing to engage in dialogue
   • with CDT leaders in particular. This intransigent attitude, coupled with poor
   • management of the enterprise, is the underlying cause of the labour dispute in
   • this mine. The deterioration of the company in general and of working
   • conditions has drastically affected the situation of the workers who number
   • about 7,000 (5,500 miners plus 1,500 supervisory personnel and technicians).
4. 216. The CDT gives the following explanation of the dispute and its causes.
   • As regards the workers' claims, the Jerada section of the trade union handed
   • in a list of claims to the management as early as 1985, and requested it to
   • embark on a dialogue concerning the workers' living and working conditions,
   • and the following issues in particular:
     • - review of wages and compensation;
     • - normal housing and decent transportation;
     • - the cost of tools and personal equipment now paid for by the miners to be
   • covered by the management;
     • - preventive safety and health measures and curative measures against
   • industrial accidents and silicosis, and more humane occupational medicine;
     • - one litre of milk daily;
     • - fairer compensation in the event of silicosis (workers who are 30 per cent
   • affected by the disease still continue to work);
     • - election of a commission in order for workers' delegates to participate in
   • the administration of social welfare;
     • - review of the retirement pension system;
     • - respect for the dignity of workers, who are subjected to provocation and
   • intimidation by the management and its personnel, especially if they are
   • members of the CDT;
     • - lastly, respect of trade union rights and recognition of the CDT as a
   • social partner.
5. 217. The CDT adds that the management has chosen to adopt an obstinate and
   • intransigent attitude as regards its recognition and initiation of a dialogue
   • and that it has refused to enter into any negotiations with union leaders
   • regarding the above-mentioned claims, arguing that a social dialogue with
   • staff delegates is always open in the joint committees. According to the CDT,
   • however, negotiation of the claims list does not fall within the competence of
   • staff delegates in joint committees as the management asserts, since the terms
   • of reference of the joint committees are defined as: to ensure compliance with
   • the regulations, to examine complaints by the staff within their area of
   • competence concerning recruitment, granting security of employment, promotion,
   • dismissal and disciplinary penalties, and to endeavour to settle collective
   • disputes of all kinds. Thus, in the CDT's view, negotiation of its claims with
   • the management can only fall within the competence of the trade union, which
   • is the only instrument for defending workers' claims.
6. 218. The CDT explains further that, faced with the management's obstinacy,
   • the miners decided to call a three-day strike from 1 to 3 December 1988, which
   • was adhered to by 98 per cent of the workers. The management then resorted to
   • acts of provocation and intimidation and threats against the striking workers.
   • The supervisory ministry, the Ministry of Mining, followed suit by adopting
   • the arbitrary decision to suspend for three months the three CDT safety and
   • health delegates, including the secretary-general of the Jerada section of the
   • CDT. The Ministry referred in its decision to section 32 of the Miners'
   • Regulations in order to penalise the delegates who, in its view, committed
   • gross negligence of their duties by refusing to carry out their prescribed
   • tours of inspection on 1, 2 and 3 December 1988. The dates referred to in the
   • decision were precisely those on which the three-day strike was held by the
   • CDT, the three delegates having joined their fellow strikers. The CDT
   • considers that the Ministry should have had the courage to mention in its
   • decision that the delegates were suspended for striking.
7. 219. The CDT states further that the tension spread in the Jerada mines. The
   • strike was resumed on 19 December 1988 with the aim of initiating a dialogue
   • on the claims and obtaining the reinstatement of the suspended delegates.
   • However, the executive of the CDT decided to approach the supervisory
   • ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, as well as the Ministry of the
   • Interior and of Information and the Oujda police department, requesting them
   • to intervene with the management of the coalmining company to settle the
   • dispute. Following this meeting on 26 December 1988, the CDT decided to resume
   • work to show that it favoured an easing of tensions and in the hope that the
   • management would endeavour likewise to alleviate the situation by initiating
   • dialogue. However, as the workers were going back to work in an orderly way,
   • they were surrounded and even violently assaulted by supervisory personnel
   • mobilised by the mangement. This prevented them from resuming work and caused
   • the miners in the galleries collectively to down tools in protest against the
   • acts of repression and the closure of the pit by order of the management. This
   • left the workers no choice but to continue the strike.
8. 220. On 28 December 1988, the management committed another act of repression
   • with the complicity of the local and provincial authorities: 14 CDT activists
   • were arrested and brought before the court of the first instance of Oujda on
   • unfounded and trumped-up charges. The first four accused were tried on 16
   • January 1989 for distributing tracts likely to disrupt the public order; three
   • of them were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, while the fourth was
   • acquitted. As for the other ten, who were prosecuted for interference with the
   • right to work and unlawful confinement, nine of them were sentenced to three
   • months' imprisonment and a fine of 500 dirhams, and the tenth to two months'
   • imprisonment and a fine of 400 dirhams.
9. 221. As regards the two trials, a text dating back to 1939 concerning
   • subversive tracts served as the basis for the accusation in the case of four
   • strikers whose only crime was to distribute a trade union tract, the contents
   • of which by no means disrupted the public order. This constitutes interference
   • with the exercise of trade union rights. The hearings on 16 January 1989 at
   • the Oujda court showed that the case had been instigated by the Jerada
   • Coalmining Company, which fabricated the story of unlawful confinement and
   • interference with the right to work. One of the alleged victims was found in
   • the room reserved for witnesses. The first witness for the prosecution had
   • written the registration number of one of the accused workers on his hand,
   • although he was supposed to know this number which he allegedly reported to
   • the police. The coalmining company even dared to ask the court for
   • compensation for damages caused by the stoppage of work, as if the strike in
   • itself constituted an offence. Lastly, the record of the proceedings was drawn
   • up in French, a language which none of the accused understand.
10. 222. The CDT states further that, at the date of its communication, the
    • miners were continuing the strike begun on 1 December 1988 in order to obtain
    • observance of their trade union rights and fulfilment of their list of claims.
    • The court of appeal, which was to hand down a verdict on 13 February 1989 in
    • the case of the miners convicted by the court of the first instance, had
    • postponed its verdict to 16 February 1989.
11. 223. According to the CDT, the only official reaction of the competent
    • authorities was a meeting of a Parliamentary Commission on Economic Affairs,
    • Employment, Energy and Mines held on 9 February 1989, at the request of
    • deputies who are members of the CDT and the opposition, in the House of
    • Representatives. This Parliamentary Commission, which devoted one session to
    • the situation in Jerada, decided that a meeting should be held on 16 February
12. 1989 at Oujda, to be chaired by the head of the Department of Mining of the
    • ministry in question, with the participation of representatives of the
    • management of the Jerada coal mines and their union representatives in order
    • to study the list of claims of the Jerada miners.
13. 224. The CDT states in conclusion that during the dispute between miners and
    • the coal mine management, it observed the following violations:
      • - violation of the Workers' Representatives Convention (No. 135) and
    • Recommendation (No. 143) by the suspension of three safety and health
    • delegates;
      • - violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by the refusal to recognise the
    • trade union section of the CDT and engage in dialogue with it, and by the
    • arrest and indictment of union delegates for distributing a legal union tract,
    • and by the surrounding of the CDT premises in Jerada in order to prevent
    • workers from holding their union meetings there;
      • - violation of the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) and
    • Recommendation (No. 85) by making miners pay for their work tools (boots,
    • picks, helmets and lamps);
      • - violation of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
    • (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111) by adopting a discriminatory policy
    • against workers affiliated to the CDT;
      • - violation of Recommendation No. 102, in particular by failing to provide
    • decent transport for miners (miners are transported in dump trucks);
      • - violation of the Workers' Housing Recommendation (No. 115) (most miners'
    • dwellings - 13 square metres for a couple with four children - do not meet
    • minimum housing standards);
      • - violation of Convention No. 155 and Recommendations Nos. 97 and 112 by
    • failing to provide means of protection and safety and health measures for
    • workers, as well as competent occupational health services.
    • B. The Government's reply
14. 225. In its reply dated 12 April 1989, the Government confirms that on 24
    • March 1988 the "Jerada Miners' Trade Union", an affiliate of the CDT, handed
    • in to the Morocco Coal Mines Directorate (DCM) a 23-point list of claims,
    • mainly concerning an increase in pay (20 per cent) and other compensation, the
    • introduction of a new work timetable, the setting up of a committee on social
    • welfare, improvement of medical services and working conditions, etc.
15. 226. According to the Government, the coalmining company felt it necessary
    • to go through the Committee on Staff Regulations and Personnel in order to
    • consider these claims, in accordance with section 3 of Dahir No. 1-60-007 of 5
    • Rejeb 1380 (24 December 1960) to issue the staff regulations of mining
    • enterprises (Miners' Regulations). The CDT was informed of this position
    • through the personnel department, but this trade union, which is not
    • represented on the Committee on Staff Regulations and Personnel, continued to
    • demand direct dialogue with the coalmining company.
16. 227. The Government states that the CDT declared a 72-hour strike in support
    • of its claims, starting on 1 December 1988; this only affected underground
    • workers (about 45 per cent of personnel). During this strike, the chief of the
    • Oujda Regional Mining Board was to carry out safety inspections underground.
    • As usual, he asked the safety delegates to accompany him to the workplace. To
    • his great surprise, the three delegates refused to comply with this
    • instruction, disregarding their professional obligations and their duty to
    • assist the administration, under section 34 of the Miners' Regulations. In
    • view of this attitude, viewed as gross negligence, the persons concerned were
    • penalised in accordance with section 32 of the Miners' Regulations. This
    • section provides in such situations for penalties of which the least severe
    • was applied in this case, i.e. suspension of duties of safety delegates for
    • three months starting on 8 December 1989.
17. 228. The Government states further that, following a brief resumption of
    • work from 5 to 13 December 1988, an incident occurred on 14 December when a
    • group of 150 workers occupied the base of a sloping mine gallery in workings
    • No. V for seven hours and prevented the other miners from going to their
    • workplaces. The situation was brought back to normal, however, following the
    • intervention of the Mining Board and work was resumed until 19 December 1988
    • when a new six-day stoppage was declared. After work was resumed on 26
    • December 1988, the situation appeared to be normal in the north basin and
    • workings No. IV, but at workings No. V, after the workers had been transported
    • down the shaft, a group of them occupied the base of the mining gallery. The
    • same occurred at the other workings on the second shift. Thus, 445 strikers
    • remained at the bottom for 24 hours. All attempts to make them come back up
    • failed. In addition, the persons concerned damaged telephone lines and
    • confined five foremen and machine operators responsible for transporting
    • personnel. The miners continued to occupy the bottom until 27 December 1988 at
18. 5. 30 p.m. In view of the escalation of tension and in order to safeguard the
    • security of the mine and personnel, the provincial authorities advised the
    • coalmining company to suspend transportation of men down the shaft from 28
    • December 1988 to 7 January 1989. When work was resumed, the attendance rate
    • did not exceed 53 per cent of workers. The strike essentially affected cutters
    • and diggers, thus paralysing production.
19. 229. The Government explains further that a dialogue was initiated none the
    • less, enabling the labour dispute to be settled. On 27 December 1988 the
    • Minister of Energy and Mining received the members of the national executive
    • of the CDT. The latter requested him to rescind the decisions to suspend the
    • three trade union delegates. During the meeting, the Minister stressed the
    • need to ease labour relations in Jerada, following which this grievance might
    • be dealt with favourably. The Governor of the province of Oujda, for his part,
    • received the persons concerned on 3 January 1989 and invited them to endeavour
    • to improve labour relations in Jerada. In confirmation of the complainants'
    • statement, the Government explained that in order to examine the trade unions'
    • claims at a higher level, the Commission for Economic Affairs of the House of
    • Representatives met on 9 February 1989 in the presence of the Minister of
    • Energy and Mining. During the discussions, full light was shed on the
    • financial situation of the coal mines and the importance of current investment
    • in the mines, which showed a heavy deficit. Figures were cited showing that
    • the main purpose of maintaining this activity was a social one. However, in
    • order to deal with the workers' grievances and at the Minister's suggestion,
    • the members of the Commission for Economic Affairs of the House of
    • Representatives decided to continue the dialogue in Oujda in a commmission
    • chaired by the director of the mines and comprising representatives of the
    • coal mine management and the various trade unions (the Moroccan Union of
    • Workers, the General Union of Moroccan Workers, the Democratic Confederation
    • of Labour and the National Union of Moroccan Workers) .
20. 230. The discussions in this Commission led to the signature of protocols of
    • agreement between the parties and the resumption of work on 18 February 1989,
    • explains the Government. Under the terms of these agreements, workers are
    • granted a 5 per cent pay rise and increases of 50 per cent in housing
    • allowances, 10 per cent in travelling allowances for leave and 133 per cent in
    • loans for Aód Al Adha. In addition, other decisions were taken regarding
    • workers' participation in the administration of social welfare, an increase in
    • the number of pilgrims (from six to ten), etc. The staff representatives, for
    • their part, assured the management that they would do their utmost to make up
    • for the delay in production by raising output and working harder.
21. 231. The Government also wished to add the following specific information
    • concerning respect of freedom of association and court proceedings. Following
    • individual suits filed by miners who had been confined at the bottom of the
    • mine on 26 December 1988, ten workers were called before the court, which
    • convicted them, then released them conditionally. Four other persons were
    • arrested for interfering with the right to work. One of the persons charged
    • was released, while the other three were sentenced to one month's
    • imprisonment. Lastly, the local secretary-general of the CDT in Jerada was
    • never arrested. He had carried out his activities for the entire duration of
    • the dispute. Moreover, the CDT premises had not been closed down.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 232. The Committee notes that this case concerns anti-trade union reprisals
   • taken by the Morocco Coalmining Company in Jerada and the Government of
   • Morocco during a labour dispute which occurred in this company in December
2. 1988 and January 1989. Essentially, it concerns the refusal by the Morocco
   • Coalmining Company to negotiate with the complainant union, the Miners' Trade
   • Union affiliated to the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT), and
   • repressive measures following a strike held by miners in response to this
   • refusal. The repressive measures were, in particular, the three-month
   • suspension of three safety and health delegates of the CDT, including the
   • secretary-general of the Jerada section of that union; brutal treatment by
   • management which retaliated against the strike by a lock-out, using violence
   • to prevent the workers from resuming work; and the arrest of 14 CDT activists
   • who participated in the strike (four of whom were accused of distributing
   • tracts likely to disrupt the public order, three of them being convicted and
   • sentenced to three months' imprisonment and the fourth acquitted, and the ten
   • others prosecuted for interfering with the right to work and for unlawful
   • confinement, nine of them being sentenced to three months' imprisonment and
   • the tenth to two months). The complainants also denounce the violation of a
   • number of international labour standards not related to respect of freedom of
   • association.
3. 233. The versions given by the complainants and the Government in this case
   • differ in several respects. However, in the light of the available
   • information, it appears that following various requests for ILO intervention
   • and the filing of formal complaints of violation of freedom of association,
   • the Minister of Energy and Mining received the members of the national
   • executive of the CDT on 27 December 1988 and some negotiation took place which
   • did not, however, succeed; on the contrary, 14 striking workers were
   • convicted. Nevertheless, both the complainants and the Government agree that a
   • meeting was held to examine the situation at the Jerada mine, beginning on 9
   • February 1989, in the presence of the Minister of Energy and Mining, by the
   • Commission on Economic Affairs, Employment, Energy and Mining of the House of
   • Representatives. According to the CDT, this Commission met at the request of
   • CDT deputies and the opposition and decided that a meeting should be held on
4. 16 February 1989 at Oujda, to be chaired by the Director of the Department of
   • Mining of the ministry in question, with the participation of representatives
   • of the Jerada Coalmining Company and trade unions, in order to examine the
   • Jerada miners' list of claims. According to the Government, on the other hand,
   • the Commission was appointed at the initiative of the Government itself, with
   • a view to holding the discussions of the unions' claims at a higher level.
   • During the discussions in this Commission, full light was shed on the
   • financial situation of the coal mines and the importance of current investment
   • in this activity, which showed a high deficit. Figures were cited to show that
   • the purpose of maintaining this activity was primarily a social one. The
   • Government admits, however, that in order to deal with the workers' grievances
   • and at the Minister's suggestion, the members of this Parliamentary Commission
   • on Economic Affairs of the House of Representatives decided to continue the
   • dialogue in Oujda in a commission chaired by the director of the mines and
   • comprising representatives of the coal mine management and various trade
   • unions.
5. 234. According to the Government, discussions in this Committee led to the
   • signature of protocols of agreement between the parties and to a resumption of
   • work on 18 February 1989.
6. 235. As regards the anti-trade union reprisals against striking workers and
   • safety delegates, the Government claims that following individual suits filed
   • by workers who had been confined at the bottom of the mine on 26 December
7. 1988, ten miners were brought before the court, which convicted them and then
   • released them conditionally. It also asserts that four other persons were
   • arrested for interfering with the right to work and that one of the persons
   • charged was released, while the other three were sentenced to one month's
   • imprisonment. Lastly, it categorically denies that the local secretary-general
   • of the CDT of Jerada had ever been arrested. On the contrary, it affirms, he
   • had carried out his activities for the entire duration of the dispute.
   • Moreover, according to the Government, the CDT premises had not been closed
   • down.
8. 236. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls the importance which it
   • attaches to the principle that strike action is one of the legitimate means
   • which should be available to workers to defend their economic and social
   • claims.
9. 237. The Committee notes with concern that in this case trade union
   • delegates were suspended and striking workers were prosecuted, some of them
   • sentenced to a month's imprisonment, while others were accused of distributing
   • tracts likely to disrupt public order. In this respect, the Committee can only
   • stress the fact that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of
   • association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts
   • of discrimination likely to infringe freedom of association in respect of
   • their employment such as dismissal, transfer, demotion or other prejudicial
   • measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of
   • trade union officials because, in order to perform their trade union duties in
   • full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be
   • prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions.
   • The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case
   • of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is
   • given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations shall have the
   • right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
10. 238. As regards the freedom of expression of trade unionists, the Committee
    • recalls that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of
    • information, which may include the distribution of tracts, and that workers
    • and employers, as well as their organisations, should enjoy freedom of opinion
    • and expression in their publications and other trade union activities.
11. 239. As regards the prison sentences imposed on trade unionists for
    • striking, the Committee recalls that the development of harmonious labour
    • relations could be impaired by an inflexible attitude being adopted in the
    • application of severe sanctions, especially penal sanctions, to workers who
    • participate in strike action. Therefore, all penalties in respect of
    • illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence
    • committed. Moreover, as the arrest of strikers involves a serious risk of
    • abuse and places freedom of association in grave jeopardy, the competent
    • authorities should be given appropriate instructions so as to obviate the
    • dangers to freedom of association that such arrests involve. The authorities
    • should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of
    • organising or participating in a peaceful strike.
12. 240. The Committee welcomes the fact that this labour dispute appears to
    • have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties.