Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 307, Juin 1997

1. 377. On 22 March 1996 the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) lodged a complaint alleging violation of trade union rights against the Government of Morocco. The complainant sent additional information in a communication dated 22 April 1996.
2. 378. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 5 March 1997.
3. 379. The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with the complaint in communications dated 26 and 29 March 1996. Lastly, the Trade Union of Arab Maghreb Workers (USTMA) supported the complaint in a communication dated 27 March 1996.
4. 380. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 381. The complaint submitted by the UMT relates to the deterioration in the social climate in two factories belonging to the SOMADIR enterprise in Casablanca and Al Jadida, with 300 and 200 employees respectively. The complainant alleges that the employer committed violations of freedom of association during the period 1994-96.
   • The Casablanca factory
2. 382. The complainant outlines the events which led to the closure of the enterprise in February 1996. In March 1994 the workers at the factory called a strike as the management had not taken any action in relation to the declaration of claims they submitted the previous November. Following negotiations, in April 1994 the parties did however come to an understanding which to a large extent satisfied the workers' claims, the management of the enterprise on that occasion undertaking to conclude an enterprise-level collective agreement. The complainant reports that there was no follow-up to this understanding.
3. 383. The factory workers held a series of general meetings and presented a series of claims to the management. A copy of these claims was also sent to the Casablanca Labour Inspectorate. The claims related in particular to the granting of tenure to temporary workers; a general salary increase; daily, monthly and annual allowances; social welfare; and the negotiation of a draft enterprise-level collective agreement. In January 1996 the management of the factory informed the workers that no salary increase would be granted. Furthermore, it announced that it had already drafted the rules of procedure which would be circulated and applied within the enterprise.
4. 384. On 30 January 1996, the parties, including the factory director Mr. Mohammed Smires, met at the Labour Inspectorate. On that occasion, the factory director refused to discuss salary increases or the conclusion of an enterprise-level collective agreement. On 8 February another meeting was held, attended by the prefectural delegate of employment of Casablanca, during which Mr. Smires announced the management's intention to dismiss 70 workers, adding that the discussion would be limited to the selection of the workers to be dismissed. The management justified its decision by stating that the enterprise would be stopping the production of dry yeast, alcohol and glycerine. As the complainant points out, however, the enterprise had already ceased those activities ten years earlier.
5. 385. On 15 February a general meeting of the entire staff was held at the complainant's headquarters in Casablanca, during which it was decided that the action initiated would be continued and all legal forms of protest would be examined in order to put an end to the employer's policy.
6. 386. The complainant adds that there was, nevertheless, a subsequent increase in anti-union measures. By way of example, on 19 February Mr. Smires threatened Mr. Mohammed Horane, an operator and trade unionist, and took his time and attendance card away from him. Mr. Horane's colleagues stopped work for five minutes as a sign of protest. Mr. Smires retaliated by ordering all the office workers - about 30 people - to stop work, announcing to them that the factory was closed and also taking their time cards away from them. The labour inspector and the assistant prefectural delegate of employment were notified and came immediately to the premises. Following a meeting with the factory director, the two representatives of the Ministry of Employment publicly announced the suspension of all the members of the trade union section of the complainant, namely Messrs. Mohammed Karim, Bouchaib Adrif, Abdelkébir Kaboul, Mohammed Fahmi, Allal Laouinate, Meziane Azzay, Abdelilah Marhoum, Brahim Achrait, Rachid Anaddam, Mustapha Bouachamia and Mohammed Boukhima. These trade unionists went to the complainant's headquarters in Casablanca and from there issued a call for strike action. On the same day, the director of the enterprise ordered the closure of the factory and a general prohibition of entry.
   • The Al Jadida factory
7. 387. The complainant explains that the social climate also deteriorated at the Al Jadida factory. No discussions were held following the submission of the declaration of claims in November 1995. The factory's workers met on 11 January 1996 and decided that all legal measures should be taken to initiate negotiations. In spite of the procedures undertaken with the public authorities to convene a consultation meeting on the declaration of claims, there was no follow-up to the steps taken by the workers. On the contrary, the management decided to suspend Mr. Bouchaib Moundir, a driver, and Mr. Hassan Raoui, and to dismiss Mr. Abderrahim Oussamam and Mr. Rachid Labed.
8. 388. On 5 February 1996, the head of the administrative and finance service, Mr. Mohammed Taher, informed the workers that the declaration of claims was rejected in its entirety and that it had been decided to dismiss 30 employees who were considered redundant. Lastly, he added that the owner was considering closing the factory and importing yeast from European countries.
9. 389. On 22 February, a strike notice was presented as a protest against the employer's attitude and as a sign of solidarity with the workers of the Casablanca factory. The complainant explains that before beginning the strike on 26 February, the workers took all the necessary measures to leave the factory's machines in good order.
10. 390. In spite of these measures, the factory's management sent suspension and dismissal notices, dated 26 February and 12 March 1996 respectively, to eight staff representatives, five of which were also union representatives belonging to the complainant organization, namely Messrs. El Mustapha Achoute, Abderrassoul Ghazza, Najib Boudriga, Abdellah El Hassi, Mohammed Mifdal, Jamal Bella, Ahmed Nouamane and Saad Taha. Mr. Abderrassoul Ghazza was on annual leave at the time and Mr. Jamal Bella and Mr. Abdellah El Hassi were not at the factory during the work stoppage.
11. 391. The complainant concludes that following the closure of the two factories in Casablanca and Al Jadida, yeast disappeared from the official distribution circuits in Morocco. It adds that the highest public authorities were informed of the situation and that a national and international solidarity campaign with the SOMADIR workers was launched in order to achieve the immediate and unconditional reinstatement of the trade unionists and of all those who had been illegally dismissed. The complainant alleges that the situation remained unchanged during the month of March 1996 and that the SOMADIR management refuses to resume yeast production activities until all the union and staff representatives of the factories concerned (12 workers in Casablanca and eight workers in Al Jadida), in addition to 45 other workers, are definitively dismissed.

B. The Government's reply

1. 392. In its reply, the Government explains that the dispute in question arose because the management of the SOMADIR enterprise considered that due to the company's financial situation the employees' claims could not be satisfied, while the employees themselves insisted that their demands should be taken into consideration as according to their calculations the enterprise's financial situation had in fact improved.
2. 393. The Government explains that at the very beginning of the dispute between the parties, the labour inspectorate took the initiative to organize two conciliation meetings in order to seek a solution. Unfortunately, these meetings were unsuccessful, with the management even stating its intention to let part of the staff go (70 of a total of 390 workers).
3. 394. The Government is of the view that their divergent positions is the main reason for the tension that has built up between the parties, and that this is what led to the dismissal of a workers' representative following an argument with the director of the Casablanca factory. As a sign of solidarity, the factory workers went on strike. The Government notes that the management could have then dismissed all the workers' representatives on the pretext of incitement to stop work, without advance notice nor consideration for the losses that this dismissal would have entailed. The Government stresses that the labour inspectorate then intensified its contacts with the parties to resolve this dispute. It adds, moreover, that the labour inspectorate never expressed support for the dismissal of the workers' representatives.
4. 395. Lastly, the Government concludes that with a view to encouraging the parties concerned to cooperate and to find a solution to the dispute, the matter was put before the Consultative Council for the Promotion of Social Dialogue, made up of representatives from the Ministry concerned, occupational organizations and trade union organizations.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 396. The Committee observes that this case concerns anti-union measures taken by the management of factories belonging to the SOMADIR enterprise in Casablanca and Al Jadida against the workers, and in particular against the trade union leaders and the staff representatives, during the period 1994-96, and the inability of the public authorities to settle the dispute.
2. 397. The Committee notes that it is the submission of a declaration of claims by the workers at the Casablanca and Al Jadida factories, which initially aggravated the dispute between them and the management. According to the information provided by the Government, the employer is of the view that the financial situation of the enterprise does not permit it to satisfy the workers' claims, while the workers on the contrary believe that the situation is in fact improving, therefore permitting an improvement to be made in their working conditions.
3. 398. The Committee deplores the measures taken by the management of the two factories against the workers, and in particular those directed at the staff and union representatives which led to the closure of the two factories. More specifically, the Committee notes that at the Casablanca factory the parties allegedly concluded an understanding in April 1994 which the management did not follow up. On the contrary, the Committee notes that the management took measures against the union representatives at the Casablanca factory by taking the time and attendance card away from Mr. Mohammed Horane, a trade unionist, in February 1996 and by suspending all the members of the trade union section of the complainant organization, namely Messrs. Mohammed Karim, Bouchaib Adrif, Abdelkébir Kaboul, Mohammed Fahmi, Allal Laouinate, Meziane Azzay, Abdelilah Marhoum, Brahim Achrait, Rachid Anaddam, Mustapha Bouachamia and Mohammed Boukhima.
4. 399. As regards the Al Jadida factory, the Committee observes that relations between the management and the workers deteriorated in a similar fashion, leading, in January 1996, to the suspension of Mr. Bouchaib Moundir and Mr. Hassan Raoui as well as the dismissal of Mr. Abderrahim Oussamam and Mr. Rachid Labed; in February 1996, to the dismissal of 30 employees who the management considered to be redundant; and lastly, on 26 February and 12 March 1996, to the sending of notices of suspension and dismissal to eight staff representatives, five of which were also union representatives, namely Messrs. El Mustapha Achoute, Abderrassoul Ghazza, Najib Boudriga, Abdellah El Hassi, Mohammed Mifdal, Jamal Bella, Ahmed Nouamane and Saad Taha.
5. 400. The Committee recalls that according to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by Morocco, workers must not be subjected to acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. The Committee notes that, in numerous cases concerning Morocco, and notably in the two most recent cases, it has already expressed its profound concern at the seriousness of the allegations of anti-union discrimination before it (see Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691, 305th Report, paras. 397-412). Furthermore, it notes with regret that in spite of the fact that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has for a number of years been requesting the strengthening of legislative provisions (in particular Dahir No. 1-58-145 of 29 November 1960) in order to guarantee workers, in law and in fact, adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, no tangible progress has so far been seen.
6. 401. Given the lack of information to demonstrate the legitimacy of the measures of suspension and dismissal taken by the management of the SOMADIR enterprise, and the allegations of the complainant organization, confirmed by the Government, that these measures were specifically directed against trade unionists, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures so that all the workers who were dismissed or suspended due to their legitimate trade union activities, namely Messrs. Mohammed Horane, Mohammed Karim, Bouchaib Adrif, Abdelkébir Kaboul, Mohammed Fahmi, Allal Laouinate, Meziane Azzay, Abdelilah Marhoum, Brahim Achrait, Rachid Anaddam, Mustapha Bouachamia, Mohammed Boukhima, Bouchaib Moundir, Hassan Raoui, Abderrahim Oussamam, Rachid Labed, El Mustapha Achoute, Abderrassoul Ghazza, Najib Boudriga, Abdellah El Hassi, Mohammed Mifdal, Jamal Bella, Ahmed Nouamane and Saad Taha be immediately reinstated in their jobs, if they so wish. The Committee also recalls that "legislation must make express provision for appeals and establish sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination to ensure the practical application of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98" (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 743). In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures so that the SOMADIR enterprise does not have recourse to anti-union measures and asks the Government to keep it informed in this connection.
7. 402. Furthermore, the Committee notes the involvement of the public authorities in the dispute and their inability to prevail upon the parties to settle it. The Government recognizes that the management of the factories allegedly dismissed all the workers' representatives on the pretext of incitement to stop work, but stresses the fact that the labour inspectorate never supported this measure. The question was submitted to the Consultative Council for the Promotion of Social Dialogue, and the decision is still pending. The Committee notes this information and asks the Government to send a copy of the decision as soon as it is handed down.
8. 403. Lastly, the Committee recalls that to make sure that protection against anti-union discrimination is in fact ensured, the methods adopted may vary from one State to another, but if discrimination does exist "the government concerned should take all necessary steps to eliminate it, irrespective of the methods normally used" (see Digest, op. cit., para. 737). The Government is responsible for guarding against all acts of anti-union discrimination against workers. It must make sure that in legislation and in practice prompt and easily accessible procedures exist that are not only impartial but are considered as such by the parties concerned, and to which workers who consider that they have suffered prejudice due to their trade union activities can have recourse. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all appropriate measures in this connection. The Committee reminds the Government that the ILO technical assistance is at its disposal regarding this matter. It draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of the case.