Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 374, Mars 2015

1. 544. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2014 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 372nd Report, paras 376–433, approved by the Governing Body at its 321st Session (June 2014).]
2. 545. The Government sent its reply in a communication dated 25 August 2014.
3. 546. Morocco has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154). It has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 547. In its previous examination of the case in June 2014, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 372nd Report, para. 433]:
   • (a) Noting with deep concern the statement that the leaders of the Democratic Union of the Judiciary (SDJ) were subjected to such violence that they required urgent treatment by the medical services, the Committee requests the Government or the complainant organization to keep it informed of any cases brought before the judicial authorities following the alleged violence, and of the outcome thereof.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the specific reasons for the suspension of the SDJ deputy general secretary, to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings instituted by the latter and to send a copy of the final ruling.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in reply to the complainant’s allegations that salary deductions for strike action are applied to the activists of only one trade union and, if such actions are proven, to put a stop to this discriminatory treatment immediately.
   • (d) The Committee notes the Trade Unions Bill, section 37 of which provides that, in order to enjoy the status of the most representative trade union, the union must poll at the national level in the public sector at least 6 per cent of the total number of staff representatives within the joint administrative committees. It requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to the adoption of the bill in question and the application thereof in the justice sector.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to pursue collective bargaining with the SDJ and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.
   • (f) The Committee considers, in view of the number of workers represented by the SDJ in the justice sector and with a view to easing tension, that the Government should endeavour to take action to ensure that dialogue is renewed between the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms and the trade union, in order to continue collective bargaining and so that the views of all the unions are taken into account as part of the current reform. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken in this regard.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 548. In its communication dated 25 August 2014, the Government provides certain information in relation to the recommendations previously made by the Committee.
2. 549. Regarding the cases brought before the judicial authorities following the alleged violence by security forces against the leaders of the Democratic Union of the Judiciary (SDJ) (recommendation (a)), the Government indicates that the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms has not received any information concerning the existence of a case before the courts against establishments or individuals related to the alleged violence.
3. 550. Regarding the specific reasons for the suspension of the SDJ deputy general secretary (recommendation (b)), the Government states that the SDJ deputy general secretary did not observe his duty of confidentiality as head of the court registry. Furthermore, the Government adds that the reports submitted by his superiors state that he abused his power in order to encourage officials working for him to strike or participate in sit-ins at the request of his trade union. Lastly, the Government states that the administration was forced to dismiss him from his position of responsibility because he neglected his professional obligations and to safeguard the normal functioning of the court.
4. 551. Regarding the allegations that salary deductions for strike action are, according to the complainant, applied to the activists of only the SDJ in discriminatory fashion (recommendation (c)), the Government states that the administration simply applies the existing legal provisions by retaining the wages of all workers who strike, regardless of their trade union or political affiliation.
5. 552. The Committee’s recommendations also addressed the Trade Unions Bill (recommendation (d)). The Government states that this Bill refers not only to the national Constitution but also to ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 135. The Government also states that the Bill was handed over to the social partners for comment and that, once adopted, the law would apply to all public service sectors, including the courts.
6. 553. Regarding the Committee’s recommendations to pursue collective bargaining with the SDJ (recommendations (e) and (f)), the Government states that the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms took the initiative to invite the SDJ to participate in five meetings with the general secretary of the Ministry and national directors. Recently, the SDJ has been involved in reviewing transfer applications submitted by officials.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 554. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of exclusion of the SDJ from all collective bargaining by the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms despite it being the most representative organization in the justice sector, acts of discrimination against its leaders, and the violent dispersal by the security forces of peaceful demonstrations organized by the SDJ.
2. 555. The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply that the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms has not received any information concerning the existence of a case before the courts against establishments or individuals related to the violence alleged by the SDJ (recommendation (a)). In this regard, the Committee takes note of the Government’s observations. Recalling that while the complainant organization denounced the systematic violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrations by security forces, the Government stated that security forces had to intervene in order to protect the people and property from the clashes initiated by SDJ members, the Committee once again expresses its concern that public demonstrations defending professional interests are violently dispersed or result in the use of violence on both sides. It trusts that the Government and the complainant organization will in future respect the principles previously recalled with respect to the trade union’s right to demonstrate and the use of force [see 372nd Report, para. 426.]
3. 556. The Committee also took note of the allegations of reprisals against SDJ leaders and members for organizing or taking part in strikes. The Committee had noted in particular the statement that the SDJ deputy general secretary had been suspended without cause from his position as head of the registry at the court of first instance of Ksar el-Kebir (a city in northern Morocco) barely a week after a demonstration was organized during a visit from the Minister of Justice. In its reply, the Government justified its actions, saying that the suspension was undertaken in the general interest and had nothing to do with the official’s trade union affiliation. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the SDJ deputy general secretary was sanctioned for not observing his duty of confidentiality as head of the court registry and that the reports submitted by his superiors state that he abused his power in order to encourage officials working for him to strike or participate in sit-ins at the request of his trade union. Lastly, the Government states that the administration was forced to dismiss him from his position of responsibility because he neglected his professional obligations and to safeguard the normal functioning of the court. In relation to this, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the provisions of the Workers’ Representatives’ Convention, 1971 (No. 135), in which it is expressly established that workers’ representatives should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers’ representatives, their union membership, or the participation in union activities in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. The Committee nonetheless recalls that officials working in the administration of justice and the judiciary are officials who exercise their authority in the name of the State and whose right to strike could thus be subject to restrictions, such as suspension or even prohibition [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 800 and 578].
4. 557. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any administrative or judicial actions filed by the SDJ deputy general secretary following the disciplinary measures imposed on him, to provide a copy of rulings handed down and to report on any follow-up action taken.
5. 558. Regarding the complainant organization’s allegations of withholding pay for strike action which applies to the activists of only the SDJ, the Committee had previously recalled that salary deductions for days of strike did not give rise to objection from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 654]. However, if the salary deductions are applied to activists of only one trade union, as alleged in the present case, and all the unions have taken part in the strike, this situation would constitute de facto discriminatory treatment against the union concerned, affecting the principles of freedom of association. Taking note that in its latest reply the Government states that the administration simply applied the existing legal provisions by retaining the wages of all workers who went on strike, regardless of their trade union or political affiliation, and due to the lack of additional information from the complainant organization that would have enabled the Committee to confirm that only SDJ members were retaliated against, it expects the Government to ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association mentioned above.
6. 559. In its previous conclusions, the Committee had considered that, in view of the number of workers represented by the SDJ in the justice sector and with a view to easing tension, the Government should endeavour to take action to ensure that dialogue is renewed between the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms and the trade union so that the views of all the unions are taken into account as part of the current reform. The Committee notes with interest the statement that the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms has taken the initiative to invite the SDJ to participate in five meetings with the general secretary of the Ministry and national directors and that recently, the SDJ has been involved in reviewing transfer applications submitted by officials. The Committee encourages the continuation of these peaceful discussions and invites the Government to continue to report on the measures taken in this regard.
7. 560. Finally, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government that the draft Law on Trade Unions was handed over to the social partners for comment and that, once adopted, the law would apply to all public service sectors, including the courts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard, and to send a copy of the law once it has been adopted.