Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 194, Junio 1979

Caso núm. 895 (Marruecos) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 01-JUN-77 - Cerrado

1. 119. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 1 June 1977, signed by Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi, who describes himself as the General Secretary of the Federation of Free workers' Unions (USTL). The complainant subsequently supplied additional information in communications dated 6 November and 14 December 1977 and 10 July 1978. The Government furnished its observations by letters dated 23 May 1978 and 8 March 1979.
2. 120. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 121. The complainant stated in its communication of 1 June 1977 that when making arrangements for the celebration of May Day 1977, the USTL had sent letters on 2 April 1977 to the Governor of Rabat, the Director-General of the National Security Department and the Director of the Royal Police Force to request permission to hold a procession and display posters. On 30 April, continued the complainant, a police inspector had called at the organisation's office to announce that the Governor of Rabat had given orders for the banning of the procession. The Governor was present on May Day to personally ensure that his decision was complied with, and himself ordered the police to disperse the workers.
2. 122. The complainant further stated in this communication that the General Secretariat of the Federation of Free workers' Unions had decided, following a general meeting held in December 1976, to dissociate itself from the political party known as the "People's Movement", but that the organisation had nevertheless continued to carry on its trade union activities without any interference from the Moroccan authorities. The complainant pointed out that the Federation of Free Workers' Unions was legally recognised and that it had existed and had been carrying on its activities without interruption since 1959.
3. 123. In its subsequent communications of 6 November and 14 December 1977, the complainant referred to the activities of Mr. Ahardane Majhoub, General Secretary of the People's Movement and Minister of State in the Moroccan Government, and stated that charges had been filed against Mr. Majhoub and his subordinates with the court of first instance. These charges related to an attack on the premises of the Federation of Free Workers' Unions committed on 30 September 1976 by individuals belonging to the People's Movement (including Messrs. Andachani, Lahoudir and El Baquali). During this attack considerable damage had been done to the organisation's offices. All the doors had been smashed in, documents destroyed, cupboards broken open and office equipment damaged.
4. 124. In its reply of 23 May 1978, the Government stated that Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi had held office as local general secretary of the USTL, but that he had been relieved of his duties following a difference of opinion with other officials of the organisation. Together with a minority of sympathisers, he had continued nevertheless to engage in trade union activities, but without complying with the regulations in force, particularly those of section 3 of the Dahir of 16 July 1957, which requires the rules and a list of the officials to be deposited with the competent local authority and the public prosecutor's office.
5. 125. On 26 April 1977, continued the Government, Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi had requested Rabat police headquarters for permission for the USTL to hold a procession on May Day. The police authorities had not granted this request, having noted that Mr. Houbaibi's position was not in conformity with the regulations and that in consequence he was neither entitled nor qualified to request permission to hold a procession in the name of the USTL.
6. 126. At its May-June 1978 Session, the Governing Body, at the Committee's suggestion, decided to transmit the substance of the Government's observations to the complaining organisation for any comments it might wish to make, on the understanding that the Government would have the possibility of replying to these comments.,
7. 127. In its communication of 10 July 1978 the complainant rejects the Government's statement. It denies the existence of a difference of opinion with other officials of the organisation and declares that the only dispute that arose was that involving the General Secretary of the People's Movement, Mr. Ahardane Majhoub. It asks that the Government supply particulars of the general meeting which is said to have removed Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi from his post with the USTL and a list of the members of the new general secretariat of this organisation. The contents of this communication have been transmitted to the Government.
8. 128. In its communication of 8 March 1979, the Government refers to the charges filed in the Moroccan courts of justice by Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi with respect to an attack on the USTL's premises. It states that the matter was placed in the hands of the criminal investigation authorities, which proceeded with a hearing of the parties involved. After examination of the evidence it was found that there was no argument to justify the initiation of legal proceedings against the defendant. It was decided on 12 December 1978 not to proceed with the matter on the ground that there was no case to answer.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. The Committee notes that the present case involves two different series of allegations: one series concerning the refusal to allow the complainant to organise a procession on May Day 1977 and the other relating to an attack on the premises of the Federation of Free Workers' Unions.
2. 130. With regard to the banning of the May Day demonstration, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the authorities' refusal was prompted by the fact that Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi had been relieved of his duties as an official of the USTL and accordingly had no authority to act on behalf of that organisation. Furthermore, although he had continued to engage in trade union activities, the person concerned had failed to comply with the regulations in force as concerns the depositing of the rules of an industrial association and a list of its officials. The complainant, for its part, denies the Government's assertions.
3. 131. The Committee can only note that the statements of the complainant and of the Government contradict each other. It appears, however, that the Government has not supplied particulars, as requested by the complainant, of the congress said to have removed Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi from his post with the USTL in these circumstances, the Committee considers it appropriate to point out, in general terms, that the holding of public meetings and processions and the voicing of demands of a social and economic nature are traditional forms of trade union action on the occasion of May Day. Trade unions should have the right to organise freely whatever public meetings they wish to celebrate May Day, provided that they respect the arrangements made by the authorities to ensure the keeping of the peace.
4. 132. With regard to the alleged attack on the USTL's premises, the Committee notes that the charges filed by Mr. Miloudi Houbaibi have been examined by the criminal investigation authorities and that owing to the lack of evidence they have decided not to proceed with the case. The Committee wishes to emphasise in this connection that a climate of violence, symptomised by acts such as those committed against the premises and property of the USTL, may constitute serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights and that such occurrences call for severe measures on the part of the authorities, and in particular the arraignment of the persons presumed to be responsible before an independent judicial authority.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 133. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) with regard to the refusal to allow the complainant to organise a procession on May Day, to draw attention to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 130 and 131 above, and to point out in particular that trade unions should have the right to organise freely whatever public meetings they wish to celebrate May Day, provided that they respect the arrangements made by the authorities to ensure the keeping of the peace;
   • (b) with regard to the alleged attack on the premises of the USTL, to point out that a climate of violence as symptomised by such acts may constitute serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights and that such occurrences call for severe measures on the part of the authorities, and in particular the arraignment of the persons presumed to be responsible before an independent judicial authority.