Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 217, Junio 1982

Caso núm. 1077 (Marruecos) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 12-SEP-81 - Cerrado

1. 414. In a communication of 12 September 1981, the Moroccan Union of Trade unions of Casablanca, the regional section of the Moroccan Union of Labour, presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Morocco. The Government forwarded its observations in a communication of 15 February 1982.
2. 415. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainant organisation

1. 416. In its letter of 12 September, the Moroccan Union of Trade Unions of Casablanca alleges violations of trade union rights by the multinational company "AETCO LEVER".
2. 417. According to the complainant organisation, a worker with several years' service was arbitrarily dismissed by the management which, immediately afterwards, imposed unjustified penalties on a considerable number of unionised workers. On 3 June 1981, therefore, the workers responded with a solidarity strike, but the management illegally ordered a lockout at the AETCO LEVER Company on 5 June.
3. 418. When the factory reopened on 10 August 1981, 80 workers were dismissed, including all the members of the trade union executive. The complainant organisation calls for the reinstatement of all the wrongfully dismissed workers, a list of whose names it submits together with the date they joined the company, their family situation and an indication of the trade union functions of score of them.

B. The Government's reply

1. 419. In its letter of 15 February 1982 the Government replies that the conflict which broke out within the enterprise originated in the measures taken by the "AETCO LEVER" company to deal, according to the company's statements, with difficulties arising from bad management.
2. 420. According to the Government, these measures concerned the dismissal of certain senior staff accused of having committed serious mistakes in management which gave rise to considerable losses estimated at 160 tonnes of production, or the equivalent of 3,200,000 dirhams. The new staff who were recruited therefore took certain organisational measures which were regarded by the workers as an infringement of their rights; this led to the strike of 3 June 1981. The Government confirms that the management reacted by closing the enterprise on 5 June 1981.
3. 421. It adds that the labour inspectorate drew up a report against the company for having violated the procedure laid down in the decree of 17 August 1967, and that this report was sent to the Court of First Instance in Casablanca on 15 August 1981. When the management opened the enterprise on 10 August 1981, it decided, in fact, to dismiss 73 workers without consulting them or even paying them compensation.
4. 422. The labour inspectorate again intervened, the Government asserts, and, after trying to reach an amicable settlement, drew up a report which it sent to the competent tribunal in Casablanca on 11 November 1981. It also suggested to the dismissed workers that they refer the matter to the competent tribunals.
5. 423. Other attempts at conciliation were undertaken at prefecture level. The last such attempt dates from 23 August 1981 and concerns a meeting presided over by the Governor of Hay Mohammadi and Air Sebao during which the AETCO LEVER representative took an intransigent attitude and let it be known that his enterprise would not go back on the dismissal decisions.
6. 424. The Government states that the Ministry of Labour and National Promotion referred the matter to the employers' organisations in order to urge them to intervene with the enterprise concerned with a view to having it settle the dispute in an objective way and that at the central level it had also approached persons in authority at AETCO LEVER.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 425. In this case of allegations of dismissal of trade union leaders and other active trade unionists by a multinational enterprise known as AETCO LEVER, the Committee notes with appreciation the Government's efforts to urge the employer to reverse his decision.
2. 426. The Committee notes, however, that the Government's efforts have so far been without result. It therefore wishes to recall the importance it attaches to the principle that no one should suffer discrimination on account of his trade union membership or trade union activity. It also recalls that under Article 1 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Morocco, workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and that such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities. The Committee would point out that the right to strike is one of the essential means which workers and workers' organisations should have at their disposal in order to promote and defend their occupational interests.
3. 427. Consequently, the Committee recalls that in several cases relating to Morocco it has expressed the desire that legislative measures should be considered in order to avoid any repetition of acts of anti-union discrimination such as those which figure in this complaint.
4. 428. In this respect, the Government might make it illegal to dismiss trade union leaders and candidates for elections unless there is serious cause, or in the event of recognised economic grounds, and it might wish to set up preventive machinery to forestall anti-union dismissals (such as, for example, a request for the prior authorisation of the labour inspectorate before carrying out a dismissal). A further means of ensuring effective protection would be to make it compulsory for each employer to prove that the motive for his intention to dismiss a worker has no connection with the worker's union activities.
5. 429. Furthermore, the Committee trusts that in this case the legal proceedings that are pending will result in the reinstatement of all the trade union leaders and militants who were unjustly dismissed for their legitimate trade union activities, and, in particular, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged by the members of the trade union executive who were dismissed for taking part in a strike.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 430. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the following conclusions:
   • (a) Concerning the allegations of dismissal of trade union leaders and other active trade unionists by the enterprise AETCO LEVER, the Committee, while noting with appreciation the Government's efforts to urge the employer to reverse its decision, observes that so far these efforts to have been without result.
   • (b) At the legislative level, it again brings to the Government's attention the need to adopt measures to avoid repetition of acts of discrimination such as those which figure in the complaint.
   • (c) In particular, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged by the members of the trade union executive who were dismissed for taking part in a strike, and trusts that those who were unjustly dismissed will be reinstated in their jobs.