Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 74, 1964

Cas no 359 (Maroc) - Date de la plainte: 01-OCT. -63 - Clos

1. 11. The complaint of the International Metalworkers' Federation is contained in a communication dated 1 October 1963 addressed directly to the I.L.O and supplemented by a further communication dated 8 November 1963. The original complaint and the further information supplied in substantiation thereof were communicated to the Government, which forwarded its observations thereon by a communication dated 2 December 1963.
2. 12. 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. 13. The substance of the complainants' allegations is that on the occasion of a strike by workers of the Moroccan Automobile Manufacturing Company (Société marocaine de construction automobile, generally known as SOMACA), the police took repressive action by arresting some 70 workers among whom were a number of trade union leaders. The complainants give the following details with respect to these events.
2. 14. At a general meeting on 18 September 1963 the SOMACA employees voted unanimously to go on strike in support of their claims, which had been met with a systematic refusal by the employers since the previous February. According to the complainants these claims were the following: (a) a general wage increase of 30 per cent.; (b) the grant of a housing allowance of 50 dirhams a month; (c) the grant of a packed lunch allowance of 4 dirhams a day; (d) the readjustment of the watchmen's wages; (e) the payment of a thirteenth month's wages as an end-of-year bonus;
   • (f) the inclusion of the special bonus for adjusters in the basic wage rates; and (g) the grant of a travelling allowance.
3. 15. The strike, in which more than 70 per cent of the 600 employees of SOMACA took part, led to the taking of repressive action by the police in the form of the arrest of 70 workers. Of these 70 workers, 50 are said to have been released without delay, while the remaining 20, whose names are furnished by the complainants, were kept in custody. In the opinion of the complainants the action taken constitutes a breach of freedom of association.
4. 16. The complainants conclude by stating that the strike came to a satisfactory conclusion with the signing of an agreement between the workers and the management of the company.
5. 17. The Government's reply Interior by the Governor of the Prefecture of Casablanca.
6. 18. The report confirms first of all that the reasons behind the strike were indeed those advanced by the complainants. As to the manner in which the events took place, the description given by the Government is as follows.
7. 19. The strike, which was observed by only a proportion of the SOMACA employees, was marked by a number of incidents. On 18 September 1963, at the end of the working day, the buses taking home the workers who had not participated in the strike were attacked by strikers just under a mile from the factory. The attackers smashed the windows of the buses with stones and coshes, injuring eight of their, workmates, two seriously. The drivers halted their vehicles, and a fight broke out among the workers. It was this fight which led the police to intervene. Twenty-eight of the protagonists were arrested, three of whom were found to be carrying side-arms. All these persons were brought before the courts, and the Regional Court of Casablanca sentenced two of them to six months' and another to three months' imprisonment for armed assault, battery and wounding. All the others were released. Two days later, on 20 September 1963, three more persons were arrested on being caught in the act of, interfering with freedom to work by attempting by the use of threats to prevent workers from entering their factory. These three persons were likewise released without delay.
8. 20. The Government therefore affirms that, contrary to the complainants' allegation, which mentions a figure of 70 persons, the number arrested was, in the first place, 28 for armed assault, battery and wounding, and subsequently three others for interference with freedom to work. The Government adds that all these persons were promptly set at liberty with the exception of the three who had been convicted in accordance with the regular procedure.
9. 21. The Government concluded by confirming that on 27 September 1963 an agreement was signed between the parties " without recourse to arbitration by the governmental authorities who are always anxious to ensure respect for freedom of association ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 22. Recalling that it has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the exercise of the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far, but only in so far, as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, the Committee notes first of all that both the complainants and the Government are in agreement that the dispute was unquestionably concerned with labour matters and that it was finally settled by means of an agreement between the two parties.
2. 23. As regards the events which marked the strike, it seems clear from the detailed and precise reply furnished by the Government that the intervention of the police was for the purpose of restoring order. The arrests which took place resulted from the use of violence; the persons apprehended were brought before the courts, which convicted three of them according to a procedure which there is no reason to believe was not regular and based on specific charges; finally, all the persons arrested by the police but not convicted were released.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 24. In these circumstances, considering that the complainants have failed to prove that the measures taken by the authorities constituted interference with the free exercise of trade union rights, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.