Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 279, Novembre 1991

Cas no 1499 (Maroc) - Date de la plainte: 06-JUIN -89 - Clos

1. 182. The Committee examined this case at its meeting of May 1990, when it submitted interim conclusions which appear in its 272nd Report (paras. 445 to 474), approved by the Governing Body at its 246th Session (May-June 1990).
2. 183. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 184. The case centres on three issues: the refusal of the authorities to negotiate with the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT), through the intermediary of the National Union of Sugar and Tea (SNST), the employment conditions and the wage scales of workers in sugar refineries; the Government's non-respect of a collective agreement; and the dismissals of staff representatives and trade union leaders owing to their participation in trade union activities in the SUTA and SUCRAFOR sugar refineries.
2. 185. The Committee had noted that, on 1 May 1975, a collective agreement had been concluded between the Moroccan Federation of Labour (UMT) and the Moroccan sugar refineries for an unspecified period of time. Subsequently the CDT, through its affiliate the SNST, became a party to the agreement on 13 July 1987, thus acquiring the right to participate in its revision, a right of which it availed itself by addressing to the competent authorities a request to participate in negotiations. However, according to the CDT, the responsible Minister did not respond to this request and on 20 October 1987 concluded with the Minister of Finance an agreement unilaterally fixing the conditions of employment and wages of workers in the national sugar refineries
3. 186. The Government did not deny the SNST's adherence to the collective agreement, nor the request which was addressed to it by this trade union to participate in the revision of the conditions of employment and wages of workers in the sugar refineries. The Government merely stated that the agreement signed in October 1987 did not undermine the rights established in the earlier collective agreement, but instead conferred additional advantages in several areas to workers in this sector.
4. 187. In describing the background to this matter, the CDT explained that the trade union representing the SUTA workers had submitted a list of claims in March 1986, but that management had refused to negotiate, thereby precipitating a one-day strike that took place on 20 May 1986. The competent authority called a management-union meeting which resulted in a draft agreement in which management agreed to accept several items on the list of claims, and the trade union agreed to end the strike. Nevertheless, management later refused to respect its part of the bargain. It threatened to dismiss workers who continued to press their claims and did in fact dismiss one of them. In August 1986 the trade union denounced these events in a detailed report addressed to the Minister of Commerce and Industry and to the government of the Province of Beni Mellal in which it outlined the true causes of the losses incurred by the company, namely, the company's mismanagement. Management responded in October 1986 by dismissing those who had signed the report, namely, the General Secretary of SUTA's trade union, Mr. El Yamani, and the staff delegate and member of the SNST administrative committee, Mr. Saïd Mesnaoui.
5. 188. Subsequently, in June 1987, five unionists identified by name, including Mr. Bouighjd Miloud, were dismissed for having refused to denounce two articles published in a newspaper concerning misappropriation and mismanagement at SUTA. The dismissed workers went to court to obtain their reinstatement. SUTA, however, has refused to comply with the court orders won for their reinstatement. On this aspect of the complaint, the Government merely indicated that according to the employer's statements, disciplinary measures were used in view of the serious errors committed by the employees in question, namely, revealing professional secrets, damaging tools and working instruments, committing acts of sabotage and being absent for no valid reason. 189. For its part, the Committee had studied the contents of the judgements handed down by the Court of Beni Mellal on 9 April 1987 and 28 July 1988, which were attached to the documentation supplied by the complainant. It noted that both judgements ordered the reinstatement of the workers concerned, as the court had found no evidence to support the arguments presented by SUTA, and owing to the employer's failure to respect legal procedures relating to the dismissal of staff representatives.
6. 190. At its May 1990 Session, the Governing Body had approved the Committee's following recommendations:
   • (a) Noting that in 1987 the competent authorities drew up an agreement regulating the employment conditions of workers in the national sugar refineries without consulting or negotiating with the representatives of the workers concerned, in this case the SNST, whereas a collective agreement concluded in 1975 still covered the workers belonging to the SNST, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that this procedure constitutes a violation of the principle of free collective bargaining of employment conditions and wages.
   • (b) Considering furthermore that the agreement seems to rule out the use of collective bargaining in the future as a way of setting the conditions of employment and wages of the workers concerned, the Committee requests the Government to adopt measures to re-establish, in the future, voluntary negotiation procedures for establishing employment conditions and wages in the national sugar refineries, in accordance with the principle of voluntary negotiation set out in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of this case.
   • (c) As regards the cases of dismissal of workers of the SUTA and SUCRAFOR enterprises, the Committee, in the light of the judgements handed down ordering the reinstatement of staff representatives, namely Messrs. Mesnaoui Saïd and Bouighjd Miloud, requests the Government to keep it informed of the steps taken to ensure that these decisions are implemented, particularly in view of the CDT's allegations, which were not denied by the Government, concerning the refusal by the management of these enterprises to execute these judgements.
   • (d) Moreover, the Committee deplores the lack of detailed information on the other cases of dismissal of staff representatives in these enterprises. It requests the Government to provide information on the conclusions reached by the labour inspection official who, in accordance with national legislation, must make a recommendation, indicating the grounds on which his recommendation is based, in the event of the dismissal of workers' representatives from an enterprise and on all steps taken by the competent authorities to settle conflicts, in particular by using the services of the minister responsible for the sugar refineries.
   • (e) The Committee recalls the need to ensure by specific provisions accompanied by civil remedies and penal sanctions the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the hands of employers, in accordance with Article 1 of Convention No. 98; in the absence of such provisions in the national legislation, the Committee urges the Government to adopt legislative or other measures in the near future to ensure the application of this provision in Convention No. 98. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of this case.

B. The Government's reply

1. 191. In its reply of 24 May 1991, the Government confirms, first, that relations between the workers and management of sugar refineries in Morocco are governed by the collective agreement concluded in 1975 between the Sugar Association (UPS) and the Moroccan Federation of Labour (UMT). It adds that discussions were held in 1980 at the request of Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) to revise this agreement, but that these efforts proved fruitless owing to the rivalry between the CDT and the UMT. Given the differences of opinion between the two trade union organisations which prevented them from reaching an agreement, the management of sugar refineries, with a view to enhancing the financial situation of workers in these enterprises, most of whom, according to the Government, do not belong to either of these federations, concluded an agreement with the Ministry of Finance for the purpose of providing financial incentives to workers, until such time as the two trade union federations reached an agreement concerning the revision of the 1975 collective agreement.
2. 192. Secondly, contrary to what is said in the Committee's interim recommendations, the 1987 draft agreement does not rule out collective bargaining as a means of negotiating conditions of employment in sugar refineries. Moroccan legislation, and in particular the Dahir of 17 April 1957 concerning collective labour agreements, enshrines the principle of collective bargaining, considering it to be an undeniable right of the social partners and a means of promoting equitable industrial relations in vital economic sectors, including the sugar sector. Organisations of employers and workers, for their part, are expected to contribute to the development of industrial relations, so that workers may enjoy their rights in fair and favourable working conditions, and so that negotiation may be maintained and encouraged. It should be noted that, within the framework of the promotion of collective bargaining as provided for by law, a meeting was to have been held on 26 July 1989 at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry with the CDT in order to examine the problems of workers in these enterprises who belong to this federation, but this meeting did not take place owing to the absence of CDT representatives. In addition, tripartite committees were set up in order to discuss the problems concerning work, employment and social welfare. These committees include the Industrial Relations Committee which, in addition to workers' and employers' representatives, is made up of delegates from various ministries and administrative sectors. This committee is responsible for examining a number of questions, including the situation which developed following the dispute which arose in the sugar refineries. That committee set up a working party, known as the Working Party on Collective Bargaining, which is currently studying the collective agreement signed by the sugar refineries, as well as the financial consequences which worker demands may entail for these refineries. The Government undertakes to keep the Committee on Freedom of Association informed of the results of this working party's deliberations.
3. 193. Thirdly, concerning the dismissals of Messrs. Mesnaoui Saïd and Bouighjd Miloud, the Government states that the former was dismissed for having engaged in acts of sabotage and revealed professional secrets; his case is currently before the courts. As regards Mr. Bouighjd Miloud, he was held under arrest for eight days as from 16 July 1987 for having insulted government officials. Upon his release he refused to report for work, in spite of correspondence addressed to him by the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Beni Mellal. The management of the enterprise then dismissed him owing to his unexcused absence. His case is also still before the courts.
4. 194. Fourthly, the Government continues, the labour inspectorate formulated a number of conclusions in reply to questions addressed to it by the management of sugar refineries concerning the application of disciplinary measures against workers' representatives, in the light of section 12 of the Dahir of 29 October 1962 concerning the representation of workers in enterprises. It should be noted that if the enterprise fails to take into consideration the opinion of the labour inspector, the workers' representative concerned has the right to appeal to the courts. In this connection, the Court of Appeal has already ruled that certain measures were arbitrary since they were taken without prior consultation with the labour inspector. The Government adds that all labour problems, including the dismissal of workers' representatives, are examined by the Industrial Relations Committee, which was set up as part of a policy aimed at promoting social dialogue between the social partners.
5. 195. Fifthly, the Government concludes by stating that Moroccan legislation is, in its opinion, entirely in conformity with the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98). It states that, although no provision of the Convention requires the country to take punitive measures when a worker is subject to discrimination due to his or her trade union activities, the draft Labour Code, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, prohibits, under pain of imprisonment or fine, any discriminatory practice against workers belonging to a union or engaged in trade union activities.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 196. The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government according to which industrial relations in the national sugar enterprises are governed by a draft agreement drawn up by management and the Ministry of Finance, owing to the rivalry between the CDT and the UNT.
2. 197. In this connection, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not given effect to the Committee's earlier recommendation of November 1990 that it adopt measures to re-establish procedures for the voluntary negotiation of conditions of employment and wages in the national sugar refineries, in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 98, which Morocco has ratified.
3. 198. The Committee recalls the importance of the principle which it has emphasised on several occasions, namely, that employers, including governmental authorities in the capacity of employers, should recognise for collective bargaining purposes the organisations representative of the workers employed by them (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 617). In view of the fact that tripartite committees have been set up, one of which will be in charge of examining the situation arising from the dispute in the sugar refineries, the Committee expresses the firm hope that a solution will soon be found to the problem of industrial relations in this industry, through voluntary negotiation towards the revision of the collective agreement.
4. 199. Concerning the allegations of anti-union reprisals which have affected staff delegates, the Committee regrets that the Government has not given any information on the conclusions reached by the Department of Labour Inspection. The Committee also regrets that Mr. Mesnaoui Saïd and Mr.Bouighjd Miloud were not reinstated in their functions. Indeed, the documentation sent by the complainant federation indicates that the Court of Beni Mellal considered the dismissal of Mr. Mesnaoui Saïd to have been arbitrary. The Court in fact ordered, on 9 April 1987, that he be reinstated retroactively to the date of his dismissal. The Committee recalls that, according to the CDT, this trade unionist was dismissed after the trade union executive alleged in a 1986 communication addressed to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry that the true cause of the losses incurred by the company was the enterprise's mismanagement.
5. 200. The documentation submitted by the complainant federation shows that on 28 July 1988 the Court of Beni Mellal ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Bouighjd Miloud with retroactive effect to the date of his dismissal because the enterprise had failed to comply with the legal procedures concerning the dismissal of workers' representatives. The Committee recalls that, according to the CDT, this worker had been dismissed in 1987 following the publication of two articles in newspapers denouncing the misappropriation of SUTA assets and the mismanagement of the enterprise, and the refusal of staff delegates, including Mr. Bouighjd Miloud, to denounce the contents of these articles.
6. 201. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle according to which no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. It recalls that it has already stated in a previous case that, in the case of national public enterprises, the national authorities have responsibility in preventing any acts of this nature and should take appropriate measures to this effect, such as a clear policy statement accompanied by specific instructions to be implemented at all levels of management (Digest, paras. 538 and 546).
7. 202. Noting that, according to the Government, both cases are now before the courts, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the above-mentioned principles are respected, and to keep it informed in this connection.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 203. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not given effect to its earlier recommendation that it adopt measures to re-establish procedures for the voluntary negotiation of conditions of employment and wages in the sugar refineries.
   • (b) The Committee recalls the principle according to which employers, including governmental authorities in the capacity of employers, should recognise for collective bargaining purposes the organisations representative of the workers employed by them. Consequently, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of industrial relations in this industry and, in particular, to forward to it the text of any revised collective agreement.
   • (c) Concerning the allegations of anti-trade union reprisals which have affected staff delegates during the dispute in the sugar refineries and, in particular, concerning the failure to execute court rulings ordering the reinstatement of two named trade unionists, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided information on the conclusions reached by the Labour Inspection Department. It recalls that in the case responsibility in preventing any acts of this nature and should take appropriate measures to this effect. Consequently, it requests the Government to ensure the respect of these principles and to keep it informed in this connection.