Draft Organic Law on Strikes

The text is more detailed, better written and seems to balance the rights and obligations of all parties. The section on penalties is left to negotiation. A standard 10-day notice period, exceptionally reduced to 48 hours in certain specific situations.


1- A revised version of the draft organic law on strikes.
This is a revised version of the draft organic law on the conditions and methods of exercising the right to strike, which was submitted to social partners during the last round of social dialogue. The text is better written and more detailed than previous versions; concepts are now well defined, and it seems to seek a balance in protecting the rights of striking workers, non-striking workers, and employers.
Significantly, in a desire to achieve a text that, ultimately, will have obtained the "imprimatur", so to speak, of the social partners, the Ministry of Employment, and through it the government, has left the entire 7th section, concerning sanctions, blank. In other words, the penalties against those who violate the provisions of this text will be decided through negotiation.
Another characteristic of this new version: the draft law now concerns not only the private sector but also the public and semi-public sectors as well as central and local government.

2- A judicial representative to supervise the continuity of activity

Substantively, however, the draft law does not significantly change from previous versions, but it does introduce a few changes. The first (Article 18) concerns the notice period, a contentious point that has always opposed unions and employers. In this version, the notice period remains at 10 days, but an exception is made for two situations: in case of non-payment of wages or of imminent danger to the health and physical safety of workers, the notice period is then reduced to 48 hours.

One might wonder whether or not the unions will accept this Article 18, knowing that for them this question of notice is fundamental. There is no need to recall here, in detail, the arguments they develop each time the subject is discussed: "The strike is most effective by its element of surprise, and such a long delay risks removing all interest."

Already, and even if he admits to having only read the text very quickly (his specialized teams are responsible for analyzing its content), the Secretary General of the Democratic Federation of Labor (FDT), Abderrahmane Azzouzi, nonetheless considers that this question of notice deserves "a thorough examination."
The second new element concerns the right granted to independent workers and anyone working on their own account to strike (e.g., a taxi driver). This provision does not specify how an independent worker can exercise their right to strike.

However, since a strike can only be called by the most representative union, the union office or, in the absence of these, by the strike committee created by the general assembly of employees and composed of 3 to 6 members elected by the general assembly, it is clear that this independent worker must have joined a union to exercise their right to strike.

The third new element (Article 28) is the right granted to the employer to refer to the president of the court of first instance, as the judge of summary proceedings, to appoint a judicial representative to supervise the delivery of goods already ready to be delivered to customers before the strike begins, particularly goods that may deteriorate or those whose non-delivery would bring the company to a standstill at the end of the strike.

It is specified in the same article that this delivery is conditional upon it being carried out solely by voluntary workers among those who did not participate in the strike.
Finally, it should be noted that, unlike previous versions, this one, as mentioned above, has gained in precision in the terms used. Thus, when it comes to preventing any action from being taken, particularly by the employer, the drafters of the text use the expression "it is forbidden," whereas in the past the words were more permissive, such as "it is not permitted," or "it is not possible," "it is not allowed", etc. It must be said that the two or three versions that had been prepared in the past all gave the impression, and more than an impression, of a desire to restrict the exercise of the right to strike as much as possible. With this precision, however, that these versions were drafted in the months following the introduction of a new labor code rather favorable to employees. It was as if, through the draft organic law on strikes, it was necessary to make up for what had been conceded, or judged as such, in the labor code.

There is undoubtedly a link to be found between this change in the tone of this new version, and even in some of its provisions, and the unions' willingness to discuss this text. It is progress for the public authorities and probably also for employers that the unions finally accept the idea that the right to strike can be the subject of a text. Until recently, an organization such as the Moroccan Union of Labor (UMT) stubbornly refused to hear of it.


ojraweb