The Constitutional Court of Morocco validated Law 97-15, concerning the right to strike, ruling it constitutional. The law faced significant opposition from labor organizations, which view it as an infringement on workers’ rights, allowing extensive government interference. Despite amendments, major unions remain dissatisfied, leading to public protests and substantial disruptions in various sectors. The court’s ruling emphasizes maintaining constitutional integrity while outlining clear regulatory boundaries for strikes in the private sector.
On Wednesday, the Constitutional Court of Morocco, chaired by Mohamed Amine Benabdallah, affirmed the controversial Law 97-15 concerning the right to strike, ruling that it complies with the constitution. This decision follows extensive public debate and labor protests and comes after the legislative process concluded with final parliamentary approval on February 5, achieving 84 votes for and 20 against.
The court’s ruling provided specific observations on Articles 1, 5, and 12, stating that the legislation must not exceed the constitutional parameters regarding the right to strike. The validation noted that references to international principles and constitutional rights do not equate to a constitutional violation. Regarding Article 5, the court affirmed it as constitutional, contingent on the regulatory texts adhering strictly to established definitions of the right to strike.
Regarding Article 12, which addresses strike procedures in the private sector, the court validated it with an important additional condition: regulatory texts must not create new conditions for strike actions outside the provisions of this article, which also governs the formation of strike committees.
Labor organizations have voiced strong opposition to the law, labeling it a significant encroachment on workers’ rights and empowering government officials to intervene in strikes. This enabling of dual restrictions raises serious doubts about the practical applicability of labor rights. Miloudi Moukharik, UMT Secretary General, has condemned the law as “retrograde” and unconstitutional, calling for its suspension amid widespread protest.
Despite proposed amendments, including the ban on employers hiring replacement workers during strikes, major unions such as the UMT and CDT remain dissatisfied, leading to UMT’s withdrawal from parliamentary talks. A nationwide strike last month reflected these tensions, with significant turnout reported by unions which contrasted sharply with governmental figures.
The strike caused substantial disruptions across multiple sectors, revealing deep-rooted concerns about the law. While addressing concerns regarding Article 8, the court emphasized that collective agreements should not permanently impede workers’ rights. Moreover, the broader context highlights ongoing economic struggles in Morocco, including elevated unemployment rates and rising living costs.
The court’s ruling, while upholding the law’s overall framework, delineates specific boundaries for its implementation. This clarity is essential for guiding future regulations, particularly relating to procedural aspects in private sector strikes and the scope of regulatory oversight.
The Constitutional Court of Morocco’s decision to validate Law 97-15 underscores the ongoing contention surrounding workers’ rights in the face of government regulations. Despite the court’s endorsement, significant resistance from labor organizations and ongoing economic challenges reflect a critical discourse on the practical implications of this legislation. As the labor community continues to advocate for rights distinct from governmental overreach, the complexities surrounding the implementation of this law remain paramount.
Original Source: www.moroccoworldnews.com
