The National Federation of the Agricultural Sector (FNSA) and the public utility NGO CETIM have announced they will appeal to UN mechanisms to challenge the organic law on strikes, which was passed by the Moroccan Parliament in February. The unions that participated in the general strike in response to this law point to insufficient guarantees of this right in the text. The National Federation of the Agricultural Sector (FNSA), affiliated with the Moroccan Labor Union (UMT), has joined forces with the Center for Study, Research, and Information on the Mechanisms Behind Underdevelopment (CETIM) to challenge Organic Law 97.15 on the right to strike in Morocco through international mechanisms. Passed by Parliament on February 5, despite opposition from trade unions, the law prompted a two-day general strike in protest. Among the unions, the UMT withdrew from the vote in the House of Councillors, denouncing a governmental approach that, in its view, renders social dialogue meaningless. In a joint statement, the FNSA and CETIM announced they had filed a complaint with international human rights protection mechanisms against what they describe as severe restrictions on the right to strike, particularly in the agricultural sector, where workers already face deep-seated precariousness. «We have sought and requested the intervention of UN mechanisms to ensure the protection of the rights of Moroccan agricultural workers and farmers», the two organizations stated. Their complaint also calls on the Moroccan government to revise the legislation to align with its international human rights commitments and the conventions to which Morocco is a state party. A Last Resort Badr Ourich, secretary-general of the FNSA, confirmed this course of action to Yabiladi. Speaking to Yabiladi on Wednesday, he described it as «the ultimate legal recourse available to workers after exhausting national channels», given that the Constitutional Court reviewed the law and upheld it without objection on March 25. According to Ourich, «this review served more to ease the legislator's embarrassment than to thoroughly analyze the law's provisions and assess their compliance with constitutional principles». The FNSA had already expressed its opposition to the bill before it was debated in Parliament. «We share the legal interpretation of our central union (UMT), which has been validated by constitutional law experts who highlighted the need to revise this law to align it with democratic principles and the rule of law», Ourich added. The UMT previously argued that the Constitutional Court should have declared certain provisions of the law unconstitutional, particularly those exceeding the constitutionally defined scope of an organic law, which should only regulate «the conditions and modalities for exercising the right to strike». The organization also criticized «a flawed interpretation of constitutional provisions defining the right to strike», arguing that the law severely restricts workers' ability to mobilize, undermining what should be a fundamental freedom. A Law That Continues to Spark Debate On Wednesday in Geneva, ILO Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo praised Morocco's adoption of Law 97.15 and its validation by the Constitutional Court. Following a meeting with Moroccan Minister of Economic Inclusion, Small Business, Employment, and Skills, Younes Sekkouri, he also commended the social dialogue process that accompanied the law's drafting and approval. For his part, Sekkouri emphasized that «with the adoption of Law 97.15 and its validation by the Constitutional Court, Morocco has taken an important step in regulating labor relations by introducing a minimum service requirement». However, the FNSA and CETIM counter that Morocco's Constitution has guaranteed the right to strike since 1962, reaffirming it in Article 29 of the 2011 Constitution. They argue that rural workers, particularly in the informal sector, require specific protections that would allow them to exercise their right to strike without fear of reprisals. According to the two organizations, the new organic law «drastically limits» the ability to mobilize collectively, making it «difficult, if not impossible» to demand fairer working conditions. They criticize its «insurmountable administrative barriers» and «disproportionate penal sanctions», which they argue deprive many workers of their right to collective action. Union data reveals that over 80% of rural workers in Morocco are employed informally, without contracts or social protections, in an environment where the agricultural minimum wage (SMAG) remains 30% lower than the industrial minimum wage (SMIG). The FNSA and CETIM argue that Law 97.15 prevents spontaneous strikes and imposes overly complex procedures, effectively excluding most rural workers from mobilization. The two organizations also highlight that the law contradicts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), a binding convention Morocco supported at the UN General Assembly in 2018. Additionally, they cite the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, particularly Article 8 of UNDROP, which guarantees rural workers the right to freedom of assembly, expression, and collective action to defend their rights. The passage of Law 97.15 has widened the rift between the government and labor unions, drawing international organizations into the debate. While the government views the law as a crucial step toward formalizing labor relations, unions argue that it undermines fundamental rights and disproportionately harms Morocco's most vulnerable workers. With international mechanisms now involved, the coming months will reveal whether Morocco reconsiders the legislation or stands firm on its current path.
