UPC Cable TV V Solidarnosc

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/12/2004
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Poland  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Dismissal of a trade union representatives of the newly established union
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In December 2004, the Polish trade union confederation Solidarnosc submitted a case to the Polish NCP concerning UPC Cable TV, a US based company. Solidarnosc alleged that UPC Cable TV had violated workers' right to organise by dismissing a representative of the newly established trade union.
Developments According to Solidarnosc, the NCP did not want to examine the case because of ongoing legal proceedings, claiming that all legal measures should be exploited before a case could be raised under the Guidelines.

In the 2006 OECD Annual Report on the Guidelines, the case was listed as ongoing, although Solidarnosc had not heard anything from the NCP.

In the 2009 OECD Annual Report the entry on the case was the same.

Outcome As of June 2015, according to the latest information on the Polish NCP web site, the case was closed in 2006 because the company refused to participate in mediation

Organisations

Lead NCP Poland NCP : Single Government Department 

Complainants

Lead Complainant Solidarność : National Centre 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon

TUAC Assessment

Although NCPs should take into account the relevance of applicable law and procedures when assessing a case, such a misinterpretation is unacceptable. The Guidelines were not drafted to provide assistance only when other means had been exhausted.

Implications

The interpretation by the NCP that the Guidelines should be an instrument of last resort. There is also a need to ensure better reporting by NCPs such that the same entries should not appear in the annual reports year after year without any substantive update on the case. .