Nestlé India V International Union of Food Workers

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 11/05/2009
Date Closed 05/02/2010
Case Duration 38 weeks and 4 days
Host Country India  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation and refusal to engage in collective bargaining.
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description On 11 May 2009, the IUF submittted a complaint to the Swiss NCP on behalf of the Federation of All India Nestlé Employees. The breaches concerned the refusal of management to negotiate on wages at five factories producing chocolate, coffee and culinary products. Prior to the submssion of the complaint Nestlé management had taken legal action in the civil courts to seek an injunction against the unions and obtained a ban on assembling at the factory gates and holding meetings.
Developments On the 21 January 2010, the IUF withdrew its complaint on the grounds that the unions in three of the factories had for the first time signed the collective agreement on conditions of employment including wages and benefits.

The ban on 'assembling at the gates of the factory' remained in force however.

Outcome The NCP closed the case on the 5 February 2010. As the initial assessment had not been completed and therefore no decision made on the merits of the case, no final asssessment was issued.

Organisations

Lead NCP Switzerland NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Nestlé (Home country: Switzerland)
Subsidiary Nestlé India : Majority-owned subsidiary  (Home country: India)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party Federation of All India Nestlé Employees : Company Union 

Related Documents

Peter Rossman  [Publication date: 13/7/2010] 'Whose Workplace? The ILO and Nestlé'
   http://cms.iuf.org/?q=print/443 [Date URL accessed: 22/7/2010]

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

Implications

The Swiss NCP had not completed its initial assessment before the case was withdrawn, but significantly it had not rejected it on the basis of parallel legal proceedings