Compass Group PLC V International Union of Food Workers (IUF) (Algeria)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 14/12/2009
Date Closed 30/12/2011
Case Duration 106 weeks and 4 days
Host Country Algeria  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Hotel, Restaurant and Catering 
Issue(s) Refusal to acknowledge the formation of the legally formed union; harassment of trade union activists and members including the General Secretary.
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Outcome The IUF and the Compass Group reached a settlement on the issues raised by the IUF relating to the Eurest operations in Algeria. The settlement reinforces ongoing guarantees that workers in Eurest Algeria will be able to exert their rights to freedom of association in line with Algerian law and applicable internationally recognized labour standards. A process has been put in place whereby former named employees of Eurest may apply for suitable employment with Eurest Algeria.

IUF general secretary Ron Oswald welcomed the agreement, 'This conflict has lasted for over three years and our agreement with Compass should take us to a more constructive future. I now look forward to the challenge both sides to the agreement will face to ensure that the spirit and letter of the agreement is fully respected. Considerable work remains ahead of us but the agreement puts both the company and ourselves on what I believe to be a positive path.'

Organisations

Lead NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Companies

Multinational Company Compass Group (Home country: UK)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 

Related Documents

IUF  [Publication date: 16/1/2012] 'Compass Algeria - IUF and company agree settlement'
   http://cms.iuf.org/?q=node/1348 [Date URL accessed: 29/2/2012]

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