ACCOR V International Union of Food Workers (IUF)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 08/11/2010
Date Closed 11/12/2012
Case Duration 109 weeks and 1 days
Host Countries Benin  (Non-adhering country)
Canada  (OECD member)

Sector Hotel, Restaurant and Catering 
Issue(s) Interference with the right to organise; reprisals against trade unionists; sustainable development
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In November 2010, the IUF filed a complaint with the French NCP alleging that ACCOR had violated the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining in Canada and Benin. The complaint informed the NCP that Accor was acting in violation of its own international trade union rights agreement with the IUF (TURA) in which it stated its commitment "not to oppose efforts to unionise its workers."

Canada

In three Accor hotels in Canada (Novotel Mississauga, Novotel Ottawa and Novotel North York), management strongly opposed the recognition of trade unions and bargaining rights and engaged in anti-union activity. Workers at the three non-union Novotels began organising for trade union representation between 2009 and 2009. They reported a range of anti-union activity during this period including: reprisals against union supporters including loss of hours/shifts, discipline and termination; clear and public encouragement by management to vote against the union; dissemination of information in mandatory meetings suggesting that workers's or job security might be placed at risk by a union; one-on-one meetings in which management encouraged workers to vote or act against the union.

Benin

Since 2000, workers at the Novotel Cotonou Orisha, represented by FESYNTRA-HTA, have sought to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment through the collective bargaining process. Management has refused to bargain the site collective agreement (Accord Collectif d`établissement) and has unilaterally introduced new terms and conditions. As of the date of the submission of the complaint, there was no collective agreement in place. In 2009, the hotel director questioned the legitimacy of the union and changed the wage system for all workers without negotiation or consultation with employee representatives. The new system reduced the base salary by 50% in some cases and removed the allowance for housing. This was replaced with a component of 'sursalarie' which is dependent on the performance of the hotel.

The IUF asked for remedy for union supporters who have suffered reprisals and that the Accor Group in Canada voluntarily recognise the union on the basis of the strong majorities signing union cards prior to the management anti-union campaign.

In Benin, the IUF asked that Accor enter into negotiations with the union to conclude a collective bargaining agreement, that it establish a health and safety committee, and that it revert to the previous pay system.

Developments In Benin, hotel workers now have the right to annual collective agreements. In Canada, ACCOR has intensified its campaign against potential trade unionists.
Outcome The French NCP found that the ACCOR had not respected the Guidelines and has made recommendations that the company comply with recommendations 1b) and 3) of Chapter V of the Guidelines. The NCP has also provided for follow-up.

Organisations

Lead NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 
Lead NCP Canada NCP : Interdepartmental Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company Accor (Home country: France)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party UNITE-HERE : Regional/state sectoral union 

Related Documents

France NCP  [Publication date: 11/12/2012] 'ACCOR: Communiqué du Point de contact national français chargé du suivi des principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/379120 [Date URL accessed: 3/2/2013]

French NCP  [Publication date: 11/12/2012] 'ACCOR: Communiqué du Point de contact national français chargé du suivi des principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/379120 [Date URL accessed: 23/6/2013]

France NCP  [Publication date: 11/12/2012] 'Accor: ACCOR: Statement of the French National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/397222 [Date URL accessed: 15/10/2014]

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

The IUF is not satisfied that the French NCP was unable to bring the parties together for mediation.