Mondelēz International V International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Association (IUF) (Egypt and Tunisia)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 14/03/2013
Date Closed 29/10/2013
Case Duration 32 weeks and 5 days
Host Countries Egypt  (Adhering Country)
Tunisia  (Non-adhering country)

Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Retaliation for trade union activity
Provisions Cited IV.1  IV.2  IV.3  IV.4  IV.5  IV.6  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.3  V.4-c   
Case Description IUF alleged that managers at Mondelez’s facilities in Alexandria and Tenth of Ramadan City and at its joint-venture factory in Tunis, Tunisia intimidated and/or retaliated against certain workers for union-related activities.
Developments The US NCP accepted the case.
Outcome Mondelez International refused the US NCP's invitation to come to mediation. In a letter of 20 August, Mondelez stated that it would not participate in an information session with FMCS or any subsequent mediation offered by the U.S. NCP.

In its Final Statement, the U.S. NCP observed that the parties kept confidentiality of the Specific Instance process.

The US NCP also stated that it was prepared to assist the parties in the future, whether through mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Mondelez International (Home country: US)

Complainants

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

Related Documents

US NCP  [Publication date: 29/10/2013] 'U.S. NCP Public Statement: IUF and Mondelez International'
   https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/216135.pdf [Date URL accessed: 25/7/2017]

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