ICT MNE V Polish Trade Union (Names of Parties Unknown)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 04/02/2014
Date Closed 16/05/2014
Case Duration 14 weeks and 3 days
Host Country Poland  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Retaliatory dismissal of employee
Provisions Cited II.A.9   
Case Description On 4th February 2014, a Polish trade union filed a case against a Polish company owned by a MNE in the ICT sector operating in Poland. (The parties are not named because the Polish NCP does not release this information if its Initial Assessment leads to the rejection of the case.) The case concerned the dismissal of an employee in retaliation for enquiring about the legality of the sale of a property made by one of the companies of the company group.
Developments The Polish NCP contacted both parties for further information, as well as seeking verification from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. According to the Polish NCP, the complaint lacked adequate detail and contained false information. For example, the complaint stated that the case had been sent to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. However, when the Polish NCP contacted the Foundation twice – on 14th February 2014 and 14th April 2014 – the Foundation had no record of receiving the case.
Outcome The Polish NCP rejected the case following its Initial Assessment in which it concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated. In light of the misrepresentation of facts, the NCP considered that the case would compromise its impartiality and thus “the possibility of acting in other cases in the future”. It also considered that any intervention on the part of the NCP would duplicate ongoing legal processes.

It is the Polish NCP’s policy to use its Initial Assessment as a Final Statement when the Initial Assessment leads to the rejection of the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP Poland NCP : Single Government Department 

Related Documents

Polish NCP  [Publication date: 16/5/2014] 'ICT Polish Trade Union Case (Party names not published)'
   http://www.paiz.gov.pl/files/?id_plik=22448 [Date URL accessed: 11/6/2015]

TUAC Analysis

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