PepsiCo V International Union of Food Workers (IUF) (Poland)

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 01/04/2006
Case Duration 663 weeks and 1 days so far
Host Country Poland  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Sexual harassment. Anti-union behaviour/intimidation
Provisions Cited II.8  IV.1-a  IV.1-d  IV.2-a   
Case Description In April 2006, the IUF and Solidarnosc jointly submitted a case to the Polish and US NCPs regarding the activities of a Polish subsidiary of PepsiCo (Frito-Lay Poland Ltd).

Eight women workers, also union members, were asked to resign and immediately leave the facility in December 2004, with no reason given for the dismissals. The women had also been victims or witnesses of sexual harassment by a supervisor at the plant, who was arrested in February 2005 after three of the women had filed a complaint.

On 12 December 2005, all the workers were gathered in one room to respond to a questionnaire asking whether they were trade union members or not. Since they were intimidated, most of them denied their union membership.

Two days later, the union chairman, who had assisted the fired workers, was dismissed on the grounds that the union had fewer members than had been accounted for.

In January 2005, in connection with the union elections, workers received a letter from management with ready-made forms stating that "I do not consider myself a member of the workplace trade union organisation'. These forms were to be signed and returned to management.

The issue of sexual harassment was also raised with the ILO in February 2006. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations noted in its reply in 2007 that the government had not provided its view on the matter. The Committee requested the government to cooperate with the employers’ and workers’ organisations to promote observance of national equality policy and to provide further information on enforcement of legal provisions regarding sexual harassment.

Developments The Polish NCP acknowledged receipt of the case. It also informed the company of the submission asking it to provide clarifications about its observance of the Guidelines.

US contacted the Polish and the Polish NCP agreed to be the lead.

Outcome TUAC has no information on the outcome.

Organisations

Lead NCP Poland NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company PepsiCo Inc (Home country: US)
Subsidiary Frito-Lay Poland Ltd. (Home country: Poland)

Complainants

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

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