Nestlé V International Union of Food Workers (IUF) (UK)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 02/10/2006
Date Closed 01/10/2007
Case Duration 52 weeks and 0 days
Host Country UK  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Threat to transfer production
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.7   
Case Description In October 2006, the IUF raised a case with the UK NCP concerning violations of Paragraph 1a of the Chapter on Employment and Industrial Relations on trade union rights and Paragraph 7 on threats to transfer operating units from the country in question. In July 2006, Nestlé informed trade union representatives that if they did not agree to a 15 per cent reduction in wages, the chocolate production in the UK would be in jeopardy. In September 2006, the management announced that it was going to suppress 645 jobs and transfer certain production lines. It also terminated the collective agreements in order to put pressure on the workers to accept conditions unilaterally imposed by management in the process of a major restructuring programme.
Developments According to the initial statement by the NCP, it facilitated an exchange of information between the two parties which led to negotiations.
Outcome As the discussions were perceived as successful, the NCP did not consider the case any further.

Organisations

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

Companies

Multinational Company Nestlé (Home country: Switzerland)

Complainants

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

Related Documents

Peter Rossman  [Publication date: 13/7/2010] 'Whose Workplace? The ILO and Nestlé'
   http://cms.iuf.org/?q=print/443 [Date URL accessed: 22/7/2010]

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

Implications

None