Nestlé V International Union of Food Workers (Korea)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 18/03/2009
Date Closed 30/09/2009
Case Duration 28 weeks and 0 days
Host Country South Korea  (OECD member)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Refusal to disclose information in the context of collective bargaining concerning changes in industrial set-up including changes in ownership.
Provisions Cited IV.2-b  IV.3  IV.6   
Case Description In March 2009, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) raised a case regarding the failure of Nestlé Korea to disclose information on negotiations concerning a possible change of ownership.

The case was raised with both the Korean and the Swiss NCPs.

Developments After consultation it was decided that the Korean NCP should act as the lead NCP with the Swiss NCP stating in the May 2009 report to the OECD that it was fully available "to assist with information or contacts here in Switzerland if need arise".
Outcome In May 2009, the Korea NCP rejected the complaint on the basis that the negotiations on changes in ownership had been discontinued.

On 22nd June 2009, the IUF submitted the complaint to the Swiss NCP which replied on the 1st July stating that it could not accept a case that has been rejected by the South Korean NCP.

In its 2010 Annual Report to the OECD, the Swiss NCP wrote with regard to the rejection of the case by the South Korean NCP that "the Swiss NCP came to the conclusion that it was not the competent instance to question and review the decision of the Korean NCP and refused to further consider the submission".

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP Switzerland NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Nestlé (Home country: Switzerland)
Subsidiary Nestlé Korea (Home country: South Korea)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party Nestlé Korea Labor Union : Company Union 

Related Documents

OECD  [Publication date: 21/11/2003] 'SWISS CONTACT POINT WELCOMES KOREAN TRADE UNION DELEGATION'
   http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/15/38033610.pdf [Date URL accessed: 4/8/2009]

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

NCP cooperation: the home NCP was initially willing to provide support, but once the case was rejected by the Korean NCP it was unable to intervene further.