Marriott Hotel V Solidarnosc

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 01/04/2004
Case Duration 767 weeks and 3 days so far
Host Country Poland  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation; harassment; violence
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description The Polish trade union confederation Solidarnosc submitted a complaint to the Polish NCP in Spring 2002, regarding the US-owned Warsaw Marriott Hotel. Trade union activists had been threatened and harassed by the management and one trade unionist had been beaten by security guards at the hotel.
Developments The Polish NCP reported in its 2009 Annual Report to the OECD, that the case had been resumed and the NCP was "in contact with representatives of parties involved'. To TUAC's knowledge, Solidarnosc has not been contacted by the NCP.

In its 2011 report the Polish NCP makes no report on the specific instance.

Organisations

Lead NCP Poland NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Marriott (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Solidarność : National Centre 

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

Time-scales; NCP responsiveness.