CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

International framework agreements: A reassessment – Dan Gallin
The Danone agreement, including its subsidiary agreements,
remains the most far-reaching IFA to date, and has set the pattern for further
IUF agreements with TNCs (for example, Accor, Chiquita and
Fonterra) (Tørres and Gunnes, 2003, p. 9).
There has been some speculation as to why Danone was the first
company to agree to an IFA of this nature. The personal views of Antoine
Riboud, its founder and CEO until 1996, were undoubtedly an important
factor. Riboud, who died in 2002, was a progressive Catholic with
links to the French Socialist Party and viewed trade unions as legitimate
counterparts at all levels. As he declared in a meeting with an IUF delegation,
he wanted strong unions in his company because he could not
imagine leading his company against its employees and without respecting
their rights. There is no doubt that this was his sincere belief. Riboud
was a man of honour.
The experiences of the IUF at that time, however, also played a role.
All TNCs (including Danone) in the IUF’s scope had realized that the
IUF was becoming a serious counterpart. As we have seen, the IUF had
sustained a bruising conflict with Nestlé in 1973, although in the end it
had been resolved on union terms. In 1980, the IUF conducted a major
conflict with the Coca-Cola Company, in order to secure the survival of
a union at a bottling subsidiary in Guatemala (Reyes and Gatehouse,
1987, pp. 10-13; Frundt, 1987, pp. 61-3). An international campaign
involving solidarity strikes at Coke plants in several countries, demonstrations
and negative publicity, with widespread support from nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and political groups, obliged the
company to buy the subsidiary plant, recognize the enterprise union and
intervene so that the Government ceased its anti-union terror campaign,
at least in that plant.
However, four years later, the directors whom Coca-Cola had put
in charge of the plant absconded, and declared the plant bankrupt —
leaving at least half a million dollars unaccounted for (Reyes and Gatehouse,
1987, pp. 23-24). The workers, who had feared that something
like this might happen, occupied the plant the same day (18 February
1984). The IUF again made representations to the Coca-Cola Company,
and the company initially refused to take responsibility (as in 1980).
The company’s assumption that the IUF would not be able to replicate
its campaign of 1980 proved unfounded. In fact, the 1984 campaign
was even stronger than the first one. It involved: unions that had previ-
29