Coca-Cola's response
...The IUF’s allegations made against the Philippines Coca-Cola Philippines Inc. (CCBPI) management team... is inaccurate... [T]he matters raised... (termination of employment) are local labor relations matters... [and] have been steered through the collective bargaining dispute resolution machinery... The three individuals are being afforded due process as the matters are also currently being reviewed by the Department of Labor and Employment...
CCBPI has more than 10,000 employees. Over 6000... are trade union members, represented by 53 different trade unions all covered by separate collective agreements...
CCBPI has received positive Inspection/Monitoring Reports from the City Health Office, City of San Fernando, Pampanga... The allegation of utilizing the health crisis to attack trade union rights is offensive and misplaced... CCBPI ensured all employees were receiving wages, advanced a premium payment... strict safety and health protocols such as PPE, sanitation, vitamin C, and as necessary safe accommodations and meals...
Notwithstanding communications by the CCBPI... on March 26th and 27th the Union President and... officers held a meeting... on March 28th and urged employees not to report for work. Essentially fomenting a strike. The Unions intent was to shut down the operation until the Company acceded to its financial demands. The Company was informed... by employee/union members who raised complaints of intimidation and threats of reprisal of members for not following Union instructions... Based upon the collective evidence and information received CCBPI made the decisions it deemed appropriate and justified...
In May, CCBPI... received a letter from, Brendo Enriquez... [L]ocal plant management scheduled a meeting to speak with Mr. Enriquez...Mr. Enriquez employment was not terminated...
[O]n June 9, 2020, a group of employees were demonstrating in front of the San Fernando facility. These employees were arrested for violating the city’s COVID 19 ordinances... These employees did not violate Company rules and were not challenged... In fact, the Company provided meals to those employees who had been detained by the police during the time they were in police custody....
[The full response is attached]