London/Abidjan: Unilever is facing accusations from its employees in Ivory Coast of breaching a longstanding collective bargaining agreement as it moves to sell off its local operations. Workers say the consumer goods giant is refusing to guarantee severance pay if layoffs occur following the sale, raising concerns about job security and discriminatory treatment compared to their European counterparts.
Unilever is divesting all its shares in Unilever Côte d’Ivoire (UNLC.CI), which employs approximately 160 people, to a local investor consortium led by distribution firm Société de Distribution de Toutes Marchandises Côte d’Ivoire (SDTM). However, internal documents show that SDTM will only acquire Unilever’s domestic brand business, leaving uncertainty around the future of the international brand portfolio, which historically accounted for over 60% of the unit’s turnover.
According to an internal memo dated April 8, Unilever has not disclosed how it plans to manage its international brands in the country following the sale, which is expected to close by June 20. This lack of clarity, combined with the exclusion of the international business from the transaction, has fueled employee fears of potential job losses.
Workers began protesting at Unilever’s Abidjan offices on April 25. They cite a collective bargaining agreement that promises severance pay of “one month of average gross salary per year of seniority, with a maximum of 18 months,” in the event of layoffs tied to a sale. The agreement, first established in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2007, also includes up to six months of medical coverage for affected employees.
Lex Ways lawyer Soualiho Lassomann Diomande, who represents the workers, confirmed the validity of the agreement and emphasized that it remains binding. However, Unilever has not commented directly on the agreement.
During a meeting at the Labor Inspectorate in Abidjan on April 25, Unilever Côte d’Ivoire’s head, Arona Diop, reportedly stated that the new employer, SDTM, would determine employee rights and wages, rendering the existing collective agreement non-binding, according to reviewed meeting minutes.
In a statement to Reuters, Unilever acknowledged the share sale and asserted that “the proposed transaction is by way of a sale of shares, which does not result in the termination of employees’ contracts.” Therefore, the company argues, “severance pay is not… relevant, as employment continues.”
But employees and union representatives disagree. They argue that the exclusion of key international brands—responsible for the bulk of company revenue—puts jobs at risk and alters the nature of their employment. “No assurances have been given regarding job security,” said an unnamed Unilever Ivory Coast employee.
Under article 16.6 of the Ivorian Labor Code, significant modifications to an employment contract require the explicit consent of the employee. Diomande insists this legal safeguard has not been upheld.
The severance protections under Unilever’s collective agreement exceed Ivorian legal requirements. According to the International Labour Organization’s EPLex database, severance under national law is typically capped at 30% to 40% of monthly wages depending on years of service. Yet Diomande and two employees note that these enhanced protections are now being disregarded.
Critics also point to a double standard in Unilever’s labor practices. In Europe, the company recently agreed to preserve employment conditions for at least three years for roughly 6,000 ice cream division workers affected by a spin-off—despite no legal mandate to do so.
By contrast, Ivory Coast workers say they requested only two years of guaranteed conditions, one year less than their European peers, but were denied. “Not applying the same conditions in Ivory Coast is unequal treatment and negative discrimination,” said Diomande. “This is a serious injustice.”
