UPM Kymmene V the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union Canada

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 29/11/2004
Date Closed 10/06/2005
Case Duration 27 weeks and 4 days
Host Country Canada  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Closure; lack of disclosure, lack of negotiation and right to trade union representation
Provisions Cited IV.2-b  IV.6  IV.8   
Case Description In November 2004, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union Canada submitted a case to the Canadian NCP regarding the activities of the Finnish company UPM Kymmene. After the company announced the closure of the kraft pulp mill part of its operations in September 2004, it refused to share any substantial information with the union about the closure, to negotiate a renewal of the collective agreement or to co-operate with the union and the governmental authorities to mitigate the negative effects. In addition, the President and the Vice President of the union were suspended by UPM Kymmene for their trade union work.
Outcome After more than six months the Canadian NCP concluded that “it would be inappropriate for us to get involved” on the basis of the existence at the provincial level of labour laws and remedies to deal with the issue and that such recourse had already been taken by the parties.

Organisations

Lead NCP Canada NCP : Interdepartmental Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company UPM Kymmene

Complainants

Lead Complainant CEP/SCEP Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada : National Sectoral Union 

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

The obstacle was the existence of other mechanisms rather than the existence of parallel proceedings.