Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SA V Asociación Bancaria

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/12/2004
Date Closed 31/12/2008
Case Duration 213 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Argentina  (Adhering Country)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Failure to disclose information
Provisions Cited IV.3  IV.7   
Case Description In December 2004, the Argentinian trade union Asociación Bancaria raised a case with the NCP of Argentina concerning alleged breaches of the Guidelines by Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SA, which was a subsidiary of the Italian BNL Group. The company had refused to provide its employees with information that enabled them to obtain a true and fair view of the performance of the entity or […] the enterprise as a whole. Moreover, the company had threatened to close its operations in Argentina.
Developments The NCP held consultations with the two parties and the union stressed the positive role played by the NCP.
Outcome In its 2006 annual report to the OECD, the NCP reported that: "The Argentine subsidiary of the multinational banking corporation subject to last year’s claim has been sold to a new owner. No pending issues exist with the new owner. Requests contained in the original presentation have been partially met. Nevertheless some areas of disagreement persist between the original parties of the specific instance reported last year. The final settlement is still pending.

In the 2008 OECD Annual report, the NCP stated that it had closed the case because it had not received any 'new presentations'.

Organisations

Lead NCP Argentina NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Italy NCP : Single Government Department with NCP Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company BNL (Home country: Italy)
Subsidiary Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SA (Home country: Argentina)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Asociación Bancaria : National 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

Sale of the company results in closure of the case and the need to file a new case.