Global Sports Technology (Beteiligungsgesellschaft) V Austrian Trade Unions

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/03/2006
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Sri Lanka  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation; dismissal of trade unionists
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In March 2006, trade unions submitted a case to the Austrian NCP concerning alleged violations of the Employment and Industrial Relations Chapter of the Guidelines by the subsidiary Global Sports Lanka of the Austrian Global Sports Technology Beteiligungsgesellschaft. The issues concerned labour conflict with the local textile trade unions and lay-offs of trade unionists in 2002..
Developments The Austria NCP waited for several years until the parallel legal proceedings were finalised in Sri Lanka and court decisions were available. Although other court proceedings are still ongoing,
Outcome The NCP published a final statement including recommendations for the company, which included the following: a request to act fairly to those former employees who are not found guilty and to allow trade unions to enter the factory and give information to the employees.

In its 2010 Annual report, the NCP reported that " it was not possible to reach a concensual approach" and that it had therefore issued a unilateral final statement.

Organisations

Lead NCP Austria NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Global Sports Technology Beteiligungsgesellschaft (Home country: Austria)
Subsidiary Global Sports Lanka (Home country: Sri Lanka)

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

Suspended for many years due to parallel legal proceedings. However, the case finally went ahead even though other court proceedings were still ongoing