ABN Amro Bank V Confederación de Trabajadores del Sector Financier

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 19/04/2007
Date Closed 14/09/2012
Case Duration 282 weeks and 1 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Failure to engage in collective bargaining; failure; refusal to disclose information
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.1-d  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.4-a  IV.6   
Case Description In April 2007, the Confederación de Trabajadores del Sector Financier submitted a complaint to the Brazilian NCP concerning the activities of the Dutch multinational bank, ABN Amro Bank. The trade unions allege the bank refused to disclose information and engage in meaningful negotiations with the trade union.

Specific issues concerned the failure to disclose the agenda of and other information for meetings with controlling banks Real, Paraiban, Bandepe and Sudameris ABN; the lack of progress in completing negotations on issues of employment, outsourcing, wages and health; and the failure to provide basic information on the Profit Sharing Plan (RPP) and to provide workers' representatives, with appropriate notice and information on changes of health plan following the Banks' integration with Sudameris Real ABN.

Developments In May 2009, the Brazilian NCP reported that it had carried out an initial analysis and sent out a list of questions to the parties.

In its 2010 report to the OECD it stated that it had focused on dealing with new cases and that it expected to take some time to clear the backlog of old cases.

Outcome ABN Amro Bank was sold to Santander on 1 November 2011. The NCP therefore closed the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Financier ABN Amro Bank (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CONTRAF-CUT : 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