Formica Corporation V CUT Brazil and the Sindicato de Quimicos de ABC

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 12/12/2005
Date Closed 20/02/2008
Case Duration 114 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 
Issue(s) Dismissal of trade union representatives without cause
Provisions Cited II.2  IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.4-a  IV.7  IV.8   
Case Description In December 2005, CUT-Brazil submitted a complaint to the Brazilian NCP against the company Pertech of Brazil Ltda., a Brazilian subsidiary of the Formica Corporation, which is headquartered in the United States.

According to the complainant, Pertech fired the trade unionist Antonio Bezerra da Silva in November 2005 without just cause in order to avoid Mr da Silva becoming eligible for job stability in January 2006.

Developments In 2007, after further clarification by claimant, the NCP accepted the complaint. The NCP requested the parties to attend a meeting in order to present their positions and provide further information.

On 20 February 2008, Pertech sent a letter to the NCP declaring that it had not breached the labor law. According to the Final Report of the Brazilian NCP, this was endorsed by the First Federal Judge of the 6th Labor Court in Sao Bernardo do Campo, SP. The final judgment of the court declared that Pertech had acted in accordance with the law regarding the dismissal of that employee, having paid him correctly and in timely manner all the legal severance due.

Outcome The NCP closed the case due to the judgment of the court.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Formica Corporation (Home country: US)
Subsidiary Pertech do Brasil (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Sindicato dos Químicos do ABC : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant CUT Brazil - Central Única dos Trabalhadores : National Centre 

Related Documents

OECD  [Publication date: 20/2/2008] 'National Contact Point of Brazil FINAL STATEMENT Pertech - Complaint PCN Nº 03/2007'
   http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/database/ncp/Pertech-2007.pdf [Date URL accessed: 10/6/2015]

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