Marks and Spencer (Belgium) V FGTB and CSC

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/05/2001
Date Closed 23/12/2001
Case Duration 33 weeks and 5 days
Host Country Belgium  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Failure to provide information prior to notice
Provisions Cited IV.3  IV.4-a  IV.6   
Related Cases Marks and Spencer (France) V CFDT and FO
Case Description In May 2001, the Belgian unions FGTB and CSC raised a case with the Belgian NCP concerning the closure of a Marks and Spencer store in Belgium and the fact that the employees had not received any information prior to the closure. In April 2001, CFDT and FO (and later UNSA) had raised a case concerning the closure of Marks and Spencer with the French NCP ,which had simillarly announced the closure without any prior consultations with the workers.
Developments Both the French and the Belgian NCPs convened a number of meetings with the unions and the company. They also consulted the UK NCP as the home country NCP. Marks and Spencer claimed that the British stock exchange rules prohibited it from informing the employees first. However, according to the UK NCP, quoted companies could handle redundancies with confidential consultation in advance, and simultaneous announcements to the workforce and the markets.
Outcome The French and Belgian NCPs prepared a joint draft statement, but reached different conclusions. In December 2001, the French NCP stated publicly that Marks and Spencer had not consulted the employees properly and in a letter to the company, the NCP also pointed out that it had violated the Guidelines. The Belgian NCP, however, did not find enough evidence to conclude that Marks and Spencer had infringed the Guidelines. The Marks and Spencer stores in France were acquired by Galeries Lafayette, and the employees were given the choice between a new job or severance pay.

Organisations

Lead NCP Belgium NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 
Supporting NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Companies

Multinational Company Marks and Spencer

Complainants

Lead Complainant Not the right oneCSC
Lead Complainant FGTB : National Centre 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment?
Did the case involve parallel proceedings?
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary?
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case?
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation?
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Was mediation or conciliation held?
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator?
Did the parties reach agreement?
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties?
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines?
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding?
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines?
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report?
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case?
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance?
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case?
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved?
Did the lead NCP play a positive role?
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role?

TUAC Assessment

The French trade unions consider that Guidelines did play some part in achieving an acceptable settlement.

Implications

The company claimed that stock market rules precluded disclosure of information on closure