Il-Kyoung Co Ltd. V Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, Korean House for International Solidarity and Workers Assistance Center

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 03/09/2007
Case Duration 588 weeks and 4 days so far
Host Country Philippines  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation, anti-union activities, sex discrimination, violence, bribery
Provisions Cited I.7  II.2  IV.1-a  IV.7  VI.1   
Case Description In September 2007, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), together with the Phils. Jeon Union company union and an NGO, raised a case with the Korean NCP concerning the activities of a Phils. Jeon Garments Inc., a subsidiary of the Korean textiles multinational company, Il-Kyoung Co Ltd..

The trade unions contended that the management tried to prevent workers from organising by delaying the union election and threatening to close the factory should the union win.

In August 2004, after the union won the vote, the management questioned the result in a petition it presented to the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE). The petition was dismissed as were the following appeals.

In August 2006, the union president was discharged. Shortly afterwards, another 63 union members were fired allegedly due to there being sufficient work. However, contract workers were brought into replace those workers that had been forced to leave the company.

In September 2007, the workers went on strike, despite being warned by management that they would be dismissed. The strike was dispersed by police and security guards who attacked the workers causing 25 workers to be injured.

In February 2007, the DOLE withdrew its previous decision to recognise the union. The union believes that the DOLE was bribed by the company. Furthermore, on 6 August 2007, two women workers sleeping in front of the factory were attacked by masked men, abducted and thrown on to a road close to the Philippine Economic Zone Authority.

The Supreme Court in the Philippines determined that the workers were not prevented from establishing a trade union and that the company, therefore, had no reason to reject negotiations over a collective bargaining agreement.

Developments The Korean NCP reported in a memo dated 10 April 2009 to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Korean House for International Solidarity that it had organised different meetings including with the parent company Il-Kyoung Co.. It had also, in November 2008, contacted the Philippine Department of Labour to ask for information on the legal proceedings in the Philippines.

In a memo dated 11 May 2009 to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Korean House for International Solidarity, the Korean NCP reported that the Philippine Department of Labour had responded on the 23 April 2009. It stated that the legal dispute between Phils Geon and the trade union was under way in the Philippines Labour Committee.

In the memo, the Korean NCP stated its intention to "additionally investigate" the case as well as following developments in the Philippines.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Il-Kyoung Co Ltd (Home country: South Korea)
Subsidiary Phils. Jeon Garments Inc (Home country: Philippines)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Phils Jeon union : Company Union 
Lead Complainant Workers Assistance Center
Lead Complainant Korean House for International Solidarity
Lead Complainant KCTU- Korea : National Centre 

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