BASF V CUT-BRAZIL and BASF Trade Union Network

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 19/04/2010
Date Closed 24/08/2011
Case Duration 70 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation; dismissal of trade unionists
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In April 2009, CUT Brazil submitted a complaint to the Brazilian NCP concerning the activities of a Brazilian subsidiary of the German multinational BASF. The case concerned interference during a strike in November 2009 and dismissal of a workers' representative without reason.
Developments On 22 June 2010 the Brazilian NCP accepted the case. In October 2010, the Brazilian NCP received a letter from BASF asking for clarification and demanding the case to be closed. According to BASF, the strike ended `naturally` because it was illegal and was not supported by employees.
Outcome On the 24 August 2011, CUT-Brazil sent a letter informing the Brazilian NCP that CUT-Brazil together with the BASF Trade Union Network had been engaged in parallel consultations with the company and had come to an agreement that was acceptable to both parties. CUT-Brazil informed the Brazilian NCP that it was withdrawing the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company BASF (Home country: Germany)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CUT Brazil - Central Única dos Trabalhadores : National Centre 

Related Documents

Brazil NCP  [Publication date: 22/6/2010] 'RELATÓRIO DE ACEITAÇÃO DE RECLAMAÇÃO Caso BASF (22.06.10) Reclamação PCN Nº 03/2010'
   http://www.fazenda.gov.br/sain/pcnmulti/documentos/relatorios/RAR_03_2010.pdf [Date URL accessed: 22/6/2010]

Brazilian NCP  'DECLARAÇÃO DE ENCERRAMENTO DE ALEGAÇÃO DE INOBSERVÂNCIA Caso BASF (22.06.10) Reclamação PCN Nº 03/2010'
   http://www.fazenda.gov.br/sain/pcn/PCN/Relatorio%20Final%20de%20Alega%E7%E3o%20
   n%BA%2003-2010.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 3/5/2012]

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

In October 2010, the Brazilian NCP received a letter from BASF asking for clarification and demanding the case to be closed. According to BASF, the strike ended `naturally` because it was illegal and was not supported by employees.