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Current Status Withdrawn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

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?

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.