ISS AS V CUT Chile

Overview

NCP Decision Blocked
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 16/04/2007
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Chile  (OECD member)
Sector Security 
Issue(s) Outsourcing and failure to recognise collective bargaining agreement
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description The Chilean NCP received in April 2007 a submission from the Chilean trade union confederation CUT regarding the behaviour of the Danish company ISS Facility Services. Shell outsourced its security operations to ISS in October 2006 and transferred its staff to ISS. ISS did not recognise the collective bargaining agreement and pressurised the workers to accept working conditions below the legal norm and to leave the union.
Developments The case has been delayed due to the lack of action on the side of the trade union parties.

Organisations

Lead NCP Chile NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company ISS (Home country: Denmark)
Subsidiary Dinamarca (Home country: Chile)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CUT Chile : 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