Abbott Pharmaceuticals V Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 16/10/2009
Date Closed 01/03/2011
Case Duration 71 weeks and 4 days
Host Country South Korea  (OECD member)
Sector Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 
Issue(s) Not known
Provisions Cited II.4  IV.1-a  IV.1-c  IV.2-a  IV.7  IV.8   
Case Description On the 16 October 2009, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) submitted a complaint to the US NCP concerning the activities of the US-based company, Abbott Pharmaceuticals.
Developments As South Korea is an adhering country, the US NCP advised the complainants to submit the case to the South Korean NCP. When the US NCP contacted the Korean NCP, the latter had not received the case.
Outcome The US NCP rejected the case in March 2011. TUAC does not know whether the case has been submitted to the Korean NCP.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Abbott Pharmaceuticals (Home country: US)
Subsidiary Abbott Pharmaceuticals South Korea (Home country: South Korea)

Complainants

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