Banco del Trabajo V Confederation of Bank Trade Unions of Chile

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 25/04/2007
Case Duration Not known
Host Countries Chile  (OECD member)
Peru  (Adhering Country)

Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Refusal to recognise union and engage in collective bargaining; dismissal and transfer of trade union leaders
Provisions Cited II.2  IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.8   
Case Description In April 2007, the Confederation of Bank Trade Unions of Chile, the General Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CGTP), the Cenda Foundation and the NGO Plades submitted a case to the Chilean NCP concerning the activities of the Peruvian Banco del Trabajo. The bank has branches in Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama and Peru, but the shareholders are linked to investors in Chile through the Cummins Group.

The bank is refusing to recognise the two trade unions Sutrabantra and Sudebantra that were established by the workers in March 2004 and April 2005 respectively. The bank also refused to engage in collective bargaining with the unions. Moreover, the bank dismissed the leaders of Sutrabantra, while other trade union representatives have been transferred to other locations. The Labour Court in Peru ruled in favour of the unions and ordered the bank to reinstate the dismissed workers. Yet, the bank has at each instance sought another appeal.

Developments The Chilean NCP accepted the case in May 2007. But the bank was then taken over by Scotiabank, which is headquartered in Canada. The case was therefore raised with the Canadian NCP. Peru then adopted the Guidelines in July 2008 making it eligible to handle the case.

The Canadian NCP reported in its 2009 annual submission to the OECD, that following discussions with the Peruvian NCP, it had agreed that the Peruvian NCP would take the lead "on the resolution of any specific instance that it would receive relating to this matter".

Outcome The case has been closed because the bank would not accept the role of the NCP, according to the NCP's 2009 report to the OECD.

Organisations

Lead NCP Peru NCP : Single Government Department 
Lead NCP Chile NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Canada NCP : Interdepartmental Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company Banco del Trabajo (Home country: Peru)

Complainants

Lead Complainant PLADES : Labour Standards 
Lead Complainant Fundación Centro de Estudios Nacionales de Desarrollo Alternativo : Human Rights 
Lead Complainant CGTP - Confederación General de Trabajadores del Perú
Lead Complainant Confederation of Banking Trade Union of Chile : National Sectoral Union 

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

Company cooperation in the NCP process; role of the home NCP; the need for better guidance on how to handle cases where the companies involved have been subject to take-over