Xstrata Plc V Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 11/10/2010
Date Closed 08/06/2011
Case Duration 34 weeks and 2 days
Host Countries Australia  (OECD member)
Switzerland  (OECD member)

Sector Mining 
Issue(s) Undermining collective bargaining; failure to consult on major workplace restructuring; failure to redeploy workers made redundant
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-c  IV.6  IX.1   
Developments Xstrata refused to participate in mediation, which was offered by the NCP. The CMEU for its part made a commitment to observe confidentiality throughout the proceedings, but nonetheless Xstrata refused to come to the table.
Outcome The NCP closed the case. T

Organisations

Lead NCP Australia NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Switzerland NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Companies

Multinational Company Xstrata Plc (Home country: Switzerland)
Registered Office Xstrata Services UK (Home country: UK)
Subsidiary Xstrata Coal (Home country: Australia)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU : National Union 

Related Documents

CFMEU  [Publication date: 9/6/2011] 'Xstrata employment practices defy Australian Government and OECD Guidelines'
   http://cfmeu.com.au/xstrata-employment-practices-defy-australian-government-and
   -oecd-guidelines
[Date URL accessed: 21/8/2011]

CFMEU  [Publication date: 12/10/2010] 'Xstrata V CFMEU Original Submission'
   http://cfmeu.com.au/downloads/complaint-to-oecd-about-xstrata [Date URL accessed: 21/8/2011]

Australia NCP  [Publication date: 8/6/2011] 'Xstrata: Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises'
   http://www.ausncp.gov.au/content/reports_newsletters/downloads/reports/Xstrata%
   20Summary%20final.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 14/9/2011]

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

TUAC Assessment

TUAC considers that this case illustrates a general issues that is of grave cocern: that the failure of NCPs to make an assessment of a company's observance of the Guidelines in the event that a company refuses to participate in NCP procedures, or mediation fails, is undermining the effectiveness of the NCP procedure and the reputation of the Guidelines.

Implications

Xstrata refused to participate in mediation.