Standard Chartered Plc V UNI Global Union and the Korean Finance Industry Union

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 28/07/2011
Case Duration Not known
Host Country South Korea  (OECD member)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Wages and working conditions
Provisions Cited V.4-a   
Outcome The case was rejected by the Korean NCP on the grounds that the same issues were part of a negotation between management and labour being handled by the Seoul regional office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The NCP has reported in its 2012 Annual Report that the initial assessment is published on its web site. However, TUAC is unable to find this assessment perhaps because it is published in Korean only.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Standard Chartered Bank (Home country: UK)
Subsidiary Standard Chatered First Bank (Home country: South Korea)

Complainants

Lead Complainant KFIU - Korean Finance Industry Union : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant UNI Global Union : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party SC First Bank Labor Union : Company Union 

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?