Unilever V CUT-BRAZIL

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Ongoing
Date Submitted 25/11/2010
Case Duration 420 weeks and 1 days so far
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Issue(s) Closure of the factory without due notice or consultation and without payment of severance payments
Provisions Cited IV.6   
Case Description In November 2010, CUT-Brazil filed a case at the Brazilian NCP against Unilever on behalf of the Food Industries Workers Union of Mogi Mirim (STIAAMM). The complaint asserted that Unilever had breached the Employment and Industrial Relations provisions of the Guidelines in Brazil.
Developments The case was accepted on the 14 September 2012. The Brazilian NCP invited the parties to mediation. Unilever agreed to participate but did not turn up for the meeting.
Outcome No further information as of June 2015.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Unilever PLC (Home country: UK, Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CUT Brazil - Central Única dos Trabalhadores : National Centre 
Affected Party STIAMM

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