Fiat V CISL and FIM-CISL

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/02/2007
Case Duration Not known
Host Country India  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Land Dispute: human rights, contribution to host country's progress and environment
Provisions Cited II.1  II.2  V.2-b   
Case Description In February 2007, the Italian trade union organisations CISL and FIM-CISL wrote to the Italian NCP concerning the construction of a car manufacturing plant in Bengal in India. The plant was a joint project between Fiat Auto and the Indian company Tata Motors, which was heavily opposed by thousands of farmers who protested against the expropriation of land. The trade unions requested that the NCP used its good offices to facilitate a dialogue with Fiat.
Outcome The case was rejected by the Italian NCP after it conducted its initial assessment. The NCP concluded that that was no involvement of Fiat in the part of the project to which the allegations were made.

Organisations

Lead NCP Italy NCP : Single Government Department with NCP Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company Tata Motors (Home country: India)
Multinational Company Fiat (Home country: Italy)
Joint Venture Fiat/Tata Joint Venture (Bengal) (Home country: India)

Complainants

Lead Complainant FIM-CISL Federazione Italiana Metalmeccanici : National Union 
Lead Complainant CISL Confederazione Italiana Sindicati Lavoratori : 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

TUAC Assessment

In this case the NCP seems to have taken the view that there was no relationship at all between the multinational enterprise and the 'nexus' of the human rights violations.