América Móvil S.A.B. de C.V. V UNI Global Union, UNT, STRM, SITCOM and FESC

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 21/09/2011
Date Closed 01/06/2012
Case Duration 36 weeks and 2 days
Host Countries El Salvador  (Non-adhering country)
Guatemala  (Non-adhering country)
Nicaragua  (Non-adhering country)

Sector Telecommunications 
Issue(s) Unfair dismissal of trade unionists; trade union and human rights
Provisions Cited II.A.2  II.A.4  II.A.9  II.A.12  II.A.13  IV.1  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.1-d  V.1-e  V.2-a  V.2-b  V.2-c  V.3  V.4-b  V.4-c  V.6  V.7  V.8   
Case Description In September 2011, the trade unions UNI Global Union, UNT, STRM, SITCOM and FESC submitted a complaint concerning of violations of the rights of workers in the operations of América Móvil S.A.B. de C.V in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Outcome In June 2012, the Mexican NCP rejected the case. The complainants have a copy of the Final Report but it is not published by the NCP nor is any information provided in the Annual Report to the OECD.

Organisations

Lead NCP Mexico NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company América Móvil S.A.B de C.V. (Home country: Mexico)
Subsidiary TELGUA-Claro (Home country: Guatemala)
Subsidiary Compania de Telecomunicaciones de El Salvador (CTE) SA de CV (Home country: El Salvador)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Federación Enrrique Schmidt Cuadra (FESC) : Company Union 
Lead Complainant Sindicato de Industria de los Trabajadores de las Comunicaciones : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant Sindicato de Telefonistas de la Republica Mexicana : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant UNT - Unión Nacional de los Trabajadores : National Centre 
Lead Complainant UNI Global Union : Global Union Federation 

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

The NCP has not published any information on this case. Under the rules of the 2011 Guidelines, NCPs should always publish a Final Report or Statement.

The rejection letter suffers from a number of weaknesses. It does not make a proper assessment of the eligibility of the case. It sets out a number of excerpts from the Guidelines which provide an imbalanced summary of the purpose and rules of the Guidelines. It appears that they have been selected with a view to limiting the interpretation of the Guidelines. In particular the rejection letter states: "El Salvador and Nicaragua are not members of the OECD we should not consider it viable to apply the Guidelines on behalf of the entities that present the complaint on the Mexican multinational". It also cites parallel proceedings and "that there would be no justification for the application of the OECD Guidelines but instead the exclusive application of the laws and regulations of the country". This is out of line with the rules of the Guidelines and the practice of other NCPs. Over half the case submitted to NCPs concern cases in developing countries.