Itaú Unibanco V Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 05/12/2011
Date Closed 23/04/2013
Case Duration 72 weeks and 1 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Restructuring leading to dismissal without consultation or adequate steps to mitigate the adverse impacts
Provisions Cited V.2-b  V.2-c  V.3  V.4-a  V.6   
Case Description In December 2011, the Bank Workers Union of São Paulo, Osasco and Region – headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil – submitted a case against Itaú Unibanco S.A., a Brazilian multinational company. Itaú Unibanco had carried out 2, 589 layoffs in the period January-November 2011; had prioritised firing of older employees with more years of service; promoted strong outsourcing process of its activities, thereby causing more layoffs and making jobs in the banking sector more precarious.

The dismissals took place throughout 2011 thus falling under both the old and the new Guidelines.

Developments The company responded to the allegations by stating that there were no "massive layoffs", but rather more hirings (9.874) than layoffs (7.330), and that there was no prioritization of firing older employees with the average age of workers remaining the same. The complainant also sent additional information including on the 25 July 2012, new data on the layoffs process: that in just one year and three months (March 2011 to June 2012), Itaú Unibanco would have eliminated 11,505 jobs in the country.

On 9 November 2012, the NCP invited the parties to a mediation meeting, to discuss policies to reduce turnover and promote the relocation of workers laid off. The meeting was held on 5 February 2013.

Outcome Mediation failed as the parties did not reach agreement on any of the points discussed. The NCP made the following recommendations to Itaú Unibanco S.A.:
1. Voluntarily provide to workers and their representatives information that may be necessary to conduct meaningful negotiations on working conditions;
National Contact Point - Brazil

2. Voluntarily provide to workers and their representatives information enabling them to get a right and proper idea about the activities and results of the entity or, where appropriate, the enterprise as a whole. This information refers to: company's structure; its economic and financial current situation and prospects; employment trends and expected substantial changes in its operations, taking into account the legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality;

3. Notify its employees, their representatives and government authorities, with reasonable advance notice, about changes that impact on employment, seeking as widely as possible to mitigate this impact;

4. Promote consultation and cooperation between employers and workers and their representatives on matters of mutual interest, including hiring and firing employees, and implementing, if possible, a transparent policy for reducing turnover and relocation of workers dismissed, and;

5. Not to discriminate employees on terms and conditions as hiring, job assignment, discharge, compensation and benefits, promotion, transfer or reassignment, termination, training, and retirement and respect the ILO Conventions no. 111/1958, no. 183/2000 (Protection Maternity) and no. 159/1983 (Disabled Persons; and Recommendations no. 162/1980 (Older Workers) and no. 200/2010 (Labour on HIV and AIDS).

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Itaú Unibanco (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

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