TELECOM Argentina, SA V Central de Trabajadores de la Tecnología y la Comunicación (CEPETEL)

Overview

NCP Decision Decision Pending
Current Status Ongoing
Date Submitted 13/12/2011
Case Duration 400 weeks and 5 days so far
Host Country Argentina  (Adhering Country)
Sector Telecommunications 
Issue(s) Information disclosure and employment and industrial relations
Provisions Cited II.2  III.4-f  IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.8   
Case Description In December 2011, the Argentinian trade union Central de Trabajadores de la Tecnología y la Comunicación submitted a case to the Argentinean NCP alleging that TELECOM Argentina S.A. had violated the Guidelines.

The NCP is undertaking an initial assessment of the specific instance. The NCP has requested the trade union to update the NCP with any further information about the present case.

The case was submitted under the 2000 Guidelines even though the 2011 Guidelines were in force at the time of submitting the case.
Developments As of June 2015, TUAC has no further information.

Organisations

Lead NCP Argentina NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Local Company Telecom SA Argentina (Home country: Argentina)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Central de Trabajadores de la Tecnología y la Comunicación (CEPETEL)

Related Documents

OECD  'TELECOM Argentina, SA V Central de Trabajadores de la Tecnología y la Comunicación (CEPETEL)'
   http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/database/instances/ar0010.htm [Date URL accessed: 10/6/2015]

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?