NUON and Mitsubishi V FNV

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 21/05/2012
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Netherlands  (OECD member)
Sector Energy 
Issue(s) Migrant workers; unequal pay
Provisions Cited II.A.11  II.A.12  V.4-a   
Case Description In May 2012, the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) submitted a case to the Netherlands NCP concerning the unequal pay of migrant workers from, mainly, Eastern European countries, working in the Netherlands. The workers were hired by agencies that were subcontracted by Nuon and Mitsubishi to build a new electricity plant. FNV argued that the migrant workers should be paid on the same basis as Dutch construction workers, in line with the collective agreement that is in force at the construction site. The complaint argued that under the Guidelines, Nuon and Mitsubishi should encourage their subcontractors to apply the Guidelines and should conduct due diligence in order to avoid adverse impacts and address those impacts with which they are involved
Developments On 17 December 2012, the Dutch NCP published its initial assessment and accepted the complaint.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Mitsubishi (Home country: Japan)
Multinational Company NUON (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging : National Centre 

Related Documents

Netherlands NCP  [Publication date: 17/12/2012] 'Voorlopige Inschatting: Melding FNV Eemshaven/Nuon Energy N.V.'
   http://www.oesorichtlijnen.nl/sites/www.oesorichtlijnen.nl/files/nl_ncp_initial
   _assessment_nuon_fnv_0.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 21/9/2014]

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