Michelin V Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation, Thervoy Grama Makkal Munnerta Nala Sanga, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), Association Sherpa

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 09/07/2012
Date Closed 27/09/2013
Case Duration 63 weeks and 4 days
Host Country India  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Land rights; destruction of livelihoods; deforestation
Provisions Cited II.A.2  II.A.5  II.A.10  II.A.11  II.A.12  II.A.14  IV.1  IV.2  IV.3  IV.5  IV.6  V.1-e  V.2-c  V.5  V.8  VI.1-a  VI.1-b  VI.1-c  VI.2-a  VI.2-b  VI.3  VII.2  VII.4  XI.1   
Case Description In July 2012, the trade union Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) together with the NGOs Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation, Thervoy Grama Makkal Munnerta Nala Sanga, CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Association Sherpa submitted a case to the French NCP, concerning the construction of a factory by Michelin in Tamil Nadu, India. The complaint alleged that the plant had destroyed the livelihoods of the local community, comprising mainly Dalits ('untouchables').
Developments In July 2012, the NCP completed its initial assessment and submitted it to the parties for comment. Michelin agreed to cooperate with the NCP process. However, the complainants, announced their decision to withdraw the complaint. They publicly criticised the work of the NCP during 2013 and 2014.
Outcome On 23 September 2013, the complainants withdrew the case, and on the 27 September the French NCP published its Final Statement. In its Final Statement, the NCP concluded that the Michelin Group had not violated OECD Guidelines, but that it failed to comply adequately with several recommendations. According to the NCP the case was not amenable to mediation because of the differences betwen the parties. The NCP Final Statement describes the "ongoing stalemate between the parties" but notes that the Michelin Group has undertaken preparatory work for an environmental, societal and human rights study, and that it has committed to the development of a subsequent action plan to adapt its CSR policy and internal due diligence systems in response to the outcomes of the study.

The NCP called on Michelin to take into account its recommendations. Importantly the NCP Statement provided for NCP follow-up on the implementation of its recommendations in the 12 months following the statement.

Michelin has subsequently sent the NCP regular updates on its implementation of the NCP's recommendations.

Organisations

Lead NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 

Companies

Multinational Company Michelin (Home country: France)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CCFD-Terre Solidaire
Lead Complainant Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation
Lead Complainant Thervoy Grama Makkal Munnerta Nala Sanga
Lead Complainant Sherpa
Lead Complainant Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) : National Centre 

Related Documents

Le Monde  [Publication date: 11/7/2012] 'Des ONG dénoncent les conditions d'implantation d'une usine Michelin en Inde'
   http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2012/07/11/des-ong-denoncent-les-conditio
   ns-d-implantation-d-une-usine-michelin-en-inde_1732157_3244.html?xtmc=michelin&x
   tcr=2
[Date URL accessed: 24/7/2012]

French NCP  [Publication date: 23/9/2013] 'Michelin Group in India: Statement of the French National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/397224 [Date URL accessed: 15/10/2014]

'Groupe Michelin en Inde: Communiqué du Point de contact national français chargé du suivi des principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/390708 [Date URL accessed: 15/10/2014]

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